{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_54899/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_54899","id":"gutenberg_54899","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/54899","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Warfare","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946","War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg","World War II"],"text":"[Cover Illustration]\n\n\n\n\n TRIALS\n OF\n WAR CRIMINALS\n BEFORE THE\n NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS\n UNDER\n CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10\n\n\n [Illustration]\n\n\n VOLUME I\n\n\n NUERNBERG\n OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949\n\n For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,\n U.S. Government Printing Office\n Washington 25, D. C. \u2014 Price $2.75 (Buckram)\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\nIn April 1949, judgment was rendered in the last of the series of 12\nNuernberg war crimes trials which had begun in October 1946 and were\nheld pursuant to Allied Control Council Law No. 10. Far from being of\nconcern solely to lawyers, these trials are of especial interest to\nsoldiers, historians, students of international affairs, and others. The\ndefendants in these proceedings, charged with war crimes and other\noffenses against international penal law, were prominent figures in\nHitler\u2019s Germany and included such outstanding diplomats and politicians\nas the State Secretary of the Foreign Office, von Weizsaecker, and\ncabinet ministers von Krosigk and Lammers; military leaders such as\nField Marshals von Leeb, List, and von Kuechler; SS leaders such as\nOhlendorf, Pohl, and Hildebrandt; industrialists such as Flick, Alfried\nKrupp, and the directors of I. G. Farben; and leading professional men\nsuch as the famous physician Gerhard Rose, and the jurist and Acting\nMinister of Justice, Schlegelberger.\n\nIn view of the weight of the accusations and the far-flung activities of\nthe defendants, and the extraordinary amount of official contemporaneous\nGerman documents introduced in evidence, the records of these trials\nconstitute a major source of historical material covering many events of\nthe fateful years 1933 (and even earlier) to 1945, in Germany and\nelsewhere in Europe.\n\nThe Nuernberg trials under Law No. 10 were carried out under the direct\nauthority of the Allied Control Council, as manifested in that law,\nwhich authorized the establishment of the Tribunals. The judicial\nmachinery for the trials, including the Military Tribunals and the\nOffice, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, was prescribed by Military\nGovernment Ordinance No. 7 and was part of the occupation administration\nfor the American zone, the Office of Military Government (OMGUS). Law\nNo. 10, Ordinance No. 7, and other basic jurisdictional or\nadministrative documents are printed in full hereinafter.\n\nThe proceedings in these trials were conducted throughout in the German\nand English languages, and were recorded in full by stenographic notes,\nand by electrical sound recording of all oral proceedings. The 12 cases\nrequired over 1,200 days of court proceedings and the transcript of\nthese proceedings exceeds 330,000 pages, exclusive of hundreds of\ndocument books, briefs, etc. Publication of all of this material,\naccordingly, was quite unfeasible. This series, however, contains the\nindictments, judgments, and other important portions of the record of\nthe 12 cases, and it is believed that these materials give a fair\npicture of the trials, and as full and illuminating a picture as is\npossible within the space available. Copies of the entire record of the\ntrials are available in the Library of Congress, the National Archives,\nand elsewhere.\n\nIn some cases, due to time limitations, errors of one sort or another\nhave crept into the translations which were available to the Tribunal.\nIn other cases the same document appears in different trials, or even at\ndifferent parts of the same trial, with variations in translation. For\nthe most part these inconsistencies have been allowed to remain and only\nsuch errors as might cause misunderstanding have been corrected.\n\nVolume I and part of Volume II of this series are dedicated to the first\nof the twelve cases, _United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al._ (Case No.\n1). This trial has become known as the Medical Case, because 20 of the\n23 defendants were doctors, and the charges related principally to\nmedical experimentation on human beings. The remainder of Volume II is\ndevoted to the trial of former Field Marshal Erhard Milch, who was also\ncharged with criminal responsibilities for medical experimentation on\nhuman beings (of which charge he was acquitted), and with responsibility\nfor the deportation to forced labor of numerous civilians, in violation\nof the laws of war (of which charge he was convicted).\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\nPreface III\nTrials of War Criminals before Nuernberg Military Tribunals VII\nDeclaration on German Atrocities VIII\nExecutive Order 9547 IX\nLondon Agreement of 8 August 1945 IX\nCharter of The International Military Tribunal XI\nControl Council Law No. 10 XVI\nExecutive Order 9679 XX\nGeneral Orders Number 301, Hq. USFET, 24 October 1946 XX\nMilitary Government\u2014Germany, United States Zone, Ordinance No. 7 XXI\nMilitary Government\u2014Germany, Ordinance No. 11 XXVI\nOfficials of the Office of the Secretary General XXVIII\n\n \u201c_The Medical Case_\u201d\n\nIntroduction 3\nOrder Constituting Tribunal I 5\nMembers of the Tribunal 6\nProsecution Counsel 7\nDefense Counsel 7\nI. Indictment 8\nII. Arraignment 18\nIII. Statement of the Tribunal on the Order of Trial and Rules of\n Procedure, 9 December 1946 24\nIV. Opening Statement of the Prosecution by Brigadier General\n Telford Taylor, 9 December 1946 27\nV. Introductory Statement on the Presentation of Evidence Made by\n the Prosecution, 10 December 1946 75\nVI. Organization of the German Medical Services 81\nVII. Extracts from Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and\n Defense 92\n A. Medical Experiments 92\n 1. High-altitude Experiments 92\n 2. Freezing Experiments 198\n 3. Malaria Experiments 278\n 4. Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments 314\n 5. Sulfanilamide Experiments 354\n 6. Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone\n Transplantation Experiments 391\n 7. Sea-water Experiments 418\n 8. Epidemic Jaundice Experiments 494\n 9. Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments 508\n 10. Experiments with Poison 631\n 11. Incendiary Bomb Experiments 639\n 12. Phlegmon Experiments 653\n 13. Polygal Experiments 669\n 14. Gas Oedema (Phenol) Experiments 684\n 15. Experiments for Mass Sterilization 694\n B. Jewish Skeleton Collection 738\n C. Project to kill Tubercular Polish Nationals 759\n D. Euthanasia 794\n E. Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution 897\nVIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case 909\n A. Applicability of Control Council Law No. 10, to offenses\n against Germans During the War 909\n B. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates 925\n C. Responsibility of Subordinates for Acts Carried Out under\n Superior Orders 957\n D. Status of Occupied Poland under International Law 974\n E. Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects 980\n (Sec. VIII continued in Vol. II)\n\n\n VOLUME II\n\nVIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case\n F. Necessity\n G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties\n H. Usefulness of the Experiments\n I. Medical Ethics\n 1. General\n 2. German Medical Profession\n 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries\nIX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment\nX. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius\nXI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947\nXII. Judgment\n Sentences\nXIII. Petitions\nXIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Commander of the U. S. Zone of\n Occupation\nXV. Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writs of Habeas Corpus\nAppendix\n Table of Comparative Ranks\n List of Witnesses in Case I\nIndex\n\n\n\n\n TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS\n\n\nCase\nNo. _United States against_ _Popular Name_ _Volume No._\n 1 Karl Brandt, et al. Medical Case I and II\n 2 Erhard Milch Milch Case II\n 3 Josef Altstoetter, et al. Justice Case III\n 4 Oswald Pohl, et al. Pohl Case V\n 5 Friedrich Flick, et al. Flick Case VI\n 6 Carl Krauch, et al. I. G. Farben Case VII and VIII\n 7 Wilhelm List, et al. Hostage Case XI\n 8 Ulrich Greifelt, et al. RuSHA Case IV and V\n 9 Otto Ohlendorf, et al. Einsatzgruppen Case IV\n10 Alfred Krupp, et al. Krupp Case IX\n11 Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al. Ministries Case XII, XIII, and XIV\n12 Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. High Command Case X and XI\n Procedure XV\n\n\n\n\n DECLARATION ON GERMAN ATROCITIES\n\n\n [Moscow Declaration]\n Released November 1, 1943\n\nTHE UNITED KINGDOM, the United States and the Soviet Union have received\nfrom many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded\nmass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in\nthe many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being\nsteadily expelled. The brutalities of Hitlerite domination are no new\nthing and all the peoples or territories in their grip have suffered\nfrom the worst form of government by terror. What is new is that many of\nthese territories are now being redeemed by the advancing armies of the\nliberating Powers and that in their desperation, the recoiling Hitlerite\nHuns are redoubling their ruthless cruelties. This is now evidenced with\nparticular clearness by monstrous crimes of the Hitlerites on the\nterritory of the Soviet Union which is being liberated from the\nHitlerites, and on French and Italian territory.\n\nAccordingly, the aforesaid three allied Powers, speaking in the\ninterests of the thirty-two [thirty-three] United Nations, hereby\nsolemnly declare and give full warning of their declaration as follows:\n\nAt the time of the granting of any armistice to any government which may\nbe set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the\nNazi party who have been responsible for, or have taken a consenting\npart in the above atrocities, massacres, and executions, will be sent\nback to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order\nthat they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these\nliberated countries and of the free governments which will be created\ntherein. Lists will be compiled in all possible detail from all these\ncountries having regard especially to the invaded parts of the Soviet\nUnion, to Poland and Czechoslovakia, to Yugoslavia and Greece, including\nCrete and other islands, to Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium,\nLuxemburg, France and Italy.\n\nThus, the Germans who take part in wholesale shootings of Italian\nofficers or in the execution of French, Dutch, Belgian, or Norwegian\nhostages or of Cretan peasants, or who have shared in the slaughters\ninflicted on the people of Poland or in territories of the Soviet Union\nwhich are now being swept clear of the enemy, will know that they will\nbe brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by\nthe peoples whom they have outraged. Let those who have hitherto not\nimbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks\nof the guilty, for most assuredly the three allied Powers will pursue\nthem to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their\naccusers in order that justice may be done.\n\nThe above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major\ncriminals, whose offences have no particular geographical localisation\nand who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the\nAllies.\n\n [Signed]\n Roosevelt\n Churchill\n Stalin\n\n\n\n\n EXECUTIVE ORDER 9547\n\n\n=Providing for Representation of the United States in Preparing and\nProsecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of\nthe European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and\nAccessories=\n\nBy virtue of the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in\nChief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the\nUnited States, it is ordered as follows:\n\n1. Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson is hereby designated to act as\nthe Representative of the United States and as its Chief of Counsel in\npreparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against\nsuch of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their principal\nagents and accessories as the United States may agree with any of the\nUnited Nations to bring to trial before an international military\ntribunal. He shall serve without additional compensation but shall\nreceive such allowance for expenses as may be authorized by the\nPresident.\n\n2. The Representative named herein is authorized to select and recommend\nto the President or to the head of any executive department, independent\nestablishment, or other federal agency necessary personnel to assist in\nthe performance of his duties hereunder. The head of each executive\ndepartment, independent establishment, and other federal agency is\nhereby authorized to assist the Representative named herein in the\nperformance of his duties hereunder and to employ such personnel and\nmake such expenditures, within the limits of appropriations now or\nhereafter available for the purpose, as the Representative named herein\nmay deem necessary to accomplish the purposes of this order, and may\nmake available, assign, or detail for duty with the Representative named\nherein such members of the armed forces and other personnel as may be\nrequested for such purposes.\n\n3. The Representative named herein is authorized to cooperate with, and\nreceive the assistance of, any foreign Government to the extent deemed\nnecessary by him to accomplish the purposes of this order.\n\n HARRY S. TRUMAN\n THE WHITE HOUSE,\n _May 2, 1945_.\n(F. R. Doc. 45-7256; Filed, May 3, 1945; 10:57 a. m.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n LONDON AGREEMENT OF 8 AUGUST 1945\n\n\nAGREEMENT by the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the\nProvisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, the Government of the\n=United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland= and\nthe Government of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS for the\nProsecution and Punishment of the MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN\nAXIS\n\nWHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of\ntheir intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice;\n\nAND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of the 30th October 1943 on German\natrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German Officers and men\nand members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have\ntaken a consenting part in atrocities and crimes will be sent back to\nthe countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that\nthey may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated\ncountries and of the free Governments that will be created therein;\n\nAND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the\ncase of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical\nlocation and who will be punished by the Joint decision of the\nGovernments of the Allies;\n\nNOW THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the\nProvisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the\nUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government\nof the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter called \u201cthe\nSignatories\u201d) acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by\ntheir representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this\nAgreement.\n\n=Article 1.= There shall be established after consultation with the\nControl Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the\ntrial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical\nlocation whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as\nmembers of organizations or groups or in both capacities.\n\n=Article 2.= The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the\nInternational Military Tribunal shall be those set out in the Charter\nannexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of\nthis Agreement.\n\n=Article 3.= Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to\nmake available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major\nwar criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International\nMilitary Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors\nto make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial\nbefore the International Military Tribunal such of the major war\ncriminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories.\n\n=Article 4.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions\nestablished by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war\ncriminals to the countries where they committed their crimes.\n\n=Article 5.= Any Government of the United Nations may adhere to this\nAgreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the\nGovernment of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory\nand adhering Governments of each such adherence.\n\n=Article 6.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction\nor the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be\nestablished in any allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war\ncriminals.\n\n=Article 7.= This agreement shall come into force on the day of\nsignature and shall remain in force for the period of one year and shall\ncontinue thereafter, subject to the right of any Signatory to give,\nthrough the diplomatic channel, one month\u2019s notice of intention to\nterminate it. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings\nalready taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this\nAgreement.\n\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Agreement.\n\nDONE in quadruplicate in London this 8^{th} day of August 1945 each in\nEnglish, French and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.\n\n For the Government of the United States of America\n\n ROBERT H. JACKSON\n\n For the Provisional Government of the French Republic\n\n ROBERT FALCO\n\n For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and\n Northern Ireland\n\n JOWITT, C.\n\n For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\n\n I. NIKITCHENKO\n A. TRAININ\n\n\n\n\n CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL\n\n\n I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL\n\n=Article 1.= In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of\nAugust 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the\nProvisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the\nUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government\nof the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established\nan International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called \u201cthe Tribunal\u201d)\nfor the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals\nof the European Axis.\n\n=Article 2.= The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an\nalternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of\nthe Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be\npresent at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any\nmember of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to\nfulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place.\n\n=Article 3.= Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can\nbe challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel.\nEach Signatory may replace its member of the Tribunal or his alternate\nfor reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no\nreplacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate.\n\n=Article 4.=\n\n(_a_) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate\nfor any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum.\n\n(_b_) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree\namong themselves upon the selection from their number of a President,\nand the President shall hold office during that trial, or as may\notherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The\nprinciple of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If,\nhowever, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one\nof the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the\nTribunal shall preside.\n\n(_c_) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority\nvote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President\nshall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall\nonly be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the\nTribunal.\n\n=Article 5.= In case of need and depending on the number of the matters\nto be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment,\nfunctions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall\nbe governed by this Charter.\n\n II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES\n\n=Article 6.= The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in\nArticle 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals\nof the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish\npersons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries,\nwhether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of\nthe following crimes.\n\nThe following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the\njurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual\nresponsibility:\n\n(_a_) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or\nwaging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of International\ntreaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or\nconspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;\n\n(_b_) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such\nviolations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment\nor deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian\npopulation of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of\nprisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of\npublic or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or\nvillages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;\n\n(_c_) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination,\nenslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any\ncivilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on\npolitical, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection\nwith any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not\nin violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.[1]\n\nLeaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the\nformulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of\nthe foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any\npersons in execution of such plan.\n\n=Article 7.= The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of\nState or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be\nconsidered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.\n\n=Article 8.= The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his\nGovernment or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but\nmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines\nthat justice so requires.\n\n=Article 9.= At the trial of any individual member of any group or\norganization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of\nwhich the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of\nwhich the individual was a member was a criminal organization.\n\nAfter receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as\nit thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make\nsuch declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to\napply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the\nquestion of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal\nshall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application\nis allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall\nbe represented and heard.\n\n=Article 10.= In cases where a group or organization is declared\ncriminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any\nSignatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for\nmembership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In\nany such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is\nconsidered proved and shall not be questioned.\n\n=Article 11.= Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before\na national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of\nthis Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group\nor organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon\nhim punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed\nby the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such\ngroup or organization.\n\n=Article 12.= The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings\nagainst a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this\nCharter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for\nany reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct\nthe hearing in his absence.\n\n=Article 13.= The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These\nrules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter.\n\n III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF\n MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS\n\n=Article 14.= Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the\ninvestigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war\ncriminals.\n\nThe Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following\npurposes:\n\n(_a_) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief\nProsecutors and his staff,\n\n(_b_) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried\nby the Tribunal,\n\n(_c_) to improve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted\ntherewith,\n\n(_d_) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the\nTribunal,\n\n(_e_) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft\nrules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The\nTribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to\nreject, the rules so recommended.\n\nThe Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and\nshall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the\nprinciple of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of\nvote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the\nTribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal\nwill be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the\nparticular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred\nagainst him.\n\n=Article 15.= The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in\ncollaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties:\n\n(_a_) investigation, collection, and production before or at the Trial\nof all necessary evidence,\n\n(_b_) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in\naccordance with paragraph (_c_) of Article 14 hereof,\n\n(_c_) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the\nDefendants,\n\n(_d_) to act as prosecutor at the Trial,\n\n(_e_) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be\nassigned to them,\n\n(_f_) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them\nfor the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial.\n\nIt is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by any Signatory\nshall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its\nassent.\n\n IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS\n\n=Article 16.= In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the\nfollowing procedure shall be followed:\n\n(_a_) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail\nthe charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all\nthe documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language\nwhich he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at a\nreasonable time before the Trial.\n\n(_b_) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he\nshall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges\nmade against him.\n\n(_c_) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be\nconducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant\nunderstands.\n\n(_d_) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before\nthe Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.\n\n(_e_) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his\nCounsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and\nto cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.\n\n V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL\n\n=Article 17.= The Tribunal shall have the power\n\n(_a_) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance\nand testimony and to put questions to them,\n\n(_b_) to interrogate any Defendant,\n\n(_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary\nmaterial,\n\n(_d_) to administer oaths to witnesses,\n\n(_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by\nthe Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission.\n\n=Article 18.= The Tribunal shall\n\n(_a_) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues\nraised by the charges,\n\n(_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause\nunreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any\nkind whatsoever,\n\n(_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate\npunishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from\nsome or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the\ndetermination of the charges.\n\n=Article 19.= The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of\nevidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent\nexpeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence\nwhich it deems to have probative value.\n\n=Article 20.= The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of\nany evidence before it is offered so that it may rule upon the relevance\nthereof.\n\n=Article 21.= The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common\nknowledge but shall take Judicial notice thereof. It shall also take\njudicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the\nUnited Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set\nup in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes,\nand the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of\nthe United Nations.\n\n=Article 22.= The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The\nfirst meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief\nProsecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the\nControl Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg,\nand any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal\nmay decide.\n\n=Article 23.= One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the\nprosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be\ndischarged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by\nhim.\n\nThe function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the\nDefendant\u2019s request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct\ncases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who\nmay be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal.\n\n=Article 24.= The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following\ncourse:\n\n(_a_) The Indictment shall be read in court.\n\n(_b_) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads \u201cguilty\u201d\nor \u201cnot guilty\u201d.\n\n(_c_) The Prosecution shall make an opening statement.\n\n(_d_) The Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and the Defense what\nevidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal\nshall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence.\n\n(_e_) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that\nthe witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may\nbe held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the\nProsecution or the Defense.\n\n(_f_) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any\nDefendant, at any time.\n\n(_g_) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may\ncross-examine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony.\n\n(_h_) The Defense shall address the court.\n\n(_i_) The Prosecution shall address the court.\n\n(_j_) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal.\n\n(_k_) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence.\n\n=Article 25.= All official documents shall be produced, and all court\nproceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the\nlanguage of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings\nmay also be translated into the language of any country in which the\nTribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the\ninterests of justice and public opinion.\n\n VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE\n\n=Article 26.= The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the\ninnocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based,\nand shall be final and not subject to review.\n\n=Article 27.= The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a\nDefendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be\ndetermined by it to be just.\n\n=Article 28.= In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal\nshall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen\nproperty and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany.\n\n=Article 29.= In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in\naccordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may\nat any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not\nincrease the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after\nany Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence\nwhich, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the\nCouncil shall report accordingly to the Committee established under\nArticle 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having\nregard to the interests of justice.\n\n VII. EXPENSES\n\n=Article 30.= The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be\ncharged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of\nthe Control Council for Germany.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _PROTOCOL_\n\nWhereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of War\nCriminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in the English,\nFrench, and Russian languages.\n\nAnd whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the originals\nof Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian language,\non the one hand, and the originals in the English and French languages,\non the other, to wit, the semi-colon in Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of\nthe Charter between the words \u201cwar\u201d and \u201cor\u201d, as carried in the English\nand French texts, is a comma in the Russian text.\n\nand whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy:\n\nNOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said Agreement on\nbehalf of their respective Governments, duly authorized thereto, have\nagreed that Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian\ntext is correct, and that the meaning and intention of the Agreement and\nCharter require that the said semi-colon in the English text should be\nchanged to a comma, and that the French text should be amended to read\nas follows:\n\n(_c_) LES CRIMES CONTRE L\u2019HUMANITE: c\u2019est \u00e0 dire l\u2019assassinat,\nl\u2019extermination, la r\u00e9duction en esclavage, la d\u00e9portation, et tout\nautre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou\npendant la guerre, ou bien les pers\u00e9cutions pour des motifs politiques,\nraciaux, ou r\u00e9ligieux, lorsque ces actes ou pers\u00e9cutions, qu\u2019ils aient\nconstitu\u00e9 ou non une violation du droit interne du pays o\u00f9 ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9\nperp\u00e9tr\u00e9s, ont \u00e9t\u00e9 commis \u00e0 la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la\ncomp\u00e9tence du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime.\n\nIN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Protocol.\n\nDONE in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October, 1945, each in\nEnglish, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity.\n\n For the Government of the United States of America\n\n ROBERT H. JACKSON\n\n For the Provisional Government of the French Republic\n\n FRAN\u00c7OIS DE MENTHON\n\n For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and\n Northern Ireland\n\n HARTLEY SHAWCROSS\n\n For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\n\n R. RUDENKO\n\n-----\n\n[1] See proctocol p. XV for correction of this paragraph.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10\n\n\n _PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND\n AGAINST HUMANITY_\n\nIn order to give effect to the terms of the Moscow Declaration of 30\nOctober 1943 and the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and the Charter\nissued pursuant thereto and in order to establish a uniform legal basis\nin Germany for the prosecution of war criminals and other similar\noffenders, other than those dealt with by the International Military\nTribunal, the Control Council enacts as follows:\n\n Article I\n\nThe Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 \u201cConcerning Responsibility of\nHitlerites for Committed Atrocities\u201d and the London Agreement of 8\nAugust 1945 \u201cConcerning Prosecution and Punishment of Major War\nCriminals of the European Axis\u201d are made integral parts of this Law.\nAdherence to the provisions of the London Agreement by any of the United\nNations, as provided for in Article V of that Agreement, shall not\nentitle such Nation to participate or interfere in the operation of this\nLaw within the Control Council area of authority in Germany.\n\n Article II\n\n1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:\n\n(_a_) _Crimes against Peace._ Initiation of invasions of other countries\nand wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties,\nincluding but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging\na war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties,\nagreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or\nconspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.\n\n(_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offences against persons or property\nconstituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not\nlimited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for\nany other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory,\nmurder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas,\nkilling of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton\ndestruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified\nby military necessity.\n\n(_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offences, including but\nnot limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,\nimprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against\nany civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or\nreligious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of\nthe country where perpetrated.\n\n(_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or organization\ndeclared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.\n\n2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he\nacted, is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in paragraph 1 of\nthis Article, if he was (_a_) a principal or (_b_) was an accessory to\nthe commission of any such crime or ordered or abetted the same or (_c_)\ntook a consenting part therein or (_d_) was connected with plans or\nenterprises involving its commission or (_e_) was a member of any\norganization or group connected with the commission of any such crime or\n(_f_) with reference to paragraph 1 (_a_), if he held a high political,\ncivil or military (including General Staff) position in Germany or in\none of its Allies, co-belligerents or satellites or held high position\nin the financial, industrial or economic life of any such country.\n\n3. Any person found guilty of any of the Crimes above mentioned may upon\nconviction be punished as shall be determined by the tribunal to be\njust. Such punishment may consist of one or more of the following:\n\n(_a_) Death.\n\n(_b_) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without hard\nlabour.\n\n(_c_) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labour, in lieu,\nthereof.\n\n(_d_) Forfeiture of property.\n\n(_e_) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired.\n\n(_f_) Deprivation of some or all civil rights.\n\nAny property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is\nordered by the Tribunal shall be delivered to the Control Council for\nGermany, which shall decide on its disposal.\n\n4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head of State\nor as a responsible official in a Government Department, does not free\nhim from responsibility for a crime or entitle him to mitigation of\npunishment.\n\n(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his\nGovernment or of a superior does not free him from responsibility for a\ncrime, but may be considered in mitigation.\n\n5. In any trial or prosecution for a crime herein referred to, the\naccused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute of\nlimitation in respect of the period from 30 January 1933 to 1 July 1945,\nnor shall any immunity, pardon or amnesty granted under the Nazi regime\nbe admitted as a bar to trial or punishment.\n\n Article III\n\n1. Each occupying authority, within its Zone of occupation,\n\n(_a_) shall have the right to cause persons within such Zone suspected\nof having committed a crime, including those charged with crime by one\nof the United Nations, to be arrested and shall take under control the\nproperty, real and personal, owned or controlled by the said persons,\npending decisions as to its eventual disposition.\n\n(_b_) shall report to the Legal Directorate the names of all suspected\ncriminals, the reasons for and the places of their detention, if they\nare detained, and the names and location of witnesses.\n\n(_c_) shall take appropriate measures to see that witnesses and evidence\nwill be available when required.\n\n(_d_) shall have the right to cause all persons so arrested and charged,\nand not delivered to another authority as herein provided, or released,\nto be brought to trial before an appropriate tribunal. Such tribunal\nmay, in the case of crimes committed by persons of German citizenship or\nnationality against other persons of German citizenship or nationality,\nor stateless persons, be a German Court, if authorized by the occupying\nauthorities.\n\n2. The tribunal by which persons charged with offenses hereunder shall\nbe tried and the rules and procedure thereof shall be determined or\ndesignated by each Zone Commander for his respective Zone. Nothing\nherein is intended to, or shall impair or limit the jurisdiction or\npower of any court or tribunal now or hereafter established in any Zone\nby the Commander thereof, or of the International Military Tribunal\nestablished by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.\n\n3. Persons wanted for trial by an International Military Tribunal will\nnot be tried without the consent of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors.\nEach Zone Commander will deliver such persons who are within his Zone to\nthat committee upon request and will make witnesses and evidence\navailable to it.\n\n4. Persons known to be wanted for trial in another Zone or outside\nGermany will not be tried prior to decision under Article IV unless the\nfact of their apprehension has been reported in accordance with Section\n1 (_b_) of this Article, three months have elapsed thereafter, and no\nrequest for delivery of the type contemplated by Article IV has been\nreceived by the Zone Commander concerned.\n\n5. The execution of death sentences may be deferred by not to exceed one\nmonth after the sentence has become final when the Zone Commander\nconcerned has reason to believe that the testimony of those under\nsentence would be of value in the investigation and trial of crimes\nwithin or without his Zone.\n\n6. Each Zone Commander will cause such effect to be given to the\njudgments of courts of competent jurisdiction, with respect to the\nproperty taken under his control pursuant hereto, as he may deem proper\nin the interest of justice.\n\n Article IV\n\n1. When any person in a Zone in Germany is alleged to have committed a\ncrime, as defined in Article II, in a country other than Germany or in\nanother Zone, the government of that nation or the Commander of the\nlatter Zone, as the case may be, may request the Commander of the Zone\nin which the person is located for his arrest and delivery for trial to\nthe country or Zone in which the crime was committed. Such request for\ndelivery shall be granted by the Commander receiving it unless he\nbelieves such person is wanted for trial or as a witness by an\nInternational Military Tribunal, or in Germany, or in a nation other\nthan the one making the request, or the Commander is not satisfied that\ndelivery should be made, in any of which cases he shall have the right\nto forward the said request to the Legal Directorate of the Allied\nControl Authority. A similar procedure shall apply to witnesses,\nmaterial exhibits and other forms of evidence.\n\n2. The Legal Directorate shall consider all requests referred to it, and\nshall determine the same in accordance with the following principles,\nits determination to be communicated to the Zone Commander.\n\n(_a_) A person wanted for trial or as a witness by an International\nMilitary Tribunal shall not be delivered for trial or required to give\nevidence outside Germany, as the case may be, except upon approval of\nthe Committee of Chief Prosecutors acting under the London Agreement of\n8 August 1945.\n\n(_b_) A person wanted for trial by several authorities (other than an\nInternational Military Tribunal) shall be disposed of in accordance with\nthe following priorities:\n\n(1) If wanted for trial in the Zone in which he is, he should not be\ndelivered unless arrangements are made for his return after trial\nelsewhere;\n\n(2) If wanted for trial in a Zone other than that in which he is, he\nshould be delivered to that Zone in preference to delivery outside\nGermany unless arrangements are made for his return to that Zone after\ntrial elsewhere;\n\n(3) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United\nNations, of one of which he is a citizen, that one should have priority;\n\n(4) If wanted for trial outside Germany by several countries, not all of\nwhich are United Nations, United Nations should have priority;\n\n(5) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United\nNations, then, subject to Article IV 2 (_b_) (3) above, that which has\nthe most serious charges against him, which are moreover supported by\nevidence, should have priority.\n\n Article V\n\nThe delivery, under Article IV of this Law, of persons for trial shall\nbe made on demands of the Governments or Zone Commanders in such a\nmanner that the delivery of criminals to one jurisdiction will not\nbecome the means of defeating or unnecessarily delaying the carrying out\nof justice in another place. If within six months the delivered person\nhas not been convicted by the Court of the zone or country to which he\nhas been delivered, then such person shall be returned upon demand of\nthe Commander of the Zone where the person was located prior to\ndelivery.\n\nDone at Berlin, 20 December 1945.\n\n JOSEPH T. MCNARNEY\n General\n B. L. MONTGOMERY\n Field Marshal\n L. KOELTZ\n General de Corps d\u2019Arm\u00e9e\n for P. KOENIG\n General d\u2019Arm\u00e9e\n G. ZHUKOV\n Marshal of the Soviet Union\n\n\n\n\n EXECUTIVE ORDER 9679\n\n\n=Amendment of Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, Entitled\n\u201cProviding for Representation of the United States in Preparing and\nProsecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of\nthe European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and\nAccessories\u201d=\n\nBy virtue of the authority vested in me as President and Commander in\nChief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the\nUnited States, it is ordered as follows:\n\n1. In addition to the authority vested in the Representative of the\nUnited States and its Chief of Counsel by Paragraph 1 of Executive Order\nNo. 9547 of May 2, 1945, to prepare and prosecute charges of atrocities\nand war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers\nand their accessories as the United States may agree with any of the\nUnited Nations to bring to trial before an international military\ntribunal, such Representative and Chief of Counsel shall have the\nauthority to proceed before United States military or occupation\ntribunals, in proper cases, against other Axis adherents, including but\nnot limited to cases against members of groups and organizations\ndeclared criminal by the said international military tribunal.\n\n2. The present Representative and Chief of Counsel is authorized to\ndesignate a Deputy Chief of Counsel, to whom he may assign\nresponsibility for organizing and planning the prosecution of charges of\natrocities and war crimes, other than those now being prosecuted as Case\nNo. 1 in the international military tribunal, and, as he may be directed\nby the Chief of Counsel, for conducting the prosecution of such charges\nof atrocities and war crimes.\n\n3. Upon vacation of office by the present Representative and Chief of\nCounsel, the functions, duties, and powers of the Representative of the\nUnited States and its Chief of Counsel, as specified in the said\nExecutive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, as amended by this order, shall\nbe vested in a Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to be appointed by the\nUnited States Military Governor for Germany or by his successor.\n\n4. The said Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, is amended\naccordingly.\n\n HARRY S. TRUMAN\n\nTHE WHITE HOUSE,\n\n _January 16, 1946_.\n(F. R. Doc. 46-893; Filed, Jan. 17, 1946; 11:08 a. m.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n HEADQUARTERS\n\n\n US FORCES, EUROPEAN THEATER\n\nGENERAL ORDERS } 24 OCTOBER 1946\nNo. 301 }\n\nOffice of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes I\nChief Prosecutor II\nAnnouncement of Assignments III\n\n_I_\u2014\u2014_OFFICE OF CHIEF OF COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES._ Effective this date,\nthe Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes is transferred to the\nOffice of Military Government for Germany (US). The Chief of Counsel for\nWar Crimes will report directly to the Deputy Military Governor and will\nwork in close liaison with the Legal Adviser of the Office of Military\nGovernment for Germany and with the Theater Judge Advocate.\n\n_II_\u2014\u2014_CHIEF PROSECUTOR._ Effective this date, the Chief of Counsel\nfor War Crimes will also serve as Chief Prosecutor under the Charter of\nthe International Military Tribunal, established by the Agreement of 8\nAugust 1945.\n\n_III_\u2014\u2014_ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSIGNMENTS._ Effective this date, Brigadier\nGeneral Telford Taylor, USA, is announced as Chief of Counsel for War\nCrimes, in which capacity he will also serve as Chief Prosecutor for the\nUnited States under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal,\nestablished by the Agreement of 8 August 1945.\n\n BY COMMAND OF GENERAL MCNARNEY:\n\n C. R. HUEBNER\n _Major General, GSC,_\n _Chief of Staff_\n\n OFFICIAL:\n GEORGE F. HERBERT\n _Colonel_, AGD\n _Adjutant General_\n\nDISTRIBUTION: D\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n MILITARY GOVERNMENT\u2014GERMANY\n UNITED STATES ZONE\n ORDINANCE NO. 7\n\n\n _ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS_\n\n Article I\n\nThe purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the establishment of\nmilitary tribunals which shall have power to try and punish persons\ncharged with offenses recognized as crimes in Article II of Control\nCouncil Law No. 10, including conspiracies to commit any such crimes.\nNothing herein shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of other\ncourts established or which may be established for the trial of any such\noffenses.\n\n Article II\n\n(_a_) Pursuant to the powers of the Military Governor for the United\nStates Zone of Occupation within Germany and further pursuant to the\npowers conferred upon the Zone Commander by Control Council Law No. 10\nand Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of the International Military\nTribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 certain\ntribunals to be known as \u201cMilitary Tribunals\u201d shall be established\nhereunder.\n\n(_b_) Each such tribunal shall consist of three or more members to be\ndesignated by the Military Governor. One alternate member may be\ndesignated to any tribunal if deemed advisable by the Military Governor.\nExcept as provided in subsection (_c_) of this Article, all members and\nalternates shall be lawyers who have been admitted to practice, for at\nleast five years, in the highest courts of one of the United States or\nits territories or of the District of Columbia, or who have been\nadmitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court.\n\n(_c_) The Military Governor may in his discretion enter into an\nagreement with one or more other zone commanders of the member nations\nof the Allied Control Authority providing for the joint trial of any\ncase or cases. In such cases the tribunals shall consist of three or\nmore members as may be provided in the agreement. In such cases the\ntribunals may include properly qualified lawyers designated by the other\nmember nations.\n\n(_d_) The Military Governor shall designate one of the members of the\ntribunal to serve as the presiding judge.\n\n(_e_) Neither the tribunals nor the members of the tribunals or the\nalternates may be challenged by the prosecution or by the defendants or\ntheir counsel.\n\n(_f_) In case of illness of any member of a tribunal or his incapacity\nfor some other reason, the alternate, if one has been designated, shall\ntake his place as a member in the pending trial. Members may be replaced\nfor reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no\nreplacement of a member may take place, during a trial, other than by\nthe alternate. If no alternate has been designated, the trial shall be\ncontinued to conclusion by the remaining members.\n\n(_g_) The presence of three members of the tribunal or of two members\nwhen authorized pursuant to subsection (_f_) _supra_ shall be necessary\nto constitute a quorum. In the case of tribunals designated under (_c_)\nabove the agreement shall determine the requirements for a quorum.\n\n(_h_) Decisions and judgments, including convictions and sentences,\nshall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes of the members\nare equally divided, the presiding member shall declare a mistrial.\n\n Article III\n\n(_a_) Charges against persons to be tried in the tribunals established\nhereunder shall originate in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War\nCrimes, appointed by the Military Governor pursuant to paragraph 3 of\nthe Executive Order Numbered 9679 of the President of the United States\ndated 16 January 1946. The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes shall\ndetermine the persons to be tried by the tribunals and he or his\ndesignated representative shall file the indictments with the Secretary\nGeneral of the tribunals (see Article XIV, _infra_) and shall conduct\nthe prosecution.\n\n(_b_) The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, when in his judgment it is\nadvisable, may invite one or more United Nations to designate\nrepresentatives to participate in the prosecution of any case.\n\n Article IV\n\nIn order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the following\nprocedure shall be followed:\n\n(_a_) A defendant shall be furnished, at a reasonable time before his\ntrial, a copy of the indictment and of all documents lodged with the\nindictment, translated into a language which he understands. The\nindictment shall state the charges plainly, concisely and with\nsufficient particulars to inform defendant of the offenses charged.\n\n(_b_) The trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language\nwhich the defendant understands.\n\n(_c_) A defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel of\nhis own selection, provided such counsel shall be a person qualified\nunder existing regulations to conduct cases before the courts of\ndefendant\u2019s country, or any other person who may be specially authorized\nby the tribunal. The tribunal shall appoint qualified counsel to\nrepresent a defendant who is not represented by counsel of his own\nselection.\n\n(_d_) Every defendant shall be entitled to be present at his trial\nexcept that a defendant may be proceeded against during temporary\nabsences if in the opinion of the tribunal defendant\u2019s interests will\nnot thereby be impaired, and except further as provided in Article VI\n(_c_). The tribunal may also proceed in the absence of any defendant who\nhas applied for and has been granted permission to be absent.\n\n(_e_) A defendant shall have the right through his counsel to present\nevidence at the trial in support of his defense, and to cross examine\nany witness called by the prosecution.\n\n(_f_) A defendant may apply in writing to the tribunal for the\nproduction of witnesses or of documents. The application shall state\nwhere the witness or document is thought to be located and shall also\nstate the facts to be proved by the witness or the document and the\nrelevancy of such facts to the defense. If the tribunal grants the\napplication, the defendant shall be given such aid in obtaining\nproduction of evidence as the tribunal may order.\n\n Article V\n\nThe tribunals shall have the power\n\n(_a_) to summon witnesses to the trial, to require their attendance and\ntestimony and to put questions to them;\n\n(_b_) to interrogate any defendant who takes the stand to testify in his\nown behalf, or who is called to testify regarding another defendant;\n\n(_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary\nmaterial;\n\n(_d_) to administer oaths;\n\n(_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by\nthe tribunals including the taking of evidence on commission;\n\n(_f_) to adopt rules of procedure not inconsistent with this Ordinance.\nSuch rules shall be adopted, and from time to time as necessary, revised\nby the members of the tribunal or by the committee of presiding judges\nas provided in Article XIII.\n\n Article VI\n\nThe tribunals shall\n\n(_a_) confine the trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues\nraised by the charges;\n\n(_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause\nunreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any\nkind whatsoever;\n\n(_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate\npunishment, including the exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from\nsome or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the\ndetermination of the charges.\n\n Article VII\n\nThe tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. They\nshall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and\nnon-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which they deem to\nhave probative value. Without limiting the foregoing general rules, the\nfollowing shall be deemed admissible if they appear to the tribunal to\ncontain information of probative value relating to the charges:\naffidavits, depositions, interrogations, and other statements, diaries,\nletters, the records, findings, statements and judgments of the military\ntribunals and the reviewing and confirming authorities of any of the\nUnited Nations, and copies of any document or other secondary evidence\nof the contents of any document, if the original is not readily\navailable or cannot be produced without delay. The tribunal shall afford\nthe opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or\nprobative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the tribunal the\nends of justice require.\n\n Article VIII\n\nThe tribunals may require that they be informed of the nature of any\nevidence before it is offered so that they may rule upon the relevance\nthereof.\n\n Article IX\n\nThe tribunals shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but\nshall take judicial notice thereof. They shall also take judicial notice\nof official governmental documents and reports of any of the United\nNations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in\nthe various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and\nthe records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the\nUnited Nations.\n\n Article X\n\nThe determinations of the International Military Tribunal in the\njudgments in Case No. 1 that invasions, aggressive acts, aggressive\nwars, crimes, atrocities or inhumane acts were planned or occurred,\nshall be binding on the tribunals established hereunder and shall not be\nquestioned except insofar as the participation therein or knowledge\nthereof by any particular person may be concerned. Statements of the\nInternational Military Tribunal in the judgment in Case No. 1 constitute\nproof of the facts stated, in the absence of substantial new evidence to\nthe contrary.\n\n Article XI\n\nThe proceedings at the trial shall take the following course:\n\n(_a_) The tribunal shall inquire of each defendant whether he has\nreceived and had an opportunity to read the indictment against him and\nwhether he pleads \u201cguilty\u201d or \u201cnot guilty.\u201d\n\n(_b_) The prosecution may make an opening statement.\n\n(_c_) The prosecution shall produce its evidence subject to the cross\nexamination of its witnesses.\n\n(_d_) The defense may make an opening statement.\n\n(_e_) The defense shall produce its evidence subject to the cross\nexamination of its witnesses.\n\n(_f_) Such rebutting evidence as may be held by the tribunal to be\nmaterial may be produced by either the prosecution or the defense.\n\n(_g_) The defense shall address the court.\n\n(_h_) The prosecution shall address the court.\n\n(_i_) Each defendant may make a statement to the tribunal.\n\n(_j_) The tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence.\n\n Article XII\n\nA Central Secretariat to assist the tribunals to be appointed hereunder\nshall be established as soon as practicable. The main office of the\nSecretariat shall be located in Nuernberg. The Secretariat shall consist\nof a Secretary General and such assistant secretaries, military\nofficers, clerks, interpreters and other personnel as may be necessary.\n\n Article XIII\n\nThe Secretary General shall be appointed by the Military Governor and\nshall organize and direct the work of the Secretariat. He shall be\nsubject to the supervision of the members of the tribunals, except that\nwhen at least three tribunals shall be functioning, the presiding judges\nof the several tribunals may form the supervisory committee.\n\n Article XIV\n\nThe Secretariat shall:\n\n(_a_) Be responsible for the administrative and supply needs of the\nSecretariat and of the several tribunals.\n\n(_b_) Receive all documents addressed to tribunals.\n\n(_c_) Prepare and recommend uniform rules of procedure, not inconsistent\nwith the provisions of this Ordinance.\n\n(_d_) Secure such information for the tribunals as may be needed for the\napproval or appointment of defense counsel.\n\n(_e_) Serve as liaison between the prosecution and defense counsel.\n\n(_f_) Arrange for aid to be given defendants and the prosecution in\nobtaining production of witnesses or evidence as authorized by the\ntribunals.\n\n(_g_) Be responsible for the preparation of the records of the\nproceedings before the tribunals.\n\n(_h_) Provide the necessary clerical, reporting and interpretative\nservices to the tribunals and its members, and perform such other duties\nas may be required for the efficient conduct of the proceedings before\nthe tribunals, or as may be requested by any of the tribunals.\n\n Article XV\n\nThe judgments of the tribunals as to the guilt or the innocence of any\ndefendant shall give the reasons on which they are based and shall be\nfinal and not subject to review. The sentences imposed may be subject to\nreview as provided in Article XVII, _infra_.\n\n Article XVI\n\nThe tribunal shall have the right to impose upon the defendant, upon\nconviction, such punishment as shall be determined by the tribunal to be\njust, which may consist of one or more of the penalties provided in\nArticle II, Section 3 of Control Council Law No. 10.\n\n Article XVII\n\n(_a_) Except as provided in (_b_) _infra_, the record of each case shall\nbe forwarded to the Military Governor who shall have the power to\nmitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the\ntribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof.\n\n(_b_) In cases tried before tribunals authorized by Article II (_c_),\nthe sentence shall be reviewed jointly by the zone commanders of the\nnations involved, who mitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence\nby majority vote, but may not increase the severity thereof. If only two\nnations are represented, the sentence may be altered only by the consent\nof both zone commanders.\n\n Article XVIII\n\nNo sentence of death shall be carried into execution unless and until\nconfirmed in writing by the Military Governor. In accordance with\nArticle III, Section 5 of Law No. 10, execution of the death sentence\nmay be deferred by not to exceed one month after such confirmation if\nthere is reason to believe that the testimony of the convicted person\nmay be of value in the investigation and trial of other crimes.\n\n Article XIX\n\nUpon the pronouncement of a death sentence by a tribunal established\nthereunder and pending confirmation thereof, the condemned will be\nremanded to the prison or place where he was confined and there be\nsegregated from the other inmates, or be transferred to a more\nappropriate place of confinement.\n\n Article XX\n\nUpon the confirmation of a sentence of death the Military Governor will\nissue the necessary orders for carrying out the execution.\n\n Article XXI\n\nWhere sentence of confinement for a term of years has been imposed the\ncondemned shall be confined in the manner directed by the tribunal\nimposing sentence. The place of confinement may be changed from time to\ntime by the Military Governor.\n\n Article XXII\n\nAny property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is\nordered by a tribunal shall be delivered to the Military Governor, for\ndisposal in accordance with Control Council Law No. 10, Article II (3).\n\n Article XXIII\n\nAny of the duties and functions of the Military Governor provided for\nherein may be delegated to the Deputy Military Governor. Any of the\nduties and functions of the Zone Commander provided for herein may be\nexercised by and in the name of the Military Governor and may be\ndelegated to the Deputy Military Governor.\n\nThis Ordinance becomes effective 18 October 1946.\n BY ORDER OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT.\n\n * * * * *\n\n\n\n\n MILITARY GOVERNMENT\u2014GERMANY\n ORDINANCE NO. 11\n\n\n_AMENDING MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7 OF 18 OCTOBER 1946,\nENTITLED \u201cORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS\u201d_\n\n Article I\n\nArticle V of Ordinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new\nsubdivision to be designated \u201c(_g_)\u201d, reading as follows:\n\n\u201c(_g_) The presiding judges, and, when established, the supervisory\ncommittee of presiding judges provided in Article XIII shall assign the\ncases brought by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to the various\nMilitary Tribunals for trial.\u201d\n\n Article II\n\nOrdinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new article following\nArticle V to be designated Article V-B, reading as follows:\n\n\u201c(_a_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called by any of\nthe presiding judges thereof or upon motion, addressed to each of the\nTribunals, of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or of counsel for any\ndefendant whose interests are affected, to hear argument upon and to\nreview any interlocutory ruling by any of the Military Tribunals on a\nfundamental or important legal question either substantive or\nprocedural, which ruling is in conflict with or is inconsistent with a\nprior ruling of another of the Military Tribunals.\n\n\u201c(_b_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called in the\nsame manner as provided in subsection (_a_) of this Article to hear\nargument upon and to review conflicting or inconsistent final rulings\ncontained in the decisions or judgments of any of the Military Tribunals\non a fundamental or important legal question, either substantive or\nprocedural. Any motion with respect to such final ruling shall be filed\nwithin ten (10) days following the issuance of decision or judgment.\n\n\u201c(_c_) Decisions by joint sessions of the Military Tribunals, unless\nthereafter altered in another joint session, shall be binding upon all\nthe Military Tribunals. In the case of the review of final rulings by\njoint sessions, the judgments reviewed may be confirmed or remanded for\naction consistent with the joint decision.\n\n\u201c(_d_) The presence of a majority of the members of each Military\nTribunal then constituted is required to constitute a quorum.\n\n\u201c(_e_) The members of the Military Tribunals shall, before any joint\nsession begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their\nnumber of a member to preside over the joint session.\n\n\u201c(_f_) Decisions shall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes\nof the members are equally divided, the vote of the member presiding\nover the session shall be decisive.\u201d\n\n Article III\n\nSubdivisions (_g_) and (_h_) of Article XI of Ordinance No. 7 are\ndeleted; subdivision (_i_) is re-lettered \u201c(_h_)\u201d; subdivision (_j_) is\nrelettered \u201c(_i_)\u201d; and a new subdivision, to be designated \u201c(_g_)\u201d, is\nadded, reading as follows:\n\n\u201c(_g_) The prosecution and defense shall address the court in such order\nas the Tribunal may determine.\u201d\n\nThis Ordinance becomes effective 17 February 1947.\n BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT.\n\n\n\n\n OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL\n\n\n Secretaries General\n\nMR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 25 October 1946 to 17 November\n 1946.\nMR. GEORGE M. READ From 18 November 1946 to 19 January\n 1947.\nMR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 20 January 1947 to 18 April\n 1947.\nCOLONEL JOHN E. RAY From 19 April 1947 to 9 May 1948.\nDR. HOWARD H. RUSSELL From 10 May 1948 to 1 December 1949.\n\n Deputy and Executive Secretaries General\n\nMR. CHARLES E. SANDS Deputy from 18 November 1946 to 10\n January 1947.\nJUDGE RICHARD D. DIXON Acting Deputy from 25 November 1946\n to 5 March 1947.\nMR. HENRY A. HENDRY Deputy from 6 March 1947 to 9 May\n 1947.\nMR. HOMER B. MILLARD Executive Secretary General from 3\n March 1947 to 5 October 1947.\nLIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Executive Secretary General from 6\n HOLSTEN October 1947 to 30 April 1949.\n\n Assistant Secretaries General\n\n [Since many trials were being held simultaneously, an Assistant\n Secretary General was designated by the Secretary General for\n each case. Assistant Secretaries General are listed with the\n members of each tribunal.]\n\n Marshals of Military Tribunals\n\nCOLONEL CHARLES W. MAYS From 4 November 1946 to 5 September\n 1947.\nCOLONEL SAMUEL L. METCALFE From 7 September 1947 to 29 August\n 1948.\nCAPTAIN KENYON S. JENCKES From 30 August 1948 to 30 April\n 1949.\n\n Court Archives\n\nMRS. BARBARA S. MANDELLAUR Chief from 21 February 1947 to 30\n April 1949.\n\n Defense Information Center\n\nMR. LAMBERTUS WARTENA Defense Administrator from 3 March\n 1947 to 16 September 1947.\nLIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Defense Administrator from 17\n HOLSTEN September 1947 to 19 October 1947.\nMAJOR ROBERT G. SCHAEFER Defense Administrator from 20\n October 1947 to 30 April 1949.\n\n\n\n\n \u201cThe Medical Case\u201d\n\n MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. 1\n\n CASE 1\n\n THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n \u2014against\u2014\n\nKARL BRANDT, SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, PAUL ROSTOCK, OSKAR SCHROEDER, KARL\nGENZKEN, KARL GEBHARDT, KURT BLOME, RUDOLF BRANDT, JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY,\nHELMUT POPPENDICK, WOLFRAM SIEVERS, GERHARD ROSE, SIEGFRIED RUFF, HANS\nWOLFGANG ROMBERG, =Viktor Brack=, HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG,\nGEORG AUGUST WELTZ, =Konrad Schaefer=, WALDEMAR HOVEN,\nWILHELM BEIGLBOECK, =Adolf Pokorny=, HERTA OBERHEUSER, and\nFRITZ FISCHER, _Defendants_\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe \u201cDoctors Trial\u201d or \u201cMedical Case\u201d\u2014officially designated _United\nStates of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt_, _et al._ (Case No. 1)\u2014was tried\nat the Palace of Justice in Nuernberg before Military Tribunal I. The\nTribunal convened 139 times, and the duration of the trial is shown by\nthe following schedule:\n\n Indictment filed 25 October 1946\n Indictment served 5 November 1946\n Arraignment 21 November 1946\n Prosecution opening statement 9 December 1946\n Defense opening statement 29 January 1947\n Prosecution closing statement 14 July 1947\n Defense closing statements 14-18 July 1947\n Judgment 19 August 1947\n Sentences 20 August 1947\n Affirmation of sentences by Military 25 November 1947\n Commander of the United States Zone of\n Occupation\n Order of the United States Supreme Court 16 February 1948\n denying writ of habeas corpus\n\nThe death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, Karl\nGebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and Waldemar\nHoven were put into execution on 2 June 1948.\n\nThe English transcript of the Court proceedings runs to 11,538\nmimeographed pages. The prosecution introduced into evidence 570 written\nexhibits (some of which contained several documents), and the defense\n901 written exhibits. The Tribunal heard oral testimony of 32 witnesses\ncalled by the prosecution and of 30 witnesses, excluding the defendants,\ncalled by the defense. Each of the 23 defendants testified in his own\nbehalf, and each was subject to examination on behalf of other\ndefendants. The exhibits offered by both the prosecution and defense\ncontained documents, photographs, affidavits, interrogatories, letters,\nmaps, charts, and other written evidence. The prosecution introduced 49\naffidavits; the defense introduced 535 affidavits. The prosecution\ncalled 3 defense affiants for cross-examination; the defense called 13\nprosecution affiants for cross-examination. The case-in-chief of the\nprosecution took 25 court days and the case for the 23 defendants took\n107 court days. The Tribunal was in recess between 18 and 27 January\n1947 to give the defense additional time to prepare its case. A further\nrecess was taken from 3 to 14 July 1947 to allow both prosecution and\ndefense time for the preparation of their closing arguments.\n\nThe members of the Tribunal and prosecution and defense counsel are\nlisted on the ensuing pages. Prosecution counsel were assisted in\npreparing the case by Walter Rapp (Chief of the Evidence Division), Fred\nRodell, Norbert Barr, and Herbert Meyer, interrogators, and Henry Sachs,\nEleanor Anspacher, Nancy Fenstermacher, and Olga Lang, research and\ndocumentary analysts.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSelection and arrangement of the \u201cMedical Case\u201d material published\nherein was accomplished principally by Arnost Horlik-Hochwald, working\nunder the general supervision of Drexel A. Sprecher, Deputy Chief\nCounsel and Director of Publications, Office U. S. Chief of Counsel for\nWar Crimes. Catherine W. Bedford, Henry Buxbaum, Emilie Evand, Gertrude\nFerencz, Paul H. Gantt, Constance Gavares, Olga Lang, Helga Lund,\nGwendoline Niebergall, Johanna K. Reischer, Hans Sachs, and Enid M.\nStandring assisted in selecting, compiling, editing, and indexing the\nnumerous papers.\n\nJohn H. E. Fried, Special Legal Consultant to the Tribunals, reviewed\nand approved the selection and arrangement of the material as the\ndesignated representative of the Nuernberg Tribunals.\n\nFinal compilation and editing of the manuscript for printing was\nadministered by the War Crimes Division, Office of the Judge Advocate\nGeneral, under the direct supervision of Richard A. Olbeter, Chief,\nSpecial Projects Branch, with Alma Soller as editor and John W.\nMosenthal as research analyst.\n\n\n\n\n ORDER CONSTITUTING TRIBUNAL I\n\n\n OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U. S.)\n APO 742\n\n GENERAL ORDERS }\n No. 68 } 26 October 1946\n\n Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7\n\n1. Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7, 24 October 1946,\nentitled \u201cOrganization and Powers of Certain Military Tribunals\u201d, there\nis hereby constituted, Military Tribunal I.\n\n2. The following are designated as members of Military Tribunal I:\n\n WALTER B. BEALS Presiding Judge\n HAROLD L. SEBRING Judge\n JOHNSON TAL CRAWFORD Judge\n VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN Alternate Judge\n\n3. The Tribunal shall convene at Nuernberg, Germany, to hear such cases\nas may be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or by his duly\ndesignated representative.\n\n4. This order is effective as of 25 October 1946.\n\n BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAY:\n\n C. K. GAILEY\n _Brigadier General, USA_\n _Chief of Staff_\n\nOFFICIAL:\n G. H. GARDE\n _Lieutenant Colonel, AGD_\n _Adjutant General_\nDISTRIBUTION: \u201cB\u201d plus\n 2-NRU USFET\n\n\n\n\n MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL\n\n\nJUDGE WALTER B. BEALS, Presiding Judge.\n\n Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington.\n\nJUDGE HAROLD L. SEBRING, Member.\n\n Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida.\n\nJUDGE JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD, Member.\n\n Formerly Judge of a District Court of the State of Oklahoma.\n\nJUDGE VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN, Alternate Member.\n\n Formerly Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United\nStates.\n\n ASSISTANT SECRETARIES GENERAL\n\n MR. DEHULL N. TRAVIS From 21 November 1946 to 6 June 1947\n MAJOR MILLS C. HATFIELD From 17 June 1947 to 14 July 1947\n MISS M. A. ROYCE From 15 July 1947 to 20 August 1947\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: TRIBUNAL I\u2014CASE ONE.\n _Left to Right: Harold L. Sebring_; _Walter B. Beals, Presiding_;\n _Johnson Tal Crawford_; _Victor C. Swearingen, Alternate_.]\n\n[Illustration: _General view of courtroom on opening day of trial. Upper\nleft: Court reporter and translators. Left: Defendants and defense\ncounsel. At rostrum: Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel\nfor War Crimes Right: Judges and court clerks of Tribunal I. Foreground:\nMembers of the prosecution staff with Mr. James McHaney, Chief\nProsecutor, and Mr. Alexander Hardy, Associate Prosecutor, seated at\ntable directly behind Brigadier General Taylor._]\n\n[Illustration: _View of the defendants and defense council, 9th December\n1946. The defendants are, left to right: (front row) Karl Brandt,\nSiegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl\nGerbhardt, Kurt Blome, Joachim Mrugowsky, Rudolph Brandt, Helmut\nPoppendick, Wolfram Sievers; (back row) Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff,\nViktor Brack, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg\nAugust Weltz, Konrad Schaeffer, Waldemar Haven, Wilhelm Beiglboeck,\nAdolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer._]\n\n[Illustration: _The defendant Gerhard Rose at work in his cell on his\ndefense material._]\n\n\n\n\n PROSECUTION COUNSEL\n\n\n_Chief of Counsel_:\n BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR\n\n_Chief Prosecutor_:\n MR. JAMES M. MCHANEY\n\n_Associate Counsel_:\n MR. ALEXANDER G. HARDY\n MR. ARNOST HORLIK-HOCHWALD\n\n_Assistant Counsel_:\n MR. GLEN J. BROWN\n MISS ESTHER J. JOHNSON\n MR. JACK W. ROBBINS\n MR. DANIEL J. SHILLER\n\n\n\n\n DEFENSE COUNSEL\n\n\n_Defendants_ _Defense Counsel_ _Associate Defense\n Counsel_\nBRANDT, KARL DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS DR. RUDOLF SCHMIDT\nHANDLOSER, SIEGFRIED DR. OTTO NELTE\nROSTOCK, PAUL DR. HANS PRIBILLA\nSCHROEDER, OSKAR DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER\nGENZKEN, KARL DR. RUDOLF MERKEL DR. ALFRED BRENNER\nGEHARDT, KARL DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL\nBLOME, KURT DR. FRITZ SAUTER\nBRANDT, RUDOLF DR. KURT KAUFFMANN\nMRUGOWSKY, JOACHIM DR. FRITZ FLEMMING\nPOPPENDICK, HELMUT DR. GEORG BOEHM DR. HELMUT DUERR\nSIEVERS, WOLFRAM DR. JOSEF WEISGERBER DR. ERICH BERGLER\nROSE, GERHARD DR. HANS FRITZ\nRUFF, SIEGFRIED DR. FRITZ SAUTER\nROMBERG, HANS WOLFGANG DR. BERND VORWERK\nBRACK, VIKTOR DR. GEORG FROESCHMANN\nBECKER-FREYSENG, HERMANN DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER\nWELTZ, GEORG AUGUST DR. SIEGFRIED WILLE\nSCHAEFER, KONRAD DR. HORST PELCKMANN\nHOVEN, WALDEMAR DR. HANS GAWLIK DR. GERHARD KLINNERT\nBEIGLBOECK, WILHELM DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER\nPOKORNY, ADOLF DR. KARL HOFFMANN DR. HANS-GUNTHER\n SERAPHIM\nOBERHEUSER, HERTA DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL\nFISCHER, FRITZ DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL\n\n\n\n\n I. INDICTMENT\n\n\nThe United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Taylor, Chief\nof Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent said Government\nin the prosecution of war criminals, charges that the defendants herein\nparticipated in a common design or conspiracy to commit and did commit\nwar crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council\nLaw No. 10, duly enacted by the Allied Control Council on 20 December\n1945. These crimes included murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,\natrocities, and other inhumane acts, as set forth in counts one, two,\nand three of this indictment. Certain defendants are further charged\nwith membership in a criminal organization, as set forth in count four\nof this indictment.\n\nThe persons accused as guilty of these crimes and accordingly named as\ndefendants in this case are\u2014\n\n KARL BRANDT\u2014Personal physician to Adolf Hitler; Gruppenfuehrer\n in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major General) in the Waffen SS;\n Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation (Reichskommissar\n fuer Sanitaets- und Gesundheitswesen); and member of the Reich\n Research Council (Reichsforschungsrat).\n\n SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER\u2014Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General,\n Medical Service); Medical Inspector of the Army\n (Heeressanitaetsinspekteur); and Chief of the Medical Services\n of the Armed Forces (Chef des Wehrmachtsanitaetswesens).\n\n PAUL ROSTOCK\u2014Chief Surgeon of the Surgical Clinic in Berlin;\n Surgical Adviser to the Army; and Chief of the Office for\n Medical Science and Research (Amtschef der Dienststelle\n Medizinische Wissenschaft und Forschung) under the defendant\n Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation.\n\n OSKAR SCHROEDER\u2014Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General\n Medical Service); Chief of Staff of the Inspectorate of the\n Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Stabes, Inspekteur\n des Luftwaffe-Sanitaetswesens); and Chief of the Medical Service\n of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Sanitaetswesens der Luftwaffe).\n\n KARL GENZKEN\u2014Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant\n (Major General) in the Waffen SS; and Chief of the Medical\n Department of the Waffen SS (Chef des Sanitaetsamts der Waffen\n SS).\n\n KARL GERHARDT\u2014Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant\n (Major General) in the Waffen SS; personal physician to\n Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler; Chief Surgeon of the Staff of the\n Reich Physician SS and Police (Oberster Kliniker, Reichsarzt SS\n und Polizei); and President of the German Red Cross. KURT\n BLOME\u2014Deputy [of the] Reich Health Leader\n (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer); and Plenipotentiary for Cancer\n Research in the Reich Research Council.\n\n RUDOLF BRANDT\u2014Standartenfuehrer (Colonel); in the Allgemeine\n SS; Personal Administrative Officer to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler\n (Persoenlicher Referent von Himmler); and Ministerial Counsellor\n and Chief of the Ministerial Office in the Reich Ministry of the\n Interior.\n\n JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY\u2014Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the Waffen\n SS; Chief Hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police\n (Oberster Hygieniker, Reichsarzt SS und Polizei); and Chief of\n the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS (Chef des Hygienischen\n Institutes der Waffen SS).\n\n HELMUT POPPENDICK\u2014Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS; and\n Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police\n (Chef des Persoenlichen Stabes des Reichsarztes SS und Polizei).\n\n WOLFRAM SIEVERS\u2014Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) in the SS; Reich\n Manager of the \u201cAhnenerbe\u201d Society and Director of its Institute\n for Military Scientific Research (Institut fuer\n Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung); and Deputy Chairman of\n the Managing Board of Directors of the Reich Research Council.\n\n GERHARD ROSE\u2014Generalarzt of the Luftwaffe (Brigadier General,\n Medical Service of the Air Force); Vice President, Chief of the\n Department for Tropical Medicine, and Professor of the Robert\n Koch Institute; and Hygienic Adviser for Tropical Medicine to\n the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.\n\n SIEGFRIED RUFF\u2014Director of the Department for Aviation Medicine\n at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation (Deutsche\n Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt).\n\n HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG\u2014Doctor on the Staff of the Department for\n Aviation Medicine at the German Experimental Institute for\n Aviation.\n\n VIKTOR BRACK\u2014Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS and\n Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and Chief\n Administrative Officer in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the\n NSDAP (Oberdienstleiter, Kanzlei des Fuehrers der NSDAP).\n\n HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG\u2014Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe (Captain,\n Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the Department\n for Aviation Medicine of the Chief of the Medical Service of the\n Luftwaffe.\n\n GEORG AUGUST WELTZ\u2014Oberfeldarzt in the Luftwaffe (Lieutenant\n Colonel, Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the\n Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich (Institut fuer\n Luftfahrtmedizin). KONRAD SCHAEFER\u2014Doctor on the Staff of the\n Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin.\n\n WALDEMAR HOVEN\u2014Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain) in the Waffen SS;\n and Chief Doctor of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.\n\n WILHELM BEIGLBOECK\u2014Consulting Physician to the Luftwaffe.\n\n ADOLF POKORNY\u2014Physician, Specialist in Skin and Venereal\n Diseases.\n\n HERTA OBERHEUSER\u2014Physician at the Ravensbrueck Concentration\n Camp; and Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the\n Hospital at Hohenlychen.\n\n FRITZ FISCHER\u2014Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and\n Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the Hospital at\n Hohenlychen.\n\n COUNT ONE\u2014THE COMMON DESIGN OR CONSPIRACY\n\n1. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein,\nacting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly\ndid conspire and agree together and with each other and with divers\nother persons, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as\ndefined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II.\n\n2. Throughout the period covered by this indictment all of the\ndefendants herein, acting in concert with each other and with others,\nunlawfully, willfully, and knowingly were principals in, accessories to,\nordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with\nplans and enterprises involving the commission of war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity.\n\n3. All of the defendants herein, acting in concert with others for whose\nacts the defendants are responsible, unlawfully, willfully, and\nknowingly participated as leaders, organizers, investigators, and\naccomplices in the formulation and execution of the said common design,\nconspiracy, plans, and enterprises to commit, and which involved the\ncommission of, war crimes and crimes against humanity.\n\n4. It was a part of the said common design, conspiracy, plans, and\nenterprises to perform medical experiments upon concentration camp\ninmates and other living human subjects, without their consent, in the\ncourse of which experiments the defendants committed the murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts,\nmore fully described in counts two and three of this indictment.\n\n5. The said common design, conspiracy, plans, and enterprises embraced\nthe commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as set forth\nin counts two and three of this indictment, in that the defendants\nunlawfully, willfully, and knowingly encouraged, aided, abetted, and\nparticipated in the subjection of thousands of persons, including\ncivilians, and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with\nthe German Reich, to murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,\natrocities, and other inhuman acts.\n\n COUNT TWO\u2014WAR CRIMES\n\n6. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein\nunlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by\nArticle II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals\nin, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and\nwere connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments\nwithout the subjects\u2019 consent, upon civilians and members of the armed\nforces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the\ncustody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the\ncourse of which experiments the defendants committed murders,\nbrutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts.\nSuch experiments included, but were not limited to, the following:\n\n(_A_) _High-Altitude Experiments._ From about March 1942 to about August\n1942 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for\nthe benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the limits of human\nendurance and existence at extremely high altitudes. The experiments\nwere carried out in a low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric\nconditions and pressures prevailing at high altitude (up to 68,000 feet)\ncould be duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the\nlow-pressure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude therein was\nraised. Many victims died as a result of these experiments and others\nsuffered grave injury, torture, and ill-treatment. The defendants Karl\nBrandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky,\nPoppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are\ncharged with special responsibility for and participation in these\ncrimes.\n\n(_B_) _Freezing Experiments._ From about August 1942 to about May 1943\nexperiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, primarily\nfor the benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the most\neffective means of treating persons who had been severely chilled or\nfrozen. In one series of experiments the subjects were forced to remain\nin a tank of ice water for periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor\ndeveloped in a short time. Numerous victims died in the course of these\nexperiments. After the survivors were severely chilled, rewarming was\nattempted by various means. In another series of experiments, the\nsubjects were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below\nfreezing. The victims screamed with pain as parts of their bodies froze.\nThe defendants Karl Brand, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf\nBrandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are\ncharged with special responsibility for and participation in these\ncrimes.\n\n(_C_) _Malaria Experiments._ From about February 1942 to about April\n1945 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp in\norder to investigate immunization for and treatment of malaria. Healthy\nconcentration-camp inmates were infected by mosquitoes or by injections\nof extracts of the mucous glands of mosquitoes. After having contracted\nmalaria the subjects were treated with various drugs to test their\nrelative efficacy. Over 1,000 involuntary subjects were used in these\nexperiments. Many of the victims died and others suffered severe pain\nand permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,\nRostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and\nSievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in\nthese crimes.\n\n(_D_) _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments._ At various times between\nSeptember 1939 and April 1945 experiments were conducted at\nSachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps for the benefit\nof the German Armed Forces to investigate the most effective treatment\nof wounds caused by Lost gas. Lost is a poison gas which is commonly\nknown as mustard gas. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the subjects were\ninfected with Lost. Some of the subjects died as a result of these\nexperiments and others suffered intense pain and injury. The defendants\nKarl Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and\nSievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in\nthese crimes.\n\n(_E_) _Sulfanilamide Experiments._ From about July 1942 to about\nSeptember 1943 experiments to investigate the effectiveness of\nsulfanilamide were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp for\nthe benefit of the German Armed Forces. Wounds deliberately inflicted on\nthe experimental subjects were infected with bacteria such as\nstreptococcus, gas gangrene, and tetanus. Circulation of blood was\ninterrupted by tying off blood vessels at both ends of the wound to\ncreate a condition similar to that of a battlefield wound. Infection was\naggravated by forcing wood shavings and ground glass into the wounds.\nThe infection was treated with sulfanilamide and other drugs to\ndetermine their effectiveness. Some subjects died as a result of these\nexperiments and others suffered serious injury and intense agony. The\ndefendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken,\nGebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng,\nOberheuser, and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for and\nparticipation in these crimes.\n\n(_F_) _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation\nExperiments._ From about September 1942 to about December 1943\nexperiments were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, for\nthe benefit of the German Armed Forces, to study bone, muscle, and nerve\nregeneration, and bone transplantation from one person to another.\nSections of bones, muscles, and nerves were removed from the subjects.\nAs a result of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony,\nmutilation, and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt,\nHandloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Oberheuser, and Fischer are\ncharged with special responsibility for and participation in these\ncrimes.\n\n(_G_) _Sea-water Experiments._ From about July 1944 to about September\n1944 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for\nthe benefit of the German Air Force and Navy, to study various methods\nof making sea-water drinkable. The subjects were deprived of all food\nand given only chemically processed sea-water. Such experiments caused\ngreat pain and suffering and resulted in serious bodily injury to the\nvictims. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder,\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers,\nBecker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck are charged with special\nresponsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n(_H_) _Epidemic Jaundice Experiments._ From about June 1943 to about\nJanuary 1945 experiments were conducted at the Sachsenhausen and\nNatzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed\nForces, to investigate the causes of, and inoculations against, epidemic\njaundice. Experimental subjects were deliberately infected with epidemic\njaundice, some of whom died as a result, and others were caused great\npain and suffering. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock,\nSchroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers,\nRose, and Becker-Freyseng are charged with special responsibility for\nand participation in these crimes.\n\n(_I_) _Sterilization Experiments._ From about March 1941 to about\nJanuary 1945 sterilization experiments were conducted at the Auschwitz\nand Ravensbrueck concentration camps, and other places. The purpose of\nthese experiments was to develop a method of sterilization which would\nbe suitable for sterilizing millions of people with a minimum of time\nand effort. These experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery,\nand various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized and thereby\nsuffered great mental and physical anguish. The defendants Karl Brandt,\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and\nOberheuser are charged with special responsibility for and participation\nin these crimes.\n\n(_J_) _Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber)[2] Experiments._ From about December\n1941 to about February 1945 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald\nand Natzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed\nForces, to investigate the effectiveness of spotted fever and other\nvaccines. At Buchenwald numerous healthy inmates were deliberately\ninfected with spotted fever virus in order to keep the virus alive; over\n90 percent of the victims died as a result. Other healthy inmates were\nused to determine the effectiveness of different spotted fever vaccines\nand of various chemical substances. In the course of these experiments\n75 percent of the selected number of inmates were vaccinated with one of\nthe vaccines or nourished with one of the chemical substances and, after\na period of 3 to 4 weeks, were infected with spotted fever germs. The\nremaining 25 percent were infected without any previous protection in\norder to compare the effectiveness of the vaccines and the chemical\nsubstances. As a result, hundreds of the persons experimented upon died.\nExperiments with yellow fever, smallpox, typhus, paratyphus[3] A and B,\ncholera, and diphtheria were also conducted. Similar experiments with\nlike results were conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp. The\ndefendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken,\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose,\nBecker-Freyseng, and Hoven are charged with special responsibility for\nand participation in these crimes.\n\n(_K_) _Experiments with Poison._ In or about December 1943, and in or\nabout October 1944, experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald\nconcentration camp to investigate the effect of various poisons upon\nhuman beings. The poisons were secretly administered to experimental\nsubjects in their food. The victims died as a result of the poison or\nwere killed immediately in order to permit autopsies. In or about\nSeptember 1944 experimental subjects were shot with poison bullets and\nsuffered torture and death. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky,\nand Poppendick are charged with special responsibility for and\nparticipation in these crimes.\n\n(_L_) _Incendiary Bomb Experiments._ From about November 1943 to about\nJanuary 1944 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald concentration\ncamp to test the effect of various pharmaceutical preparations on\nphosphorous burns. These burns were inflicted on experimental subjects\nwith phosphorous matter taken from incendiary bombs, and caused severe\npain, suffering, and serious bodily injury. The defendants Genzken,\nGebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special\nresponsibility for and participation in these crimes.\n\n7. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt and\nSievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as\ndefined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were\nprincipals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part\nin, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder\nof civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with\nthe German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in\nexercise of belligerent control. One hundred twelve Jews were selected\nfor the purpose of completing a skeleton collection for the Reich\nUniversity of Strasbourg. Their photographs and anthropological\nmeasurements were taken. Then they were killed. Thereafter, comparison\ntests, anatomical research, studies regarding race, pathological\nfeatures of the body, form and size of the brain, and other tests, were\nmade. The bodies were sent to Strasbourg and defleshed.\n\n8. Between May 1942 and January 1944[4] the defendants Blome and Rudolf\nBrandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as\ndefined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were\nprincipals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part\nin, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder\nand mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish nationals who were\ncivilians and members of the armed forces of a nation then at war with\nthe German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in\nexercise of belligerent control. These people were alleged to be\ninfected with incurable tuberculosis. On the ground of insuring the\nhealth and welfare of Germans in Poland, many tubercular Poles were\nruthlessly exterminated while others were isolated in death camps with\ninadequate medical facilities.\n\n9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt,\nBlome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed\nwar crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in\nthat they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a\nconsenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises\ninvolving the execution of the so-called \u201ceuthanasia\u201d program of the\nGerman Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered\nhundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of\nGerman-occupied countries. This program involved the systematic and\nsecret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, of deformed\nchildren, and other persons, by gas, lethal injections, and diverse\nother means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Such persons were\nregarded as \u201cuseless eaters\u201d and a burden to the German war machine. The\nrelatives of these victims were informed that they died from natural\ncauses, such as heart failure. German doctors involved in the\n\u201ceuthanasia\u201d program were also sent to Eastern occupied countries to\nassist in the mass extermination of Jews.\n\n10. The said war crimes constitute violations of international\nconventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 46 of the Hague\nRegulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Prisoner-of-War\nConvention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war, the general\nprinciples of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all\ncivilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which\nsuch crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No.\n10.\n\n COUNT THREE\u2014CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY\n\n11. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein\nunlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity,\nas defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they\nwere principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting\npart in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical\nexperiments, without the subjects\u2019 consent, upon German civilians and\nnationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the\ndefendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures,\natrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such\nexperiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment\nand are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n12. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt\nand Sievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes\nagainst humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No.\n10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted,\ntook a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises\ninvolving the murder of German civilians and nationals of other\ncountries. The particulars concerning such murders are set forth in\nparagraph 7 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein\nby reference.\n\n13. Between May 1942 and January 1944[5] the defendants Blome and Rudolf\nBrandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against\nhumanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in\nthat they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a\nconsenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises\ninvolving the murder and mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish\nnationals. The particulars concerning such murder and inhuman treatment\nare set forth in paragraph 8 of count two of this indictment and are\nincorporated herein by reference.\n\n14. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt,\nBlome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed\ncrimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law\nNo. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered,\nabetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and\nenterprises involving the execution of the so-called \u201ceuthanasia\u201d\nprogram of the German Reich, in the course of which the defendants\nherein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including German\ncivilians, as well as civilians of other nations. The particulars\nconcerning such murders are set forth in paragraph 9 of count two of\nthis indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.\n\n15. The said crimes against humanity constitute violations of\ninternational conventions, including Article 46 of the Hague\nRegulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles\nof criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized\nnations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes\nwere committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10.\n\n COUNT FOUR\u2014MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION\n\n16. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt,\nMrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer are guilty of\nmembership in an organization declared to be criminal by the\nInternational Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, in that each of the said\ndefendants was a member of the SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER\nNATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the\n\u201cSS\u201d) after 1 September 1939. Such membership is in violation of\nparagraph I (_d_), Article II of Control Council Law No. 10.\n\nWherefore, this indictment is filed with the Secretary General of the\nMilitary Tribunals and the charges herein made against the above-named\ndefendants are hereby presented to MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. I.\n\n TELFORD TAYLOR\n\n _Brigadier General, USA_\n\n _Chief of Counsel for War Crimes_\n\n _Acting on Behalf of the United States of America_\n\nNuernberg, _25 October 1946_\n\n-----\n\n[2] It was definitely ascertained in the course of the proceedings, by\nboth prosecution and defense, that the correct translation of\n\u201cFleckfieber\u201d is _typhus_. A finding to this effect is contained in the\njudgment. A similar initial inadequate translation occurred in the case\nof \u201ctyphus\u201d and \u201cparatyphus\u201d which should be rendered as _typhoid_ and\n_paratyphoid_.\n\n[3] Ibid.\n\n[4] Indictment originally read \u201cJanuary 1943\u201d but was amended by a\nmotion filed with the Secretary General. See Arraignment, p. 18.\n\n[5] Ibid.\n\n\n\n\n II. ARRAIGNMENT\n\n\nExtract from the official Transcript of Military Tribunal I in the\nmatter of the _United States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt et al._,\ndefendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 21 November 1946, Judge\nBeals presiding.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We will now proceed to arraign the defendants on\nthe cause now pending before this Tribunal. As the names of the\ndefendants are called each defendant will stand, and will remain\nstanding until told to be seated. Mr. Secretary General of the Tribunal\nwill call the roll of the defendants.\n\nTHE SECRETARY GENERAL: Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock,\nOskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt,\nJoachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose,\nSiegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann\nBecker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaefer, Waldemar Hoven,\nWilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer. (As\ntheir names are called, the defendants rise.)\n\nIf the Honorable Tribunal please, all of the defendants are in the dock.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The defendants will be seated.\n\nThe counsel for the prosecution will now proceed with the arraignment of\nthe defendants.\n\n [Here Brigadier General Taylor read the indictment in full. See\n pp. 8-17.]\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I shall now call upon the defendants to plead\nguilty or not guilty to the charges against them. Each defendant, as his\nname is called, will stand and speak into the microphone. At this time\nthere will be no arguments, speeches, or discussion of any kind. Each\ndefendant will simply plead either guilty or not guilty to the offenses\nwith which he is charged by the indictment.\n\nKarl Brandt.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Mr. Chairman, before the defendant pleads guilty or not\nguilty, may I say a word? I am defense counsel for the defendant\nSchaefer, number 18.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: For which defendant?\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Schaefer, number 18.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We are now receiving the plea of the defendant\nKarl Brandt. You do not represent him as counsel, do you?\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: No.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Then I see no reason for counsel for another\ndefendant making any remarks at this time.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: May I speak before the defendant Schaefer speaks? A\nformal objection.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: When the name of the defendant Schaefer is\ncalled, you may address the Court.\n\nKarl Brandt, are you represented by counsel in this proceeding?\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and\nspecifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you,\nguilty or not guilty?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.\n\nSiegfried Handloser, are you represented by counsel in this cause?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: No, I have no counsel yet.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you desire that the Tribunal appoint counsel\nfor you?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I hope that today or tomorrow I may receive an\naffirmative answer from a defense counsel.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are you at this time ready to plead to the\nindictment, guilty or not guilty?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and\nspecifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you,\nguilty or not guilty?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Not guilty.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.\n\n [At this point the defendants Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder,\n Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim\n Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose,\n Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann\n Becker-Freyseng and Georg August Weltz were arraigned. All were\n represented by counsel. All pleaded not guilty to the\n indictment.]\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Your Honor, may I speak?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What is the purpose of the remarks you desire to\nmake?\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object to the indictment. I should like\nto say that in my opinion, as far as Schaefer is concerned, the\nindictment does not conform to Ordinance No. 7. I can explain that.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How much time do you desire to present your\nargument?\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Three minutes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed. First, have you filed in the\nproceeding any written notice of the objection to the indictment and\nserved it upon the prosecutor?\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: I have not had the indictment long enough. I have just\nhad the written material for 2 days. What I have to say I could submit\nin writing later. Because of the brief time, I ask to be allowed to make\na brief statement now.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may make a brief statement and submit\nargument in support of your objection within 5 days.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Very well. May I now say something?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed for 3 minutes.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Ordinance No. 7, in Article IV (_a_), prescribes the\nfollowing according to the English text: \u201cThe indictment shall state the\ncharges plainly, concisely and with sufficient particulars to inform\ndefendant of the offenses charged.\u201d Schaefer is charged only on one\ncount, count two (_G_). Experiments with sea-water in Dachau are charged\nagainst 12 defendants. In two sentences the indictment goes on to say\nthat the 12 persons who are then named are charged with special\nresponsibility for these crimes and participation in them. I am of the\nopinion that this does not contain sufficient particulars.\n\u201cResponsibility\u201d and \u201cparticipation\u201d are legal concepts. There is no\nevidence of \u201csufficient particulars,\u201d which implies details.\n\nThe indictment, in my opinion, must give facts to indicate how and why\neach one of these 12 defendants who, ostensibly, participated in these\nexperiments, is responsible and participated. My client cannot tell what\nthe nature of his participation is supposed to have been.\n\nThe indictment says, in count one, number 2, that all defendants were\nprincipals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part\nin, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the\ncommission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those also are\nonly legal concepts.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may file a written brief in support of your\nposition.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: I should like to add, without the knowledge of the\nindictment, my client is not ready to answer the question as to whether\nhe is guilty or not guilty.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You will serve a copy of your brief upon the\nprosecution and file it with the Secretary General.\n\nDR. PELCKMANN: Very well, your Honor.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In connection with this matter, General Taylor,\ndo you desire to make any remarks or suggestions?\n\nBRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, needless to say, we have no\nobjection to the making of this motion or the filing of this brief. It\nis needless to say, also, that we think the indictment quite adequately\nspecifies the date, place, and type of experiment charged. The\ndefendant\u2019s connection with it is better known to the defendant than to\nanyone else. There is no reason why he should not enter his plea at this\ntime.\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: That would not go to the jurisdictional aspect of the\nindictment, but it would go to the question of particulars. The\nconsideration is whether or not upon the showing of the motion, more\nparticulars as to the charges specified, should be included. Do you\nunderstand my point?\n\nBRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Yes, your Honor. That is what I understood.\nThe prosecution will consider the motion, and if need be, submit\nparticulars, although we think the indictment is adequate enough. We\nthink there is no challenge of the jurisdiction. The defendant should be\nrequired to promptly plead.\n\nJUDGE CRAWFORD: How do you plead to the charges against you?\n\nDEFENDANT SCHAEFER: Not guilty.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated.\n\n [At this point the balance of the defendants: Waldemar Hoven,\n Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser and Fritz\n Fischer were arraigned. All were represented by counsel. All\n pleaded not guilty to the indictment.]\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Servatius for the defendant Karl Brandt. Your Honor, may\nI make an application regarding the submission of documents by the\nprosecution?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may state your application.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the\nprosecution that the documents be submitted to the defense in time, the\ndocuments on which the charge is based. This would make the proceedings\neasier and give the defense an opportunity to examine the documents in\ntime, and to obtain counterproof.\n\nIn the first trial before the International Military Tribunal, we were\ngiven a list of documents with the indictment; although these documents\nwere not enclosed, we could look at them and we could work on them. Up\nto now we have nothing on which we can build our defense. In other\nwords, on the 9th of December, we will have proceeded no further than\ntoday, and we will not be able to advise our clients.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may be seated and we will hear from the\nprosecution, Brigadier General Telford Taylor.\n\nBRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the counsel for the defense who\nhas just spoken is thoroughly familiar with the procedures used in the\nprior case. The prosecution in this case plans to follow the same\nprocedures and give the defense counsel the same opportunities and, if\npossible, more. The Defense Information Center, which is the place where\nthe documents have in the past been made available, will be supplied in\nadvance with copies of the documents on which our evidence is based. I\nwould suggest, your Honor, that after all counsel for the defense are\nhere that it would be most useful if there be a meeting between\nrepresentatives of the prosecution and the defense so that procedures\ncan be developed. But at the moment only half of the counsel for the\ndefense are here and it would be economical if these matters could be\narranged after they are all present.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, may I ask one question? May I add one thing,\nthat the documents be given to us in German. In the previous trial,\nthere was difficulty at the beginning because we got them in English.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I believe if counsel for the defense will refer\nto the rules promulgated by this Tribunal on 2 November 1946, you will\nsee that a requirement is made that all such matters be submitted in a\nlanguage that is understood by each of the defendants.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but for technical reasons that was not always done.\nThere were great difficulties. The conferences with the prosecution will\nmake it possible to eliminate the difficulties. If it is not possible, I\nwill address the Court again.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you have anything further, General Taylor?\n\nBRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the prosecution merely wishes to\nnote that it has filed with the Secretary General a motion to amend the\nindictment in paragraph 8 of count two and paragraph 13 of count three,\nby changing 1943 to 1944. The motion has been filed with the Secretary\nGeneral and copies of the motion are in German and are in the hands of\ndefense counsel.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How many of the defendants are concerned with the\namendment to the indictment? My point is that if the\u2014\n\nMR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the amendment occurs first in\nparagraph 8 on page 14 of the indictment and it affects only two of the\ndefendants; namely, Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The amendment is also made\nin paragraph 13 because the same facts are there charged as a crime\nagainst humanity. In paragraph 13 only the same two defendants are\ninvolved; that is, defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What are the particulars of the amendment?\n\nMR. MCHANEY: The only change made by the amendment is to say the date\nJanuary 1944 for the date January 1943; in other words, it extends the\nperiod covered by the crime for 1 year. The date 1943 was inserted by\nmistake in the indictment as filed with the Tribunal.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are these two defendants represented by counsel\nhere present this morning?\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I think that Rudolf Brandt answered \u201cYes\u201d.\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, your Honor.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Has this motion been served upon counsel for\nthese two defendants?\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Your Honor, my understanding is that the motion for\namendment was filed with the Secretary General. If we understand the\nrules correctly, the Secretary General then serves it upon the\ndefendants.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I was just asking for information whether they\nhad received copies of the motion.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: That I don\u2019t know. Yes, the counsel for these defendants\nsay \u201cYes\u201d.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel for defendant Blome raise any\nobjection to the amendment of the indictment?\n\nDR. SAUTER: No.\n\nDR. KAUFFMANN: Kauffmann for Rudolf Brandt. I have no objection to the\nchange.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You represent Rudolf Brandt?\n\nDR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Well, the other defendant affected is defendant\nBlome, I understand. Is he represented here?\n\nDR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Blome. We don\u2019t have any\nobjection.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The indictment will be amended in accordance with\nthe motion.\n\nIs it agreeable to counsel for these two defendants that the arraignment\nas to them upon this count which has just been amended be considered as\npleas to the count as amended now\u2014their pleas of \u201cNot Guilty\u201d?\n\nDR. SAUTER: Yes.\n\nDR. KAUFFMANN: Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: These matters will appear in the records of the\nTribunal. The pleas of the defendants will all be entered in the minutes\nof the Tribunal.\n\n\n\n\n III. STATEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ORDER OF TRIAL AND RULES OF\n PROCEDURE, 9 DECEMBER 1946[6]\n\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I have a statement which I desire to make for the\nbenefit of the prosecution, defendants, and all concerned: Before\nopening the trial of Case No. 1, _The United States of America against\nKarl Brandt, et al._, there are certain matters which the Tribunal\ndesires to call to the attention of the counsel for the prosecution and\nthe counsel for the defendants.\n\n1. The prosecution may be allowed, for the purpose of making the opening\nstatement in this case, time not to exceed one trial day. This time may\nbe allocated by the chief prosecutor, between himself and any of his\nassistants, as he desires.\n\n2. When the prosecution has rested its case, defense counsel will be\nallowed two trial days in which to make their opening statements, and\nwhich will comprehend the entire theory of their respective defenses.\nThe time allocated will be divided between the different defense\ncounsel, as they may themselves agree. In the event the defense counsel\ncannot agree, the Tribunal will allocate the time, not to exceed 30\nminutes to each defendant.\n\n3. The prosecution shall, not less than 24 hours before it desires to\noffer any record or document or writing in evidence as part of its\ncase-in-chief, file with the Defense Information Center not less than\none copy of such record, document, or writing for each of the counsel\nfor defendants, such copies to be in the German language. The\nprosecution shall also deliver to the Defense Information Center at\nleast four copies thereof in the English language.\n\n4. When the prosecution or any defendant offers a record, document, or\nany other writing, or a copy thereof, in evidence, there shall be\ndelivered to the Secretary General in addition to the original document\nor other instrument in writing so offered for admission in evidence, six\ncopies of the document. If the document is written or printed in a\nlanguage other than English there shall also be filed with the copies of\nthe document above referred to six copies of an English translation of\nthe document. If such document is offered by any defendant, suitable\nfacilities for procuring English translations of that document shall be\nmade available.\n\n5. At least 24 hours before a witness is called to the stand, either by\nthe prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desires to\ninterrogate the witness shall deliver to the Secretary General an\noriginal and six copies of a memorandum which shall disclose: (1) the\nname of the witness; (2) his nationality; (3) his residence or station;\n(4) his official rank or position; (5) whether he is called as an expert\nwitness or as a witness to testify to facts, and if the latter, a\nprepared statement of the subject matter on which the witness will be\ninterrogated. When the prosecution prepares such a statement in\nconnection with the witness whom it desires to call, at the time of the\nfiling of this statement, two additional copies thereof shall be\ndelivered to the Defense Information Center. When a defendant prepares\nsuch a statement concerning a witness whom it desires to call, the\ndefendant shall at the same time as the copies are filed with the\nSecretary General deliver one additional copy to the prosecution.\n\n6. When either the prosecution or a defendant desires the Tribunal to\ntake judicial notice of any official Government documents or reports of\nthe United Nations, including any action, ruling or regulation of any\ncommittee, board, or counsel, heretofore established by or in the Allied\nNations for the investigation of war crimes, or any record made by, or\nthe findings of, any military or other tribunal, this Tribunal may\nrefuse to take judicial notice of such documents, rules, or regulations,\nunless the party proposing asks this Tribunal to notice such documents,\nrules, or regulations judicially, and places a copy thereof in writing\nbefore the Tribunal.\n\nThis Tribunal has learned with satisfaction of the procedure adopted by\nthe prosecution with the intention of furnishing to the defense counsel\ninformation concerning the writings or documents which the prosecution\nexpects to offer in evidence for the purpose of affording the defense\ncounsel information to help them prepare their respective defense to the\nindictments. The desire of the Tribunal is that this be made available\nto the defendants so as to aid them in the presentation of their\nrespective defense.\n\nThe United States of America having established this Military Tribunal\nI, pursuant to law, through properly empowered military authorities, and\nthe defendants having been brought before Military Tribunal I pursuant\nto the indictment filed 25 October 1946 in the Office of the Secretary\nGeneral of the Military Tribunal at Nuernberg, Germany by an officer of\nthe United States Army, regularly designated as Chief of Counsel for War\nCrimes, acting on behalf of the United States of America, pursuant to\nappropriate military authority, and the indictment having been served\nupon each defendant for more than 30 days prior to this date, and a copy\nof the indictment in the German language having been furnished to each\ndefendant and having been in his possession more than 30 days and each\ndefendant having had ample opportunity to read the indictment, and\nhaving regularly entered his plea of \u201cnot guilty\u201d to the indictment, the\nTribunal is ready to proceed with the trial.\n\nThis Tribunal will conduct the trial in accordance with controlling\nlaws, rules, and regulations, and with due regard to appropriate\nprecedents in a sincere endeavor to insure both to the prosecution and\nto each and every defendant an opportunity to present all evidence of an\nappropriate value bearing upon the issues before the Tribunal; to this\nend, that under law and pending regulations impartial justice may be\naccomplished.\n\nThe trial, of course, will be a public trial, not one behind closed\ndoors; but, because of limited facilities available, the Tribunal must\ninsist that the number of spectators be limited to the seating capacity\nof the courtroom. Passes will therefore be issued by the appropriate\nauthorities to those who may enter the courtroom. The Tribunal will\ninsist that good order be at all times maintained, and appropriate\nmeasures will be taken to see that this rule is strictly enforced.\n\nFor the information of all concerned, the Tribunal announces that\nhearings will be held each day this week commencing at 9:30 o\u2019clock\nthrough Friday. The Tribunal will reconvene at 9:30 o\u2019clock, Monday, 16\nDecember 1946, and will hold sessions every day of that week including\nSaturday, on which day, however, the Tribunal will recess until 9:30\no\u2019clock, Thursday, 2 January 1947, when the Tribunal will convene at the\nusual time.\n\n-----\n\n[6] Tr. pp. 9-11.\n\n\n\n\n IV. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION BY\n BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR,\n 9 DECEMBER 1946.[7]\n\n\nThe defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and\nother atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims\nof these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful\nonly are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this\ncourtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright\nor died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected.\n\nFor the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these\nwretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots\nand were treated worse than animals. They were 200 Jews in good physical\ncondition, 50 gypsies, 500 tubercular Poles, or 1,000 Russians. The\nvictims of these crimes are numbered among the anonymous millions who\nmet death at the hands of the Nazis and whose fate is a hideous blot on\nthe page of modern history.\n\nThe charges against these defendants are brought in the name of the\nUnited States of America. They are being tried by a court of American\njudges. The responsibilities thus imposed upon the representatives of\nthe United States, prosecutors and judges alike, are grave and unusual.\nIt is owed, not only to the victims and to the parents and children of\nthe victims, that just punishment be imposed on the guilty, but also to\nthe defendants that they be accorded a fair hearing and decision. Such\nresponsibilities are the ordinary burden of any tribunal. Far wider are\nthe duties which we must fulfill here.\n\nThese larger obligations run to the peoples and races on whom the\nscourge of these crimes was laid. The mere punishment of the defendants,\nor even of thousands of others equally guilty, can never redress the\nterrible injuries which the Nazis visited on these unfortunate peoples.\nFor them it is far more important that these incredible events be\nestablished by clear and public proof, so that no one can ever doubt\nthat they were fact and not fable; and that this Court, as the agent of\nthe United States and as the voice of humanity, stamp these acts, and\nthe ideas which engendered them, as barbarous and criminal.\n\nWe have still other responsibilities here. The defendants in the dock\nare charged with murder, but this is no mere murder trial. We cannot\nrest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that\ncertain persons committed them. To kill, to maim, and to torture is\ncriminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill\nin hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists\nwho killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They\nare not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of\nthem are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom\nwere fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom\nwere exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment\nin this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably\ncruel tortures.\n\nIt is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and\nhow these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with\nconspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants\nto treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and\ndistorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead.\nThey cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading\ncancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed, for\nthe reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a\nyear ago\u2014\n\n \u201cThe wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so\n calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization\n cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive\n their being repeated.\u201d\n\nTo the German people we owe a special responsibility in these\nproceedings. Under the leadership of the Nazis and their war lords, the\nGerman nation spread death and devastation throughout Europe. This the\nGermans now know. So, too, do they know the consequences to Germany:\ndefeat, ruin, prostration, and utter demoralization. Most German\nchildren will never, as long as they live, see an undamaged German city.\n\nTo what cause will these children ascribe the defeat of the German\nnation and the devastation that surrounds them? Will they attribute it\nto the overwhelming weight of numbers and resources that was eventually\nleagued against them? Will they point to the ingenuity of enemy\nscientists? Will they perhaps blame their plight on strategic and\nmilitary blunders by their generals?\n\nIf the Germans embrace those reasons as the true cause of their\ndisaster, it will be a sad and fatal thing for Germany and for the\nworld. Men who have never seen a German city intact will be callous\nabout flattening English or American or Russian cities. They may not\neven realize that they are destroying anything worthwhile, for lack of a\nnormal sense of values. To reestablish the greatness of Germany they are\nlikely to pin their faith on improved military techniques. Such views\nwill lead the Germans straight into the arms of the Prussian militarists\nto whom defeat is only a glorious opportunity to start a new war game.\n\u201cNext time it will be different.\u201d We know all too well what that will\nmean.\n\nThis case, and others which will be tried in this building, offer a\nsignal opportunity to lay before the German people the true cause of\ntheir present misery. The walls and towers and churches of Nuernberg\nwere, indeed, reduced to rubble by Allied bombs, but in a deeper sense\nNuernberg had been destroyed a decade earlier, when it became the seat\nof the annual Nazi Party rallies, a focal point for the moral\ndisintegration in Germany, and the private domain of Julius Streicher.\nThe insane and malignant doctrines that Nuernberg spewed forth account\nalike for the crimes of these defendants and for the terrible fate of\nGermany under the Third Reich.\n\nA nation which deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably\nsicken and die. These defendants and others turned Germany into an\ninfernal combination of a lunatic asylum and a charnel house. Neither\nscience, nor industry, nor the arts could flourish in such a foul\nmedium. The country could not live at peace and was fatally handicapped\nfor war. I do not think the German people have as yet any conception of\nhow deeply the criminal folly that was nazism bit into every phase of\nGerman life, or of how utterly ravaging the consequences were. It will\nbe our task to make these things clear.\n\nThese are the high purposes which justify the establishment of\nextraordinary courts to hear and determine this case and others of\ncomparable importance. That murder should be punished goes without the\nsaying, but the full performance of our task requires more than the just\nsentencing of these defendants. Their crimes were the inevitable result\nof the sinister doctrines which they espoused, and these same doctrines\nsealed the fate of Germany, shattered Europe, and left the world in\nferment. Wherever those doctrines may emerge and prevail, the same\nterrible consequences will follow. That is why a bold and lucid\nconsummation of these proceedings is of vital importance to all nations.\nThat is why the United States has constituted this Tribunal.\n\n STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH\n\nI pass now to the facts of the case in hand. There are 23 defendants in\nthe box. All but three of them\u2014Rudolf Brandt, Sievers, and Brack\u2014are\ndoctors. Of the 20 doctors, all but one\u2014Pokorny\u2014held positions in the\nmedical services of the Third Reich. To understand this case, it is\nnecessary to understand the general structure of these state medical\nservices, and how these services fitted into the over-all organization\nof the Nazi State.\n\n[Illustration: Chart Showing German State Medical Services]\n\nTo assist the Court in this regard the prosecution has prepared a short\nexpository brief [not introduced into evidence] which is already in the\nhands of the Court and which has been made available to defense counsel\nin German and English. The brief includes a glossary of the more\nfrequent German words or expressions which will occur in this\ntrial\u2014most of them from the vocabulary of military, medical, or\ngovernmental affairs. It also includes a table of equivalent ranks [App.\nVol. II] between the American Army and the German Army and the SS, and\nof the medical ranks used in the German Armed Forces and the SS.\nFinally, it includes a chart [see p. 30] showing the subordination of\nthe several German medical services within the general framework of the\nGerman State. This chart has been enlarged and is displayed at the front\nof the courtroom.\n\nFollowing this opening statement Mr. McHaney, in opening the\npresentation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, will offer in\nevidence a series of detailed charts of the various German medical\nservices, which have been certified as accurate by the defendants\nHandloser, Schroeder, Karl Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Brack. The chart to\nwhich I am now directing the attention of the Tribunal is a composite\nchart based upon those which Mr. McHaney will offer in evidence. The\nchart in the front of the courtroom to which I now refer will not be\noffered in evidence; it is intended merely as a convenient guide to the\nCourt and to defense counsel to enable them to follow the opening\nstatement and to comprehend the over-all structure of the German medical\nservices.\n\nAll power in the Third Reich derived from Adolf Hitler, who was at one\nand the same time the head of the government, the leader of the Nazi\nParty, and the commander in chief of the armed forces. His title as head\nof the government was Reich Chancellor. He was the \u201cFuehrer\u201d of the Nazi\nParty, and the \u201cSupreme Commander\u201d of the Wehrmacht. Immediately\nsubordinate to Hitler were the chiefs of the armed forces, the principal\ncabinet ministers in the government, and the leading officials of the\nNazi Party. The only defendant in the dock who was directly responsible\nto Hitler himself is the defendant Karl Brandt.\n\nThe Court will observe that the defendants fall into three main groups.\nEight of them were members of the medical service of the German Air\nForce. Seven of them were members of the medical service of the SS. The\nremaining eight include the defendants Karl Brandt and Handloser, who\noccupied top positions in the medical hierarchy; it included the three\ndefendants who are not doctors; the defendant Rostock, who was an\nimmediate subordinate of Karl Brandt; the defendant Blome, a medical\nofficial of the Nazi Party; and the defendant Pokorny, whom we have\ngrouped under the SS for reasons which will appear later.\n\nI will deal first with the military side of the case. Hitler, as Supreme\nCommander of the German Armed Forces, exercised his authority through a\nstaff called the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, better known by\nits German initials, OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht). The chief of this\nstaff, throughout the period with which this case will concern itself,\nwas Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel.\n\nUnder the OKW came the High Commands of the three branches of the\nWehrmacht: the Navy (OKM), the Army (OKH) and the Air Force (OKL). Grand\nAdmiral Erich Raeder was the Commander in Chief of the German Navy until\n1943, when he was succeeded by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz. Prior to the\noutbreak of the war, the Commander in Chief of the German Army was Field\nMarshal von Brauchitsch. In December 1941 Brauchitsch was relieved and\nHitler himself took this position. Hermann Goering was the Commander in\nChief of the German Air Force with the rank of Reich Marshal, until the\nvery last month of the war.\n\nEach of the three branches of the Wehrmacht had its own medical service.\nFor purposes of this case, the medical service of the Navy is not of\nmuch importance. During most of the war the defendant Handloser was the\nChief of the Medical Service of the German Army; in 1944 he was\nsucceeded in this capacity by Dr. Walter. The Chief of the Medical\nService of the German Air Force until 1943 was Dr. Erich Hippke; from\nJanuary 1944 until the end of the war, it was the defendant Schroeder.\nSubordinate to the defendant Schroeder are seven other defendants from\nthe Air Force Medical Service, whose functions I will briefly describe\nlater on.\n\nI turn now to the second principal group of defendants\u2014those affiliated\nwith the SS. The SS was nominally a part of the Nazi Party, and came\nunder Hitler in his capacity as Fuehrer of the NSDAP. In fact, during\nthe years of the Nazi regime, the SS expanded into a vast complex of\nmilitary, police, and intelligence organizations. The head of this\nextraordinary combine was Heinrich Himmler, with the title of Reich\nLeader SS. The SS had its own medical service, headed by Grawitz, who\nbore the title Reich Physician SS.\n\nThe SS in turn was divided into many departments, of which one of the\nmost important was the Armed or Waffen SS. The members of the Waffen SS\nwere trained and equipped as regular troops, were formed into regular\nmilitary formations, and fought at the front side by side with the\ntroops of the Wehrmacht. By the end of the war there were some 30 SS\ndivisions in the line. The head of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS\nwas the defendant Genzken.\n\nSix other defendants were members of the SS Medical Service and\ntherefore subordinated to Grawitz.\n\nThe German civilian medical services derived their authority both from\nthe German Government and from the Party. The medical chief on the\ncivilian side was Dr. Leonardo Conti, who committed suicide in October\n1945. Dr. Conti occupied the position of State Secretary for Health in\nthe Reich Ministry of the Interior. In this capacity Conti was a\nsubordinate of the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Wilhelm Frick, until\n1943, and thereafter to Heinrich Himmler who assumed the additional\nduties of Minister of the Interior in that year.\n\nConti also held the title in the Nazi Party of Reich Health Leader. His\ndeputy in this capacity was the defendant Blome. As Reich Health Leader,\nConti was subordinate to the Nazi Party Chancellery, the chief of which\nwas Martin Bormann.\n\nAs the Court will see from the chart,[8] the three principal people in\nthe hierarchy of German state health and medicine are the defendants\nKarl Brandt and Handloser, and the deceased Dr. Conti. In July 1942,\nHitler issued a decree, a copy of which will later be read before the\nCourt, which established the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Medical\nServices of the Wehrmacht. Shown on the chart here Handloser\u2019s name\nappears in this capacity. Handloser was given supervisory and\nprofessional authority over the medical services of all three branches\nof the Wehrmacht. Inasmuch as the Waffen SS came to constitute an\nimportant part of the armed forces, Handloser\u2019s supervisory authority\nalso extended to the defendant Genzken, Chief of the Medical Service of\nthe Waffen SS. In this position Handloser was charged with the\ncoordination of all common tasks of the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht and the Waffen SS. He thus became the principal figure in\nGerman military medicine, just as Dr. Conti was the central figure in\nthe field of civilian medicine.\n\nHandloser and Conti, as will be seen from the chart, were not directly\nresponsible to Hitler himself. Handloser\u2019s responsibility ran to Hitler\nthrough the OKW, and Conti\u2019s through the Ministry of the Interior and\nthe chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery.\n\nIn 1942 Hitler for the first time established a medical and health\nofficial under his direct control. This official was the defendant Karl\nBrandt. A Hitler decree of July 1942 (_NO-080_) gave Brandt the title\nPlenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services, and empowered him to\ncarry out special tasks and negotiations with reference to the\nrequirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the\nmilitary and civilian sectors of the health and sanitation systems.\nBrandt\u2019s role, therefore, was to coordinate the requirements of the\nmilitary and civilian agencies in the field of medicine and public\nhealth.\n\nDr. Karl Brandt had been the personal physician to Hitler since 1934. He\nwas only 38 years old at the time he assumed the important duties\nconferred by the 1942 decree. His rise continued.\n\nIn September 1943 Hitler issued another decree which gave Brandt the\ntitle of General Commissioner for Sanitation and Health and empowered\nhim to coordinate and direct the problems and activities of the entire\nadministration for sanitation and health. (_NO-081._) This authority was\nexplicitly extended to the field of medical science and research.\n\nFinally, in August 1944, Hitler appointed Dr. Brandt Reich Commissioner\nfor Sanitation and Health, and stated that in this capacity Brandt\u2019s\noffice ranked as the \u201chighest Reich authority.\u201d (_NO-082._) Brandt was\nauthorized to issue instructions to the medical offices and\norganizations of the government, to the party, and the armed forces, in\nthe field of sanitation and health.\n\nKarl Brandt, as the supreme medical authority in the Reich, appointed\nthe defendant Paul Rostock as his immediate subordinate to head the\nOffice for Scientific and Medical Research. Rostock\u2019s position reached\ninto the activities of the medical societies, the medical colleges, and\nthe Reich Research Council. Brandt also appointed Admiral Fikentscher,\nwho had theretofore been the chief medical officer of the German Navy,\nas his subordinate to head the Office for Planning and Production. In\nthis field, Fikentscher dealt with the principal labor authorities, the\nMinistry of Economics, and the Ministry for Armament and War Production.\n\nAs chief of the Medical Service of the German Air Force, the defendant\nSchroeder also held one of the most important positions in the German\nmedical hierarchy. He and the defendant Handloser both held the rank of\nGeneraloberstabsarzt, the highest rank in the German medical service and\nthe equivalent of lieutenant general in the American Army. I do not\npropose to go into detail concerning the positions held by the seven\ndefendants who were under Schroeder, inasmuch as Mr. McHaney will\nintroduce charts which show in great detail the structure of the German\nAir Force Medical Service, and which have been authenticated by the\ndefendant Schroeder himself. The defendant Rose held a high rank in the\nAir Force Medical Service equivalent to that of a brigadier general in\nthe American Army and was appointed special adviser to Schroeder on\nmatters pertaining to tropical medicine, held a chair at one of the most\nimportant German medical institutes, and is one of the most\ndistinguished scientists in the dock. The defendant Becker-Freyseng\nheaded Schroeder\u2019s department for aviation medicine. The defendant Weltz\nwas chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine at Munich. The\nparticular functions of the defendants Ruff, Romberg, Schaefer, and\nBeiglboeck will appear as we proceed with the presentation of the\nevidence.\n\nI will likewise pass over very briefly the detailed functions of the six\nSS physicians who were shown on the chart as the subordinates of\nGrawitz. Detailed charts of the SS Medical Service, authenticated by the\ndefendant Mrugowsky, will shortly be introduced in evidence. The\ndefendant Gebhardt was Himmler\u2019s personal physician and he held a rank\nin the SS equivalent to that of a major general in the American Army. He\nbecame the president of the German Red Cross. He was the chief surgeon\non Grawitz\u2019s staff, and also headed the hospital at Hohenlychen, in\nwhich capacity the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer were his\nassistants. The defendant Poppendick was the chief of Grawitz\u2019s personal\nstaff. The defendant Mrugowsky was Grawitz\u2019s chief hygienist and also\nheaded the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS. The defendant Hoven was\nthe chief doctor of the Buchenwald concentration camp.\n\nThe defendant Pokorny is a private physician who had no official\nconnection with the governmental medical service. We have shown him on\nthe chart underneath the group of SS physicians for reasons which will\nappear in the course of presenting the evidence concerning sterilization\nexperiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment).\n\nThe three defendants who are not doctors are shown in the top right-hand\ncorner of the chart. Two of them\u2014Rudolf Brandt and Brack\u2014are\nadministrative officers. Rudolf Brandt had the rank of colonel in the\nSS, was sort of personal adjutant, and held an administrative office\nboth in the SS and the Ministry of the Interior. Viktor Brack was the\nchief administrative officer in Hitler\u2019s personal chancellery\n[Chancellery of the Fuehrer], the head of which was Philipp Bouhler.\n\nThe defendant Sievers, who held the rank of colonel in the SS, is a\nspecial case. He was a direct subordinate of Heinrich Himmler in the\nlatter\u2019s capacity as president of the so-called Ahnenerbe Society. The\nname of this society literally means \u201cancestral heritage\u201d, and it was\noriginally devoted to scientific and psuedo-scientific researches\nconcerning the anthropological and cultural history of the German race.\nLater on an Institute for Military Scientific Research was set up within\nthe Ahnenerbe Society. Sievers was the manager of the society and the\ndirector of the Institute for Military Scientific Research.\n\nThis concludes the general description of the German state medical\nservices under the Nazi regime, and of the positions which the\ndefendants occupied in the scheme of things. It is convenient at this\npoint to refer to count four of the indictment, which charges that 10 of\nthe defendants were members of an organization declared to be criminal\nby the International Military Tribunal, and that such membership is in\nviolation of paragraph 1 (_d_) of Article II of Control Council Law No.\n10. The organization in question is the SS.\n\nThis count concerns the defendant Karl Brandt, six of the defendants who\nwere affiliated with the Medical Service of the SS, and three defendants\nwho are not doctors. It does not concern any of the nine defendants on\nthe military side, nor the defendants Rostock, Blome, Oberheuser, or\nPokorny.\n\nThe International Military Tribunal\u2019s declaration of criminality applies\nto all persons who had been officially accepted as members of any branch\nof the SS, and who remained members after 1 September 1939. The\nprosecution will show that all 10 defendants charged in count four were\nofficially accepted as members of the SS and remained so after that\ndate. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, and Gebhardt held ranks in\nboth the General or Allgemeine SS and the Waffen SS equivalent to that\nof a major general in the American Army. The defendants Mrugowsky,\nHoven, Poppendick, and Fischer all held officer rank in the SS or Waffen\nSS, and all four of them, together with the defendants Genzken and\nGebhardt, held positions in the SS Medical Service. The defendant Rudolf\nBrandt held the rank of colonel in the General (Allgemeine) SS, and was\na personal assistant to Himmler in Himmler\u2019s capacity as Reich Leader\nSS. The defendant Brack held officer rank in both the SS and the Waffen\nSS. The defendant Sievers held the rank of colonel in the SS, and was\nmanager of the Ahnenerbe Society, which was attached to the SS Main\nOffice.\n\nThe declaration of criminality by the International Military Tribunal\ndoes not apply when it appears that a member of the SS was drafted into\nmembership in such a way as to give him no choice in the matter. Nor\ndoes it apply if it appears that the member had no knowledge that the\norganization was being used for the commission of criminal acts. For\npurposes of this case, these questions, the prosecution believes, will\nbe academic. All of the defendants charged in count four held officer\nrank in the SS, and most of them held senior rank. They were moving\nspirits and personal participants in murder and torture on a large\nscale, and in a variety of other crimes. In this connection we\nrespectfully invite the Tribunal\u2019s attention to two statements by the\nInternational Military Tribunal which, under Article X of Ordinance No.\n7, constitute proof in the absence of substantial new evidence to the\ncontrary. In setting forth the criminal acts committed by the SS, the\nInternational Military Tribunal stated:[9]\n\n \u201cAlso attached to the SS main offices was a research foundation\n known as the Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists attached to\n this organization are stated to have been mainly honorary\n members of the SS. During the war an institute for military\n scientific research became attached to the Ahnenerbe which\n conducted extensive experiments involving the use of living\n human beings.\u201d\n\nAnd again it was stated:[10]\n\n \u201cIn connection with the administration of the concentration\n camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human\n beings which were performed on prisoners of war or concentration\n camp inmates. These experiments included freezing to death and\n killing by poison bullets. The SS was able to obtain an\n allocation of Government funds for this kind of research on the\n grounds that they had access to human material not available to\n other agencies.\u201d\n\n CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE GUISE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH\n\n (Counts two and three, pars. 6, 7, 11, and 12)\n\nI turn now to the main part of the indictment and will outline at this\npoint the prosecution\u2019s case relating to those crimes alleged to have\nbeen committed in the name of medical or scientific research. The\ncharges with respect to \u201ceuthanasia\u201d and the slaughter of tubercular\nPoles obviously have no relation to research or experimentation and will\nbe dealt with later. What I will cover now comprehends all the\nexperiments charged as war crimes in paragraph 6 and as crimes against\nhumanity in paragraph 11 of the indictment, and the murders committed\nfor so-called anthropological purposes which are charged as war crimes\nin paragraph 7 and as crimes against humanity in paragraph 12 of the\nindictment.\n\nBefore taking up these experiments one by one, let us look at them as a\nwhole. Are they a heterogeneous list of horrors, or is there a common\ndenominator for the whole group?\n\nA sort of rough pattern is apparent on the face of the indictment.\nExperiments concerning high altitude, the effect of cold, and the\npotability of processed sea-water have an obvious relation to\naeronautical and naval combat and rescue problems. The mustard gas and\nphosphorous burn experiments, as well as those relating to the healing\nvalue of sulfanilamide for wounds, can be related to air-raid and\nbattlefield medical problems. It is well known that malaria, epidemic\njaundice, and typhus were among the principal diseases which had to be\ncombated by the German Armed Forces and by German authorities in\noccupied territories.\n\nTo some degree, the therapeutic pattern outlined above is undoubtedly a\nvalid one, and explains why the Wehrmacht, and especially the German Air\nForce, participated in these experiments. Fanatically bent upon\nconquest, utterly ruthless as to the means or instruments to be used in\nachieving victory, and callous to the sufferings of people whom they\nregarded as inferior, the German militarists were willing to gather\nwhatever scientific fruit these experiments might yield.\n\nBut our proof will show that a quite different and even more sinister\nobjective runs like a red thread through these hideous researches. We\nwill show that in some instances the true object of these experiments\nwas not how to rescue or to cure, but how to destroy and kill. The\nsterilization experiments were, it is clear, purely destructive in\npurpose. The prisoners at Buchenwald who were shot with poisoned bullets\nwere not guinea pigs to test an antidote for the poison; their murderers\nreally wanted to know how quickly the poison would kill. This\ndestructive objective is not superficially as apparent in the other\nexperiments, but we will show that it was often there.\n\nMankind has not heretofore felt the need of a word to denominate the\nscience of how to kill prisoners most rapidly and subjugated people in\nlarge numbers. This case and these defendants have created this gruesome\nquestion for the lexicographer. For the moment we will christen this\nmacabre science \u201cthanatology,\u201d the science of producing death. The\nthanatological knowledge, derived in part from these experiments,\nsupplied the techniques for genocide, a policy of the Third Reich,\nexemplified in the \u201ceuthanasia\u201d program and in the wide-spread slaughter\nof Jews, gypsies, Poles, and Russians. This policy of mass extermination\ncould not have been so effectively carried out without the active\nparticipation of German medical scientists.\n\nI will now take up the experiments themselves. Two or three of them I\nwill describe more fully, but most of them will be treated in summary\nfashion, as Mr. McHaney will be presenting detailed proof of each of\nthem.\n\n A. High-Altitude Experiments\n\nThe experiments known as \u201chigh-altitude\u201d or \u201clow-pressure\u201d experiments\nwere carried out at the Dachau concentration camp in 1942. According to\nthe proof, the original proposal that such experiments be carried out on\nhuman beings originated in the spring of 1941 with a Dr. Sigmund\nRascher. Rascher was at that time a captain in the medical service of\nthe German Air Force, and also held officer rank in the SS. He is\nbelieved now to be dead.\n\nThe origin of the idea is revealed in a letter which Rascher wrote to\nHimmler in May 1941 at which time Rascher was taking a course in\naviation medicine at a German Air Force headquarters in Munich.\nAccording to the letter, this course included researches into\nhigh-altitude flying and\n\n\u201cconsiderable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human\nmaterial had yet been possible for us, as such experiments are very\ndangerous and nobody volunteers for them.\u201d (_1602-PS._)\n\nRascher, in this letter, went on to ask Himmler to put human subjects at\nhis disposal and baldly stated that the experiments might result in\ndeath to the subjects but that the tests theretofore made with monkeys\nhad not been satisfactory.\n\nRascher\u2019s letter was answered by Himmler\u2019s adjutant, the defendant,\nRudolf Brandt, who informed Rascher that\u2014\n\n\u201c* * * Prisoners will, of course, gladly be made available for the\nhigh-flight researches.\u201d (_1582-PS._)\n\nSubsequently Rascher wrote directly to Rudolf Brandt asking for\npermission to carry out the experiments at the Dachau concentration\ncamp, and he mentioned that the German Air Force had provided \u201ca movable\npressure chamber\u201d in which the experiments might be made. Plans for\ncarrying out the experiments were developed at a conference late in\n1941, or early in 1942, attended by Dr. Rascher and by the defendants\nWeltz, Romberg, and Ruff, all of whom were members of the German Air\nForce Medical Service. The tests themselves were carried out in the\nspring and summer of 1942, using the pressure chamber which the German\nAir Force had provided. The victims were locked in the low-pressure\nchamber, which was an airtight ball-like compartment, and then the\npressure in the chamber was altered to simulate the atmospheric\nconditions prevailing at extremely high altitudes. The pressure in the\nchamber could be varied with great rapidity, which permitted the\ndefendants to duplicate the atmospheric conditions which an aviator\nmight encounter in falling great distances through space without a\nparachute and without oxygen.\n\nThe reports, conclusions, and comments on these experiments, which were\nintroduced here and carefully recorded, demonstrate complete disregard\nfor human life and callousness to suffering and pain. These documents\nreveal at one and the same time the medical results of the experiments,\nand the degradation of the physicians who performed them. The first\nreport by Rascher was made in April 1942, and contains a description of\nthe effect of the low-pressure chamber on a 37-year-old Jew.\n(_1971-A-PS._) I quote:\n\n \u201cThe third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary\n course that I called an SS physician of the camp as witness,\n since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a\n continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12\n kilometers conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good general\n condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes\n the experimental subject began to perspire and wiggle his head,\n after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes\n breathing increased in speed and the experimental subject became\n unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to\n three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether.\n\n \u201cSeverest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the\n mouth.\n\n \u201cAt 5 minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were\n written. After breathing had stopped Ekg (electrocardiogram) was\n continuously written until the action of the heart had come to a\n complete standstill. About \u00bd hour after breathing had stopped,\n dissection was started.\u201d\n\nRascher\u2019s report also contains the following record of the \u201cautopsy\u201d:\n\n \u201cWhen the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was\n filled tightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the\n pericardium, 80 cc. of clear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The\n moment the tamponade had stopped, the right auricle of the heart\n began to beat heavily, at first at the rate of 60 actions per\n minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes after the\n pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by\n puncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood\n spurted forth. Thereafter, clogging of the puncture wound in the\n auricle by coagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of\n the action of the right auricle occurred.\n\n \u201cOne hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was\n completely severed and the brain removed. Thereupon, the action\n of the auricle of the heart stopped for 40 seconds. It then\n renewed its action, coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes\n later. A heavy subarachnoid oedema was found in the brain. In\n the veins and arteries of the brain, a considerable quantity of\n air was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart\n and liver were enormously obstructed by embolism.\u201d\n (_1971-A-PS._)\n\nAfter seeing this report Himmler ironically ordered that if a subject\nshould be brought back to life after enduring such an experiment, he\nshould be \u201cpardoned\u201d to life imprisonment in a concentration camp.\nRascher\u2019s reply to this letter, dated 20 October 1942, reveals that up\nto the time the victims of these experiments had all been Poles and\nRussians, that some of them had been condemned to death, and Rascher\ninquired whether Himmler\u2019s benign mercy extended to Poles and Russians.\n(_1971-D-PS._) A teleptyped reply from the defendant, Rudolf Brandt,\nconfirmed Rascher\u2019s belief that Poles and Russians were beyond the pale\nand should be given no amnesty of any kind. (_1971-E-PS._)\n\nThe utter brutality of the crimes committed in conducting this series of\nexperiments is reflected in all the documents. A report written in May\n1942 reflects that certain of these tests were carried out on persons\ndescribed therein as \u201cJewish professional criminals.\u201d In fact, these\nJews had been condemned for what the Nazis called \u201cRassenschande,\u201d which\nliterally means \u201cracial shame.\u201d The crime consisted of marriage or\nintercourse between Aryans and non-Aryans. The murder and torture of\nthese unfortunate Jews is eloquently reflected in the following report:\n\n \u201cSome of the experimental subjects died during a continued\n high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a\n height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under\n water, an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain\n vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles.\n\n \u201cIn order to find out whether the severe psychic and physical\n effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of\n embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation\n from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however\n before regaining consciousness, some experimental subjects were\n kept under water until they died. When the skull and cavities of\n the breast and of the abdomen were opened under water, an\n enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the\n brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and\n the intestines.\u201d (_NO-220._)\n\nThe victims who did not die in the course of such experiments, surely\nwished that they had. A long report written in July 1942 by Rascher, and\nby the defendants Ruff and Romberg, describes an experiment on a former\ndelicatessen clerk, who was given an oxygen mask and raised in the\nchamber to an atmospheric elevation of over 47,000 feet, at which point\nthe mask was removed and a parachute descent was simulated. The report\ndescribes the victim\u2019s reactions\u2014\u201cspasmodic convulsions,\u201d \u201cagonal\nconvulsive breathing,\u201d \u201cclonic convulsions, groaning,\u201d \u201cyells aloud,\u201d\n\u201cconvulses arms and legs,\u201d \u201cgrimaces, bites his tongue,\u201d \u201cdoes not\nrespond to speech,\u201d \u201cgives the impression of someone who is completely\nout of his mind.\u201d (_NO-402._)\n\nThe evidence which we will produce will establish that the defendants\nRuff and Romberg personally participated with Rascher in experiments\nresulting in death and torture; that the defendant Sievers watched the\nexperiments for an entire day and made an oral report to Himmler on his\nobservations; that the defendant Rudolf Brandt was the agent of Himmler\nin providing the human subjects for these experiments and in making many\nother facilities available to Rascher and rendering him general\nassistance; and that the defendant Weltz, in his official capacity,\nrepeatedly insisted on supervision over and full responsibility and\ncredit for the experiments. The higher authorities of both the German\nAir Force and the SS were fully informed concerning what was going on.\nExtensive correspondence will be introduced, for example, concerning the\navailability of the low-pressure chamber which the German Air Force\nfurnished at Dachau, and concerning the availability of Rascher, who was\nan officer in the Air Force Medical Service, to conduct the experiments.\nKnowledge of, participation in, and responsibility for these atrocious\ncrimes on the part of the defendants here charged will be clearly shown\nby the evidence.\n\n B. Freezing Experiments\n\nThe deep interest of the German Air Force in capitalizing on the\navailability of inmates of concentration camps for experimental purposes\nis even more apparent in the case of the freezing experiments. These,\ntoo, were conducted at Dachau. They began immediately after the\nhigh-altitude experiments were completed and they continued until the\nspring of 1943. Here again, the defendant Weltz was directly in charge\nof the experiments, with Rascher as his assistant, as is shown in a\nletter written in May 1942 by Field Marshal Erhard Milch, the Inspector\nGeneral of the German Air Force, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, one of\nHeinrich Himmler\u2019s principal subordinates, and this letter specifically\nrequested that the freezing experiments be carried out at Dachau under\nWeltz\u2019s supervision. (_343-A-PS._)\n\nThe purpose of these experiments was to determine the most effective way\nof rewarming German aviators who were forced to parachute into the North\nSea. The evidence will show that in the course of these experiments, the\nvictims were forced to remain outdoors without clothing in freezing\nweather from 9 to 14 hours. In other cases, they were forced to remain\nin a tank of iced water for 3 hours at a time. The water experiments are\ndescribed in a report by Rascher written in August 1942. (_1618-PS._) I\nquote:\n\n \u201cElectrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4\u00b0\n in the stomach and 26.5\u00b0 in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only\n when the brain stem and the back of the head were also chilled.\n Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts of\n free blood, up to \u00bd liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart\n invariably showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon\n as the temperature in those experiments reached 28\u00b0, the\n experimental subjects died invariably, despite all attempts at\n resuscitation.\u201d\n\nOther documents set forth that from time to time the temperature of the\nwater would be lowered by 10\u00b0 Centigrade and a quart of blood would be\ntaken from an artery in the subject\u2019s throat for analysis. The organs of\nthe victims who died were extracted and sent to the Pathological\nInstitute at Munich.\n\nRewarming of the subjects was attempted by various means, most commonly\nand successfully in a very hot bath. In September, Himmler personally\nordered that rewarming by the warmth of human bodies also be attempted,\nand the inhuman villains who conducted these experiments promptly\nproduced four gypsy women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. When\nthe women had arrived, rewarming was attempted by placing the chilled\nvictim between two naked women.\n\nA voluminous report on the freezing experiments conducted in tanks of\nice water, written in October 1942, contains the following (_NO-428_):\n\n \u201cIf the experimental subject were placed in the water under\n narcosis, one observed a certain arousing effect. The subject\n began to groan and made some defensive movements. In a few\n cases, a state of excitation developed. This was especially\n severe in the cooling of the head and neck. But never was a\n complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The defensive\n movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a\n progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the\n arm musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to\n the body. The rigor increased with the continuation of the\n cooling, now and then interrupted by tonic-clonic twitching.\n With still more marked sinking of the body temperature, it\n suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, without any\n successful results from resuscitation efforts.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cExperiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in\n the course of cooling. Upon entry into the water, a severe cold\n shuddering appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the\n head was felt as especially painful, but already after 5 to 10\n minutes, a significant weakening of the pain sensation was\n observable. Rigor developed after this time in the same manner\n as under narcosis, likewise the tonic-clonic twitchings. At this\n point, speech became difficult because the rigor also affected\n the speech musculature.\n\n \u201cSimultaneously with the rigor, a severe difficulty in breathing\n set in with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to\n speak, an iron ring was placed about the chest. Objectively,\n already at the beginning of this breathing difficulty, a marked\n dilatation of the nostrils occurred. The expiration was\n prolonged and visibly difficult. This difficulty passed over\n into a rattling and snoring breathing. * * *\u201d [Emphasis not\n shown.]\n\nDuring the winter of 1942 and 1943, experiments with \u201cdry\u201d cold were\nconducted. And Rascher reported on these in another letter to Himmler\n(_1616-PS_):\n\n \u201cUp to now, I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the\n open air during nine to fourteen hours at 27\u00b0 to 29\u00b0. After a\n time, corresponding to a trip of 1 hour, I put these subjects in\n a hot bath. Up to now, every single patient was completely\n warmed up within 1 hour at most, although some of them had their\n hands and feet frozen white.\u201d\n\nThe responsibility among the defendants for the freezing experiments is\nsubstantially the same as for the high-altitude tests. The results were,\nif anything, ever more widely known in German medical circles. In\nOctober 1942, a medical conference took place here in Nuernberg at the\nDeutscher Hof Hotel, at which one of the authors of the report from\nwhich I have just quoted spoke on the subject \u201cPrevention and Treatment\nof Freezing\u201d, and the defendant Weltz spoke on the subject \u201cWarming up\nafter Freezing to the Danger Point.\u201d Numerous documents which we will\nintroduce show the widespread responsibility among the defendants, and\nin the highest quarters of the German Air Force, for these sickening\ncrimes.\n\n C. Malaria Experiments\n\nAnother series of experiments carried out at the Dachau concentration\ncamp concerned immunization for and treatment of malaria. Over 1,200\ninmates of practically every nationality were experimented upon. Many\npersons who participated in these experiments have already been tried\nbefore a general military court held at Dachau, and the findings of that\ncourt will be laid before this Tribunal. The malaria experiments were\ncarried out under the general supervision of a Dr. Schilling, with whom\nthe defendant Sievers and others in the box collaborated. The evidence\nwill show that healthy persons were infected by mosquitoes or by\ninjections from the glands of mosquitoes. Catholic priests were among\nthe subjects. The defendant Gebhardt kept Himmler informed of the\nprogress of these experiments. Rose furnished Schilling with fly eggs\nfor them, and others of the defendants participated in various ways\nwhich the evidence will demonstrate.\n\nAfter the victims had been infected, they were variously treated with\nquinine, neosalvarsan, pyramidon, antipyrin, and several combinations of\nthese drugs. Many deaths occurred from excessive doses of neosalvarsan\nand pyramidon. According to the findings of the Dachau court, malaria\nwas the direct cause of 30 deaths and 300 to 400 others died as the\nresult of subsequent complications.\n\n D. Mustard Gas Experiments\n\nThe experiments concerning mustard gas were conducted at Sachsenhausen,\nNatzweiler, and other concentration camps and extended over the entire\nperiod of the war. Wounds were deliberately inflicted on the victims,\nand the wounds were then infected with mustard gas. Other subjects were\nforced to inhale the gas, or to take it internally in liquid form, and\nstill others were injected with the gas. A report on these experiments\nwritten at the end of 1939 described certain cases in which wounds were\ninflicted on both arms of the human guinea pigs and then infected, and\nthe report states: \u201cThe arms in most of the cases are badly swollen and\npains are enormous.\u201d\n\nThe alleged purpose of these experiments was to discover an effective\ntreatment for the burns caused by mustard gas. In 1944 the experiments\nwere coordinated with a general program for research into gas warfare. A\ndecree issued by Hitler in March 1944 ordered the defendant Karl Brandt\nto push medical research in connection with gas warfare. The defendant\nRudolf Brandt sent copies of this decree to the defendant Sievers, to\nGrawitz, and others, and transmitted Hitler\u2019s request that they confer\nsoon with the defendant Karl Brandt \u201con account of the urgency of the\norder given him by the Fuehrer.\u201d Subsequently, Sievers, who was\nthoroughly familiar with the mustard gas experiments being carried on in\nthe concentration camps, reported the details of these experiments to\nthe defendant Karl Brandt.\n\n E. and F. Ravensbrueck Experiments Concerning Sulfanilamide and Other\n Drugs; Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation\n\nThe experiments conducted principally on the female inmates of\nRavensbrueck concentration camp were perhaps the most barbaric of all.\nThese concerned bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone\ntransplantation, and experiments with sulfanilamide and other drugs.\nThey were carried out by the defendants Fischer and Oberheuser under the\ndirection of the defendant Gebhardt.\n\nIn one set of experiments, incisions were made on the legs of several of\nthe camp inmates for the purpose of simulating battle-caused infections.\nA bacterial culture, or fragments of wood shavings, or tiny pieces of\nglass were forced into the wound. After several days, the wounds were\ntreated with sulfanilamide. Grawitz, the head of the SS Medical Service,\nvisited Ravensbrueck and received a report on these experiments directly\nfrom the defendant Fischer. Grawitz thereupon directed that the wounds\ninflicted on the subjects should be even more severe so that conditions\nsimilar to those prevailing at the front lines would be more completely\nsimulated.\n\nBullet wounds were simulated on the subjects by tying off the blood\nvessels at both ends of the incision. A gangrene-producing culture was\nthen placed in the wounds. Severe infection resulted within 24 hours.\nOperations were then performed on the infected areas and the wounds were\ntreated with sulfanilamide. In each of the many sulfanilamide\nexperiments, some of the subjects were wounded and infected but were not\ngiven sulfanilamide, so as to compare their reactions with those who\nreceived treatment.\n\nBone transplantation from one person to another and the regeneration of\nnerves, muscles, and bones were also tried out on the women at\nRavensbrueck. The defendant Gebhardt personally ordered that bone\ntransplantation experiments be carried out, and in one case the scapula\nof an inmate at Ravensbrueck was removed and taken to Hohenlychen\nHospital and there transplanted. We will show that the defendants did\nnot even have any substantial scientific objective. These experiments\nwere senseless, sadistic, and utterly savage.\n\nThe defendant Oberheuser\u2019s duties at Ravensbrueck in connection with the\nexperiments were to select young and healthy inmates for the\nexperiments, to be present at all of the surgical operations, and to\ngive the experimental subjects post-operative care. We will show that\nthis care consisted chiefly of utter neglect of nursing requirements,\nand cruel and abusive treatment of the miserable victims.\n\nOther experiments in this category were conducted at Dachau to discover\na method of bringing about coagulation of the blood. Concentration camp\ninmates were actually fired upon, or were injured in some other fashion\nin order to cause something similar to a battlefield wound. These wounds\nwere then treated with a drug known as polygal in order to test its\ncapacity to coagulate the blood. Several inmates were killed.\nSulfanilamide was also administered to some and withheld from other\ninmates who had been infected with the pus from a phlegmon-diseased\nperson. Blood poisoning generally ensued. After infection, the victims\nwere left untreated for 3 or 4 days, after which various drugs were\nadministered experimentally or experimental surgical operations were\nperformed. Polish Catholic priests were used for these tests. Many died\nand others became invalids.\n\nAs a result of all of these senseless and barbaric experiments, the\ndefendants are responsible for manifold murders and untold cruelty and\ntorture.\n\n G. Sea-Water Experiments\n\nFor the sea-water experiments we return to Dachau. They were conducted\nin 1944 at the behest of the German Air Force and the German Navy in\norder to develop a method of rendering sea-water drinkable. Meetings to\ndiscuss this problem were held in May 1944, attended by representatives\nof the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and I. G. Farben. The defendants\nBecker-Freyseng and Schaefer were among the participants. It was agreed\nto conduct a series of experiments in which the subjects, fed only with\nshipwreck emergency rations, would be divided into four groups. One\ngroup would receive no water at all; the second would drink ordinary\nsea-water; the third would drink sea-water processed by the so-called\n\u201cBerka\u201d method, which concealed the taste but did not alter the saline\ncontent; the fourth would drink sea-water treated so as to remove the\nsalt.\n\nSince it was expected that the subjects would die, or at least suffer\nsevere impairment of health, it was decided at the meeting in May 1944\nthat only persons furnished by Himmler could be used. Thereafter in June\n1944 the defendant Schroeder set the program in motion by writing to\nHimmler, and I quote from his letter (_NO-185_):\n\n \u201cEarlier you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent\n medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today I\n again stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments\n on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final\n solution: The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods\n for making sea-water drinkable. The one method, developed by a\n medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and\n transforms it into real drinking water; the second method,\n suggested by an engineer, only removes the unpleasant taste from\n the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first,\n requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of\n view this method must be viewed critically, as the\n administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe\n symptoms of poisoning.\n\n \u201cAs the experiments on human beings could thus far only be\n carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands\n require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12\n days, appropriate experiments are necessary.\n\n \u201cRequired are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available\n for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that\n necessary laboratories exist in the Dachau concentration camp,\n this camp would be very suitable.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cDue to the enormous importance which a solution of this\n question has for soldiers of the Luftwaffe and Navy who have\n become shipwrecked, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear\n Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request.\u201d\n\nHimmler passed this letter to Grawitz who consulted Gebhardt and other\nSS officials. A typical and nauseating Nazi discussion of racial\nquestions ensued. One SS man suggested using quarantined prisoners and\nJews; another suggested gypsies. Grawitz doubted that experiments on\ngypsies would yield results which were scientifically applicable to\nGermans. Himmler finally directed that gypsies be used with three others\nas a check.\n\nThe tests were actually begun in July 1944. The defendant Beiglboeck\nsupervised the experiments, in the course of which the gypsy subjects\nunderwent terrible suffering, became delirious or developed convulsions,\nand some died.\n\n H. Epidemic Jaundice\n\nThe epidemic jaundice experiments, which took place at Sachsenhausen and\nNatzweiler concentration camps, were instigated by the defendant Karl\nBrandt. A letter written in 1943 by Grawitz stresses the enormous\nmilitary importance of developing an inoculation against epidemic\njaundice, which had spread extensively in the Waffen SS and the German\nArmy, particularly in southern Russia. In some companies, up to 60\npercent casualties from epidemic jaundice had occurred. Grawitz further\ninformed Himmler that, and I quote:\n\n \u201cThe General Commissioner of the Fuehrer, SS Brigadefuehrer\n Professor Dr. Brandt, has approached me with the request to help\n him obtain prisoners to be used in connection with his research\n on the causes of Epidemic Jaundice which has been furthered to a\n large degree by his efforts. * * * In order to enlarge our\n knowledge, so far based only on inoculation of animals with\n germs taken from human beings, it would not be necessary to\n reverse the procedure and inoculate human beings with germs\n cultivated in animals. Casualties (Todesfaelle) must be\n anticipated.\u201d\n\nGrawitz also had been doing research: on this problem with the\nassistance of a Dr. Dohmen, a medical officer attached to the Army\nMedical Inspectorate. Himmler made the following reply to the Grawitz\nletter (_NO-011_):\n\n \u201cI approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight\n Jews of the Polish Resistance Movement condemned to death)\n should be used for these experiments.\u201d\n\nOther evidence will indicate that the scope of these experiments was\nsubsequently enlarged and that murder, torture, and death resulted from\nthem.\n\n I. Sterilization Experiments\n\nIn the sterilization experiments conducted by the defendants at\nAuschwitz, Ravensbrueck, and other concentration camps, the destructive\nnature of the Nazi medical program comes out most forcibly. The Nazis\nwere searching for methods of extermination, both by murder and\nsterilization, of large population groups, by the most scientific and\nleast conspicuous means. They were developing a new branch of medical\nscience which would give them the scientific tools for the planning and\npractice of genocide. The primary purpose was to discover an\ninexpensive, unobtrusive, and rapid method of sterilization which could\nbe used to wipe out Russians, Poles, Jews, and other people. Surgical\nsterilization was thought to be too slow and expensive to be used on a\nmass scale. A method to bring about an unnoticed sterilization was\nthought desirable.\n\nMedicinal sterilizations were therefore carried out. A Dr. Madaus had\nstated that caladium seguinum, a drug obtained from a North American\nplant, if taken orally or by injection, would bring about sterilization.\nIn 1941 the defendant Pokorny called this to Himmler\u2019s attention, and\nsuggested that it should be developed and used against Russian prisoners\nof war. I quote one paragraph from Pokorny\u2019s letter written at that time\n(_NO-035_):\n\n \u201cIf, on the basis of this research, it were possible to produce\n a drug which after a relatively short time, effects an\n imperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have\n a powerful new weapon at our disposal. The thought alone that\n the 3 million Bolsheviks, who are at present German prisoners,\n could be sterilized so that they could be used as laborers but\n be prevented from reproduction, opens the most far-reaching\n perspectives.\u201d\n\nAs a result of Pokorny\u2019s suggestion, experiments were conducted on\nconcentration camp inmates to test the effectiveness of the drug. At the\nsame time efforts were made to grow the plant on a large scale in\nhothouses.\n\nAt the Auschwitz concentration camp sterilization experiments were also\nconducted on a large scale by a Dr. Karl Clauberg, who had developed a\nmethod of sterilizing women, based on the injection of an irritating\nsolution. Several thousand Jewesses and gypsies were sterilized at\nAuschwitz by this method.\n\nConversely, surgical operations were performed on sexually abnormal\ninmates at Buchenwald in order to determine whether their virility could\nbe increased by the transplantation of glands. Out of 14 subjects of\nthese experiments, at least 2 died.\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt also personally conducted sterilizations at\nRavensbrueck by surgical operation. The defendant Viktor Brack, in March\n1941, submitted to Himmler a report on the progress and state of X-ray\nsterilization experiments. Brack explained that it had been determined\nthat sterilization with powerful X-rays could be accomplished and that\ncastration would then result. The danger of this X-ray method lay in the\nfact that other parts of the body, if they were not protected with lead,\nwere also seriously affected. In order to prevent the victims from\nrealizing that they were being castrated, Brack made the following\nfantastic suggestion in his letter written in 1941 to Himmler, from\nwhich I quote (_NO-203_):\n\n \u201cOne way to carry out these experiments in practice would be to\n have those people who are to be treated line up before a\n counter. There they would be questioned and a form would be\n given them to be filled out, the whole process taking 2 or 3\n minutes. The official attendant who sits behind the counter can\n operate the apparatus in such a manner that he works a switch\n which will start both tubes together (as the rays have to come\n from both sides). With one such installation with two tubes\n about 150 to 200 persons could be sterilized daily, while 20\n installations would take care of 3,000 to 4,000 persons daily.\n In my opinion the number of daily deportations will not exceed\n this figure.\u201d\n\nIn this same report the defendant Brack related that, and I quote\n(_NO-203_):\n\n \u201c* * * the latest X-ray technique and research make it easily\n possible to carry out mass sterilization by means of X-rays.\n However, it appears to be impossible to take these measures\n without having those who were so treated finding out sooner or\n later that they definitely had been either sterilized or had\n been castrated by X-rays.\u201d\n\nAnother letter from Brack to Himmler, in June 1942, laid the basis for\nX-ray experiments which were subsequently carried out at Auschwitz. The\nsecond paragraph of this letter forms a fitting conclusion to this\naccount of Nazi depravity, and I quote (_NO-205_):\n\n \u201cAmong 10 millions of Jews in Europe there are, I figure, at\n least 2 to 3 millions of men and women who are fit enough to\n work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the labor\n problem presents us with, I hold the view that these 2 to 3\n millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can,\n however, only be done if at the same time they are rendered\n incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that\n agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for this\n purpose. I would like to recall these facts once more.\n Sterilization, as normally performed on persons with hereditary\n diseases, is here out of the question because it takes too long\n and is too expensive. Castration by X-rays, however, is not only\n relatively cheap but can also be performed on many thousands in\n the shortest time. I think that at this time it is already\n irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having\n been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the\n effects.\u201d\n\n J. Typhus (Fleckfieber) and Related Experiments\n\nFrom December 1941, until near the end of the war, a large program of\nmedical experimentation was carried out upon concentration camp inmates\nat Buchenwald and Natzweiler to investigate the value of various\nvaccines. This research involved a variety of diseases\u2014typhus, yellow\nfever, smallpox, paratyphoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria. A dozen\nor more of the defendants were involved in these experiments which were\ncharacterized by the most cynical disregard of human life. Hundreds of\npersons died. The experiments concerning typhus\u2014known in Germany as\nFleckfieber or \u201cspot fever\u201d, but is not to be confused with American\nspotted fever\u2014were particularly appalling.\n\nThe typhus experiments at Natzweiler were conducted by Dr. Eugen Haagen,\nan officer in the Air Force Medical Service and a professor at the\nUniversity of Strasbourg. In the fall of 1943, through the defendant\nSievers, Haagen obtained 100 concentration camp prisoners for\nexperiments with typhus vaccines. Two hundred more prisoners were\nfurnished in the summer of 1944. These experiments caused many\nfatalities among the prisoners.\n\nThe general pattern of these typhus experiments was as follows. A group\nof concentration camp inmates, selected from the healthier ones who had\nsome resistance to disease, were injected with an anti-typhus vaccine,\nthe efficacy of which was to be tested. Thereafter, all the persons in\nthe group would be infected with typhus. At the same time, other inmates\nwho had not been vaccinated were also infected for purposes of\ncomparison\u2014these unvaccinated victims were called the \u201ccontrol\u201d group.\nBut perhaps the most wicked and murderous circumstance in this whole\ncase is that still other inmates were deliberately infected with typhus\nwith the sole purpose of keeping the typhus virus alive and generally\navailable in the bloodstream of the inmates.\n\nThe typhus murders at Buchenwald were carried out in 1942 and 1943 under\nthe direction of the defendants Genzken and Mrugowsky. Requests for the\nhuman guinea pigs were turned over to, and filled by, the defendant\nHoven. The bulk of the actual work was done by an infamous physician\nknown as Dr. Ding, who committed suicide after the war. But Dr. Ding\u2019s\nprofessional diary has survived.\n\nThe first entry in Ding\u2019s diary, for 29 December 1941, reveals that here\nagain the impetus for these murderous researches came from the\nWehrmacht. This entry describes a conference sponsored by the defendant\nHandloser and Dr. Conti, respective heads of the military and civilian\nmedical services of the Reich, which was also attended by the defendant\nMrugowsky. Typhus had been making serious inroads on the German troops\nfighting in Russia. The account of this conference relates that, and I\nquote (_NO-265_):\n\n \u201cSince tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on\n human beings must be carried out.\u201d\n\nOther entries in the Ding diary quoted below are typical of those made\nover a period of 3 years, and give some idea of the mortality among the\nvictims. (_NO-265._)\n\n \u201c_10 Jan 42: Preliminary test B_: Preliminary test to establish\n a sure means of infection: Much as in smallpox vaccination, 5\n persons were infected with virus through 2 superficial and 2\n deeper cuts in the upper arm. All of the humans used for this\n test fell ill with true typhus. Incubation period up to 6 days.\n\n \u201c_20 Feb 42_: Chart of the case history of the preliminary tests\n to establish a sure means of infection were sent to Berlin. One\n death out of five sick.\n\n \u201c_17 Mar 42_: Visit of Prof. Gildemeister and Prof. Rose\n (department head for tropical medicine of the Robert Koch\n Institute) at the experimental station. All persons experimented\n on fell sick with typhus, except two, who, the fact was\n established later, already had been sick with typhus during an\n epidemic at the police prison in Berlin.\n\n \u201c_9 Jan 43_: By order of the surgeon general of the Waffen SS,\n SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS, Dr.\n Genzken, the hitherto existing typhus research station at the\n concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the \u2018Department for Typhus\n and Virus Research\u2019. The head of the department will be SS\n Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station\n medical officer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n Hoven will supervise the production of vaccines.\n\n \u201c_13 and 14 Apr 43_: Unit of SS Sturmbannfeuhrer Dr. Ding\n ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G., Hoechst. Conference with\n Prof. Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber and Dr. Fussgaenger about the\n experimental series \u2018Acridine Granulate and Rutenol\u2019 in the\n concentration camp Buchenwald. Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Prof.\n Prigge in the institute for experimental therapeutics in\n Frankfurt-on-Main.\n\n \u201c_24 Apr 1943_: Therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate\n (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2) to carry out the therapeutic\n experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, 30 persons (15 each)\n and 9 persons for control were infected by intravenous injection\n of 2 cc. each of fresh blood of a typhus sick person. All\n experimental persons got very serious typhus.\n\n \u201c_1 Jun 1943_: Charts of case history completed. The\n experimental series was concluded with 21 deaths; of these, 8\n were in Buchenwald, 8 with Rutenol and 5 control.\n\n \u201c_7 Sep 1943_: Chart and case history completed. The\n experimental series was concluded with 53 deaths.\n\n \u201c_8 Mar-18 Mar 1944_: It is suggested by Colonel of this air\n corps, Prof. Rose, the vaccine \u2018Kopenhagen\u2019, produced from mouse\n liver by the National Serum Institute in Kopenhagen, be tested\n for its compatibility on humans. Twenty persons were vaccinated\n for immunization by intramuscular injection. * * * Ten persons\n were contemplated for control and comparison.\n\n \u201c_16 Apr 1944_: The remaining experimental persons were infected\n on 16 April by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick\n fresh blood. The following feel sick: 17 persons immunized: 9\n medium, 8 seriously. Nine persons from the control: 2 medium, 7\n seriously.\n\n \u201c_13 Jun 1944_: Chart and case history completed and sent to\n Berlin. Six deaths (3 \u2018Kopenhagen\u2019) (3 control).\n\n \u201c_4 Nov 1944_: Chart and case history completed. Twenty-four\n deaths.\u201d\n\nCopies of each of Dr. Ding\u2019s official reports went to the defendants\nMrugowsky and Poppendick as well as to the I. G. Farben laboratories at\nHoechst. Nowhere will the evidence in this case reveal a more wicked and\nmurderous course of conduct by men who claimed to practice the healing\nart than in the entries of Dr. Ding\u2019s diary relating to the typhus\nexperiments.\n\n K. Poison Experiments\n\nHere again the defendants were studying how to kill, and the scene is\nBuchenwald. Poisons were administered to Russian prisoners of war in\ntheir food, and German doctors stood behind a curtain to watch the\nreactions of the prisoners. Some of the Russians died immediately, and\nthe survivors were killed in order to permit autopsies.\n\nThe defendant Mrugowsky, in a letter written in September 1944, has\nprovided us with a record of another experiment in which the victims\nwere shot with poisoned bullets, and I quote (_NO-201_):\n\n \u201cIn the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann\n and the undersigned, experiments with aconitin nitrate\n projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who\n had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of\n a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled with crystallized poison. The\n experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in\n the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were\n cleanly shot through. Afterwards, no effect of the poison was to\n be observed. These two experimental subjects were therefore\n exempted.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cDuring the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show\n any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a\n medium dilation, together with a retarded light reaction.\n Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing\n inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The\n pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65\n minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the\n poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two\n of them were also negative. After approximately 90 minutes, one\n of the subjects again started breathing heavily; this was\n accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the heavy\n breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration,\n accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried\n in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his\n hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could\n not vomit. His face was flushed.\n\n \u201cThe other two experimental subjects had already early shown a\n pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest\n increased so much that the persons flung themselves up and then\n down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their\n hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils\n dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless. * * *\n Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the\n projectile.\u201d\n\n L. Incendiary Bomb Experiments\n\nThese experiments were likewise carried out at Buchenwald, and the Ding\ndiary gives us the facts. In November 1943 five persons were\ndeliberately burned with phosphorous material taken from an English\nincendiary bomb. The victims were permanently and seriously injured.\n\n M. Jewish Skeleton Collection\n\nI come now to charges stated in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the indictment.\nThese are perhaps the most utterly repulsive charges in the entire\nindictment. They concern the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers.\nSievers and his associates in the Ahnenerbe Society were completely\nobsessed by all the vicious and malignant Nazi racial theories. They\nconceived the notion of applying these nauseous theories in the field of\nanthropology. What ensued was murderous folly.\n\nIn February 1942, Sievers submitted to Himmler, through Rudolf Brandt, a\nreport from which the following is an extract (_NO-085_):\n\n \u201cWe have a nearly complete collection of skulls of all races and\n peoples at our disposal. Only very few specimens of skulls of\n the Jewish race, however, are available with the result that it\n is impossible to arrive at precise conclusions from examining\n them. The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity\n to overcome this deficiency. By procuring the skulls of the\n Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who represent the prototype of the\n repulsive, but characteristic subhuman, we have the chance now\n to obtain a palpable, scientific document.\n\n \u201cThe best, practical method for obtaining and collecting this\n skull material could be handled by directing the Wehrmacht to\n turn over alive all captured Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to the\n Field Police. They in turn are to be given special directives to\n inform a certain office at regular intervals of the number and\n place of detention of these captured Jews and to give them\n special close attention and care until a special delegate\n arrives. This special delegate, who will be in charge of\n securing the \u2018material\u2019 has the job of taking a series of\n previously established photographs, anthropological\n measurements, and in addition has to determine, as far as\n possible, the background, date of birth, and other personal data\n of the prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the\n Jew, whose head should not be damaged, the delegate will\n separate the head from the body and will forward it to its\n proper point of destination in a hermetically sealed tin can,\n especially produced for this purpose and filled with a\n conserving fluid.\n\n \u201cHaving arrived at the laboratory, the comparison tests and\n anatomical research on the skull, as well as determination of\n the race membership of pathological features of the skull form,\n the form and size of the brain, etc., can proceed. The basis of\n these studies will be the photos, measurements, and other data\n supplied on the head, and finally the tests of the skull\n itself.\u201d\n\nAfter extensive correspondence between Himmler and the defendants\nSievers and Rudolf Brandt, it was decided to procure the skulls from\ninmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp instead of at the front. The\nhideous program was actually carried out, as is shown by a letter from\nSievers written in June 1943, which states in part (_NO-087_):\n\n \u201cI wish to inform you that our associate, Dr. Beger, who was in\n charge of the above special project, has interrupted his\n experiments in the concentration camp Auschwitz because of the\n existing danger of epidemics. Altogether 115 persons were worked\n on, 79 were Jews, 30 were Jewesses, 2 were Poles, and 4 were\n Asiatics. At the present time these prisoners are segregated by\n sex and are under quarantine in the two hospital buildings of\n Auschwitz.\u201d\n\nAfter the death of these wretched Jews had been \u201cinduced\u201d their corpses\nwere sent to Strasbourg. A year elapsed, and the Allied armies were\nracing across France and were nearing Strasbourg where this monstrous\nexhibit of the culture of the master race reposed. Alarmed, Sievers sent\na telegram to Rudolf Brandt in September 1944, from which I quote:\n\n \u201cAccording to the proposal of 9 February 1942, and your approval\n of 23 February 1942, Professor Dr. Hirt has assembled a skeleton\n collection which has never been in existence before. Because of\n the vast amount of scientific research that is connected with\n this project, the job of reducing the corpses to skeletons has\n not yet been completed. Since it might require some time to\n process 80 corpses, Hirt requested a decision pertaining to the\n treatment of the collection stored in the morgue of the Anatomy,\n in case Strasbourg should be endangered. The collection can be\n defleshed and rendered unrecognizable. This, however, would mean\n that the whole work had been done for nothing\u2014at least in\n part\u2014and that this singular collection would be lost to\n science, since it would be impossible to make plaster casts\n afterwards. The skeleton collection, as such is inconspicuous.\n The flesh parts could be declared as having been left by the\n French at the time we took over the Anatomy and would be turned\n over for cremating. Please advise me which of the following\n three proposals is to be carried out:\n\n (1) The collection as a whole is to be preserved.\n\n (2) The collection is to be dissolved in part.\n\n (3) The collection is to be completely dissolved.\u201d\n\nThe final chapter of this barbaric enterprise is found in a note in\nHimmler\u2019s files addressed to Rudolf Brandt stating that:\n\n \u201cDuring his visit at the Operational Headquarters on 21 November\n 1944, Sievers told me that the collection in Strasbourg had been\n completely dissolved in conformance with the directive given him\n at the time. He is of the opinion that this arrangement is for\n the best in view of the whole situation.\u201d\n\nThese men, however, reckoned without the hand of fate. The bodies of\nthese unfortunate people were not completely disposed of, and this\nTribunal will hear the testimony of witnesses and see pictorial exhibits\ndepicting the charnel house which was the Anatomy Institute of the Reich\nUniversity of Strasbourg.\n\nI have now completed the sketch of some of the foul crimes which these\ndefendants committed in the name of research. The horrible record of\ntheir degradation needs no underlining. But German medical science was\nin past years honored throughout the world, and many of the most\nillustrious names in medical research are German. How did these things\ncome to pass? I will outline briefly the historical evidence which we\nwill offer and which, I believe, will show that these crimes were the\nlogical and inevitable outcome of the prostitution of German medicine\nunder the Nazis.\n\n GERMAN MEDICAL ORGANIZATION\n Before 1933\n\nTwo years after the reconstitution of the German Reich, in 1871, the\nGerman Medical Association (Deutscher Aerztevereinsbund) was created,\nwhich tied together the older local medical associations. This society\nexisted until it was abolished by the Nazi Government. Its structure was\ndemocratic, and its interests included problems of hygiene and public\nhealth, and to an increasing extent, socio-medical problems especially\nin the field of sickness and disability insurance.\n\nBismarck\u2019s legislation of 1881 established compulsory sickness insurance\nfor workmen. In the course of the ensuing years, the vast bulk of the\nworkmen were insured, and consequently most of the ordinary physician\u2019s\npatients came to be insured patients. There were lists of physicians\nauthorized to treat insured patients, and it was a matter of vital\nmoment to every practicing physician to be listed. To protect their\ninterest with respect to listing, fees, and other such problems, the\nGerman doctors founded a voluntary association for the defense of their\neconomic interests known as the Hartmann Bund.\n\nQuestions of professional ethics, medical malpractice, etc., were\nhandled in Germany in two distinct sets of medical boards or \u201cCourts.\u201d\nAn entirely unofficial and voluntary system was established by the\nGerman Medical Association. The other, which was endowed with\nsemi-official status, was called the Reich Chamber of Physicians. These\nchambers were elected by vote of the members and were supported by an\nassessment.\n\nIn addition to these organizations, there existed in Germany purely\nprofessional societies of doctors, where papers concerning scientific\nand practical problems were read and discussed, and which established\nconnections with similar societies abroad. The German Government\nagencies which supervised the certification and licensing of physicians\nas well as their professional activities were the Ministry of Education\nand the Reich Health Office (Reichsgesundheitsamt) in the Ministry of\nthe Interior. The latter supervised medical practice and licensing\nthrough the channels of the Ministries of the Interior of the various\nGerman states, although licensing was a federal function rather than a\nstate function.\n\nMedical education and training were rather standardized but good. The\nstudents spent 5 or 6 years at one of several of the medical\nuniversities; they took a final examination covering their clinical\nstudies and then spent a year at an authorized hospital under\nsupervision. Thereafter the interns were licensed and permitted to\nestablish a practice. After two more years they became eligible to treat\ninsurance patients, and, after submitting a thesis, could obtain the\ndegree of doctor from a university.\n\n Immediate Impact of Nazism on German Medicine\n\nIn the years immediately preceding the Third Reich, physicians\u2019\norganizations devoted to Party politics sprang up. One of these was the\nNational Socialist Physicians\u2019 Society, founded in 1929, in which Conti\nplayed a leading role. There was a rival association of Social\nDemocratic Physicians, and a Socialist Society of Physicians. These\nsocieties proposed candidates for election to the Physicians\u2019 Chambers,\nand thus the National Socialist Physicians\u2019 Society and the Socialist\nassociations came to compete with each other.\n\nThe notorious \u201cboycott day\u201d in Berlin, 1 April 1933, was a day of\ndisgrace for German medicine. Members of the National Socialist\nPhysicians\u2019 Society, who knew the membership lists of the Socialist\nsocieties and the lists of Jewish physicians, broke into the apartments\nof their Socialist and Jewish colleagues in the early morning hours,\npulled them out of their beds, beat them and brought them to the\nexhibition area near the Berlin Lehrter Station. There, all of them,\nincluding men up to 70 years old, were forced to run around the garden,\nas in a hippodrome, and they were shot at with pistols or beaten with\nsticks. There they had to stay for several days without sufficient food,\nand then were handed over to the SA which carried part of them to the\ncellars at the Hedemannstrasse jail for further tortures.\n\nThereafter, the members of the Socialist Society of Physicians were\nbarred from all insurance practice because of \u201cCommunist and subversive\nactivities.\u201d In the subsequent listings of physicians issued by the\ninsurance companies, the Jewish physicians were included in a separate\nlist headed \u201cEnemies of the State or Jews.\u201d Soon, the insurance\ncompanies, even private ones, were no longer permitted to pay fees to\nthe Jewish physicians. Immediately thereafter, Jewish physicians were\nexcluded from all professional and scientific societies. At first, those\nwho were war veterans were nominally allowed to carry on their insurance\npractice, but patients who kept going to them were threatened and\nexposed to all kinds of unpleasantness on the part of the insurance\nofficials.\n\nAfter the war began, certification and licensing were withdrawn from all\nJewish physicians and they were degraded to the status of lay\ntherapists. These physicians were forced to wear a blue shield with the\nStar of David and had to add a middle name such as \u201cSarah\u201d or \u201cIsrael.\u201d\nTheir prescriptions likewise had to bear the Star of David, which\nexposed their patients to all kinds of unpleasantness when filling them\nat pharmacies, most of which had signs in their windows reading \u201cJews\nnot wanted.\u201d\n\nAt first, the Aryan physicians were allowed to treat Jewish patients,\nbut finally they were prohibited from doing so. Hospitals refused\nadmission to Jewish patients, apart from a few courageous ones who\nadmitted them in defiance of the law. Jews were admitted to mental\ninstitutions in separate wards, but usually were quickly transported\nelsewhere for extermination.\n\nIn the early summer of 1943, Conti instigated and directed a wholesale\npersecution of doctors who were either foreigners or persons of\nso-called mixed blood and those related by marriage to Jews. At first,\nthey were removed from their practice and sent off to posts under\ninferior Party doctors. In 1944, Conti went a step further and forbade\nthese physicians to practice. They were drafted into the Speer\norganization, in which they were employed solely at manual labor, their\nliving conditions being little better than those of concentration camp\ninmates.\n\n Prostitution of German Medicine Under National Socialism\n\nThe totalitarian structure of the Nazi State demanded fundamental\nsubordination of all principles of medicine to National Socialist\npopulation policy and racial concepts. The most emphatic and repelling\nexpression of those new aims and goals came from the Nazi Director of\nPublic Health in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Arthur Guett, who\ntook office in 1933. In a book published in 1935 entitled \u201cThe Structure\nof Public Health in the Third Reich,\u201d Guett announced that \u201cthe\nill-conceived \u2018love of thy neighbor\u2019 has to disappear, especially in\nrelation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a\nnational state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and\nhereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the\nmaintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all\neternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of\nthat ultimate aim, that is, in the light of his meaning to his family\nand to his national state.\u201d\n\nThe entire public health policy of the Third Reich was put in line with\nthis pronouncement of principles. The Minister of the Interior, Frick,\nreorganized the Health Department in his ministry in such a way that\npolice, public health, welfare administration and social services were\nall coordinated in pursuit of these goals. The beginnings of this\nreorganization started already in the summer of 1933 and were\nsubstantially completed by 1936. All these activities were concentrated\nunder Dr. Guett, who was thus enabled to coordinate the practical\napplication of his policy with his theoretical principles. Even\npsychiatric social service agencies, which did thorough and\nwell-organized work prior to 1933, were reduced to mere screening\nstations for hereditary and racial selection.\n\nAll government-employed physicians had to take a special new course\nlasting 18 months and had to be Party members. The German Red Cross was\nlikewise drawn into the orbit of the Nazi Party and the SS, in view of\nDr. Grawitz\u2019 appointment as president of the Red Cross. In 1945, after\nGrawitz\u2019 suicide, the defendant Gebhardt succeeded him.\n\nThe Third Reich also completely reorganized the professional medical\nsocieties. The German Medical Association and the Hartmann Bund were\nabolished. All German physicians were reorganized through an\norganization derived from the Reich Physicians\u2019 Chamber. This National\nPhysicians\u2019 Chamber was placed directly under a medical \u201cfuehrer\u201d with\nthe title of \u201cReichsaerztefuehrer.\u201d This position was also held by\nConti. All doctors except those on active military duty were subordinate\nto him. His regional deputies were selected from the ranks of active\nNational Socialists who terrorized the district branch societies. These\ndeputies, who usually strutted about in SA or SS uniforms, were\nrecruited mainly from the early members of the National Socialist\nMedical Association. It was their job to bring pressure on physicians to\njoin and take part in various party organizations, such as the SA and\nSS.\n\nA command performance, especially for younger physicians, was attendance\nat the so-called Fuehrer-School of German Physicians at Altrehse in\nMecklenburg, which had been organized by the defendant Blome. There\nphysicians were indoctrinated in the National Socialist point of view\nand way of life. The so-called comradely association and sports activity\nwere merely window dressing for political spying. These courses finally\nbecame compulsory and had to be attended for several months annually.\n\nThe general respect, in which doctors were held, sunk in view of the\ndecreasing level of general education and ability of the doctors. This\nwas partly due to the constant occupation of the physicians\u2019 time with\nParty functions, especially the time-consuming Party formations and\nmarches which made it impossible for young physicians to develop\nscientific interests, so that recent graduates increasingly lost\nunderstanding and inclination for serious scientific study and\nlong-range research.\n\n Medical School and Medical Training Under the Nazis\n\nOn paper, medical training under the Nazis differed little from that of\nthe pre-Nazi era. However, its fundamental spirit was ruinously\ndistorted and medical standards suffered a dismal decline.\n\nMedical students had to be \u201cAryan,\u201d and were required to belong to the\nNational Socialist Students\u2019 League. The students\u2019 entire course of\nstudies was constantly interrupted by the demands of the various party\norganizations to which they were forced to belong. A student whose\nknowledge of the racial theories and Nuernberg laws was not sufficient\nwould fail his medical examinations.\n\nChairs in the universities were filled in many cases by Nazi so-called\n\u201cprofessors\u201d who might or might not have a scientific background. The\ntrue scientific societies under the Nazi regime became less and less\nactive, and the Nazi professors in the universities devoted more time\nand interest to their SA or SS organizations than to the teaching of\nmedicine. These Nazi professors would don their brown SA or black SS\nuniforms on all possible occasions, exchanging them proudly for their\nacademic gowns at all academic celebrations and meetings.\n\nThe worst Nazi politicians, like Streicher, were given the free run of\nuniversity clinics, such as at Erlangen. This submissiveness to lay\npoliticians led to a general decline of respect for German academic\nmedicine not only on the part of their own public and abroad but even on\nthe part of the very same politicians before whom they kowtowed. This\nwent so far that Streicher, when addressing a full faculty meeting at\nthe University of Erlangen in 1936, called the assembled professors\n\u201ccomplete idiots\u201d to their faces. This was by no means an isolated\noccurrence.\n\nParticularly deplorable was the degradation of psychiatry. Psychiatric\nuniversity teaching declined to the level of a mere rehashing of the\nNuernberg and sterilization laws. The modern techniques of psychotherapy\nhad been abandoned, and treatment deteriorated to pep talks full of Nazi\nindoctrination admonitions and threats. No wonder that these methods\nbackfired against the best interest of the German war effort which they\nwere foolishly intended to serve. The lack of proper understanding and\ntreatment of German soldiers who developed combat fatigue or neuroses,\non the part of their own medical personnel, drove many of them to\nsurrender to the enemy; efforts to rehabilitate them and restore them to\nduty were frustrated by the ruinous infusion of Nazi doctrine.\n\n Summary\n\nThe general decline of German medical conduct and the poisoning of\nGerman medical ethics which the Nazis brought about laid the basis for\nthe atrocious experiments of which the defendants are accused.\n\nMany of these were experiments in name only; we will show them to have\nbeen senseless and clumsy and of no real value to medicine as a healing\nart. The Nazi medical world was flooded with preposterous and wicked\nnotions about superior and inferior races and developed a perverted\nmoral outlook in which cruelty to subjugated races and peoples was\npraiseworthy. Training in SA and SS formations was hardly calculated to\ndevelop physicians who could comprehend even the bare elements of the\ndoctor-patient relationship. In this noxious garden of lies, the seeds\nof the experiments were planted. In the climate of Nazi Germany, they\ngrew with horrible rapidity.\n\n CRIMES OF MASS EXTERMINATION; MURDER OF\n POLISH NATIONALS\n\nFrom the preaching of Guett and others sprang the notions which underlie\nthe crimes to which we will now turn. Here we leave behind all\nsemblance, however fictitious, of science and research. Under these\nteachings, life and livelihood became the birthright of no one. The weak\nand the physically handicapped are in the way and must be pushed aside.\nInferior peoples are born to be exterminated by the Herrenvolk.\n\nThe charges in paragraphs 8 and 13 of the indictment concern the\ndefendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The original impetus for this\nterrible mass murder came from a fiend named Greiser, who was the German\nGovernor of the northwest portions of Poland, which had been absorbed\ninto the Reich under the name \u201cWartheland.\u201d Early in 1942, Greiser was\nin the process of exterminating thousands of Jews in his territory, and\nhe decided to turn his attention next to Poles infected with\ntuberculosis. I call the Tribunal\u2019s special attention to the German word\n\u201cSonderbehandlung.\u201d In the next document, as will be shown, it occurs\nfrequently in Nazi correspondence and was used by them to mean\nextermination. In May 1942, Greiser wrote to Himmler as follows\n(_NO-246_):\n\n \u201cThe special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews\n in the territory of my district approved by you in agreement\n with the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS\n Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, can be completed within the next 2\n to 3 months. I ask you for permission to rescue the district\n immediately after the measures are taken against the Jews, from\n a menace, which is increasing week by week, and to use the\n existing and efficient special commandos for that purpose.\n\n \u201cThere are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my\n district who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The\n number of persons infected with open tuberculosis is estimated\n at about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasing frightening\n measure to the infection of Germans, who came to the Warthegau\n perfectly healthy. In particular, reports are received with\n ever-increasing effect of German children in danger of\n infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men,\n especially of the police, have been infected lately and are not\n available for the war effort because of the necessary medical\n treatment. The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and\n appreciated by the deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health\n (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer) Comrade Professor Dr. Blome as well\n as by the leader of your X-ray battalion SS Standartenfuehrer\n Professor Dr. Hohlfelder.\n\n \u201cThough in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate\n draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take\n responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open TB\n exterminated among the Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of\n course only a Pole should be handed over to such an action, who\n is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but whose\n incurability is proved and certified by a public health officer.\n\n \u201cConsidering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval\n in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make\n the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the\n action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under\n way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing\n stages.\u201d\n\nGreiser\u2019s proposal was supported in a letter from one, Koppe, the SS and\npolice leader in that region, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, to which\nBrandt replied stating that the matter was under consideration and that\nthe final decision would rest with Hitler. Late in June, Himmler sent a\n\u201cfavorable\u201d reply to Greiser cautioning him, however, that the\nexterminations should be carried out inconspicuously. Thereafter,\nconsultations as to how to carry out the measure occurred between\nGreiser, Dr. Hohlfelder, and the defendant Blome. The views of Blome are\nembodied in a letter from him to Greiser written in November 1942. This\nletter contains an indescribably brutal analysis of the situation, in\nwhich Blome expresses agreement with the view that extermination of the\ntubercular Poles is the simplest and most logical solution, and\nexpresses doubt as to its desirability only in that it would be\ndifficult to keep such widespread slaughter secret, and that Hitler\nmight think the program politically inexpedient if the facts should ever\ncome out.\n\nI quote from the letter of defendant Blome (_NO-250_):\n\n \u201cIt was calculated that in 1939 there were among the Poles about\n 35,000 persons suffering from open tuberculosis and, besides\n this number, about 120,000 other consumptives in need of\n treatment. * * *\n\n \u201cWith the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau an\n enormous danger has arisen for them. A number of cases of\n infection of settled children and adults occurs daily.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cTherefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide\n the most efficient way in which this can be done. There are\n three ways to be taken into consideration:\n\n 1. Special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of the seriously\n ill persons.\n\n 2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons.\n\n 3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients.\n\n \u201cFor the planning, attention must be paid to different points of\n view of a practical, political, and psychological nature.\n Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the\n following: Aided by the X-ray battalion [Roentgen Sturmbann] we\n could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau\n during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment\n and isolation are to be prepared and carried out according to\n the regulations for Tuberculosis Relief [Tuberkulosehilfe].\n\n \u201cThe approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious\n will be \u2018specially treated\u2019 [sonderbehandelt]. All other Polish\n consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order\n to save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion.\n\n \u201cAccording to your request I made arrangements with the offices\n in question, in order to start and carry out this radical\n procedure within half a year. You told me, that the competent\n office agreed with you as to this \u2018special treatment\u2019 and\n promised support. Before we definitely start the program, I\n think it would be correct if you would make sure once more that\n the Fuehrer will really agree to such a solution.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cThere can be no doubt that the intended program is the most\n simple and most radical solution. If absolute secrecy could be\n guaranteed, all scruples\u2014regardless of what nature\u2014could be\n overcome. But I consider maintaining secrecy impossible.\n Experience has taught us that this assumption is true. Should\n those sick persons, having been brought, as planned, to the old\n Reich supposedly to be treated or healed, and they actually\n never return, the relatives of those sick persons in spite of\n the greatest secrecy would some day notice \u2018that something was\n not quite right\u2019.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cTherefore, I think it necessary to explain all those points of\n view to the Fuehrer before undertaking the program, as, in my\n opinion he is the only one able to view the entire complex and\n to come to a decision.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution will introduce evidence to show that the program was in\nfact carried out at the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, and that\nas a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many Poles\nwere ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to isolated\ncamps, utterly lacking in medical facilities, where thousands of them\ndied.\n\n EUTHANASIA\n\nOn 1 September 1939, the very day of the German attack on Poland, and\nafter a great deal of discussion between Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Leonardo\nConti, Philipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and\nothers, Hitler issued the following authority to the defendant Karl\nBrandt (_630-PS_):\n\n \u201cReichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with\n the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain\n physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that\n persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can,\n upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be\n accorded a mercy death.\n\n [Signed] ADOLF HITLER\u201d\n\nAfter the receipt of this order, an organization was set up to execute\nthis program, Karl Brandt headed the medical section and Philipp\nBouhler, the administrative section. The defendant Hoven, as chief\nsurgeon of the Buchenwald concentration camp, took part in the program\nand personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish\ninmates of different nationalities, mostly non-German, to their death in\nthe euthanasia station at Bernburg. The defendants Brack and Blome\nparticipated in their capacities as assistants to Bouhler and Conti.\n\nQuestionnaires were forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior from the\nvarious institutes and were then submitted to Karl Brandt and his staff\nfor an expert opinion in order to determine the status of each patient.\nThen each of those experts indicated his opinion as to the eventual\ndisposition of the patient; that is, whether or not the patient should\nbe transferred to a killing station. The questionnaires were supposedly\nreturned to the Ministry of the Interior, which, in turn, sent lists of\nthe doomed patients to the different insane asylums, ordering the\ndirectors of the asylums to hand over the patients to a thing called the\nGeneral Sick Transport Corporation for transfer to the particular\nstations where the killings took place. This Transport Corporation was\nnot a real organization, but one of the code names used to disguise the\ntrue nature of the activities. The patients were then transferred to the\nstation where they were immediately killed. This entire procedure took\nplace without the consent of the relatives, but the relatives did\nreceive a death certificate on which the cause of death was falsified.\n\nThe Euthanasia Program was an open secret in top Nazi circles. However,\nevery possible effort had been made to keep it from the public in order\nto avoid intervention by the churches. In spite of all these\nprecautions, it became commonly known in Germany as early as the summer\nof 1940 that these killings were going on and church authorities, as\nwell as various legal officials, tried in vain to stop the killings.\n\nTypical of the letters reaching the Minister of Justice and the Minister\nof Interior is the following:\n\nAddressed to The Reich Minister of Justice:\n\n \u201cI have a schizophrenic son in a Wuerttemberg mental\n institution. I am shocked about the following absolutely\n reliable information.\n\n \u201cSince some weeks insane persons are being taken from the\n institutions allegedly on the grounds of military evacuation.\n The directors of the institutions are enjoined to absolute\n secrecy. Shortly afterwards the relatives are informed that the\n sick person has died of encephalitis. The ashes are available if\n so desired. This is plain murder just as in the concentration\n camps. This measure uniformly emanates from the SS in Berlin.\n The institutions dare not inform the authorities. Inquire at\n once at Rottenmuenster, Schassenried, Winzertal, all in\n Wuerttemberg. Have the lists of 2 months ago examined and\n submitted to you, check upon the inmates who are there now and\n ask where the missing persons went to. For 7 years now this gang\n of murderers have defiled the German name. If my son is\n murdered, woe! I shall take care that these crimes will be\n published in all foreign newspapers. The SS may deny it as they\n always do. I shall demand prosecution by the public prosecutor.\n\n \u201cI cannot give my name nor the institution where my son is,\n otherwise I, too, won\u2019t live much longer.\n\n Heil Hitler\n Oberregierungsrat N.\u201d\n\nIf this program had stayed within the bounds set forth in Hitler\u2019s\nletter to Karl Brandt, it would have been bad enough. We may pass over\nas quite irrelevant any such question as whether mercy killing may not\nin some circumstances be desirable, and whether a statute authorizing\nmercy killings under proper safeguards would be valid.\n\nSuch questions may be debatable, but they do not confront us here. No\nGerman law authorizing mercy killings was ever adopted. Hitler\u2019s\nmemorandum to Brandt and Bouhler was not a law, not even a Nazi law. It\nwas not intended to be a law or regarded as such even by the top Nazi\nofficials. That is why the program was carried out with the utmost\nsecrecy. The program was known to be utterly illegal by those who were\nin charge of it; they knew it was nothing but murder.\n\nThis is brought out very clearly in a letter from Himmler to the\ndefendant Brack in December 1940 (_NO-018_):\n\n \u201cDear Brack:\n\n \u201cI hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the\n institution Grafeneck.\n\n \u201cThe population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and\n think they know what is going on at the constantly smoking\n crematory. What happens there is a secret and yet is no longer\n one. Thus the worst feeling has arisen there, and in my opinion\n there remains only one thing, to discontinue the use of the\n institution in this place and in any event disseminate\n information in a clever and sensible manner by showing motion\n pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just\n that locality.\n\n \u201cMay I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem was\n solved.\u201d\n\nBut there are more fundamental matters here. The program did not stay\neven within the bounds of the secret Hitler authority. Euthanasia became\nmerely a polite word for the systematic slaughter of Jews and many other\ncategories of persons useless or unfriendly to the Nazi regime. The\nevidence before the International Military Tribunal proved this clearly,\nand the judgment states, and I quote:[11]\n\n \u201cReference should also be made to the policy which was in\n existence in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all\n aged, insane, and incurable people, \u2018useless eaters\u2019, were\n transferred to special institutions where they were killed, and\n their relatives informed that they had died from natural causes.\n The victims were not confined to German citizens, but included\n foreign laborers, who were no longer able to work, and were\n therefore useless to the German war machine. It has been\n estimated that at least some 275,000 people were killed in this\n manner in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums, which were\n under the jurisdiction of the defendant Frick, in his capacity\n as Minister of the Interior. How many foreign workers were\n included in this total it has been quite impossible to\n determine.\u201d\n\nI quote one more paragraph from the decision:[12]\n\n \u201cDuring the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which\n euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this\n judgment, came under Frick\u2019s jurisdiction. He had knowledge that\n insane, sick and aged people, \u2018useless eaters\u2019, were being\n systematically put to death. Complaints of these murders reached\n him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the\n Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000\n mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was\n responsible, fell victim to it.\u201d\n\nAs stated in the indictment, the defendants involved in the euthanasia\nprogram sent their subordinates to the eastern occupied territories to\nassist in the mass extermination of Jews. This will be shown by abundant\nevidence, including the following excerpt from a letter from the\ndefendant Brack to Himmler in 1942 from which I quote a paragraph:\n\n \u201cOn the instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed some of my\n men at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his\n special mission. On his renewed request I have now transferred\n additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik\n stated his opinion that the whole Jewish action should be\n completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get\n caught in the middle of it one day if some difficulties should\n make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Reich\n Leader, have already expressed your view, that work should\n progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone.\u201d\n\nProtesting the lawless slaughter which even Himmler sought to\n\u201ccamouflage\u201d, the Bishop of Limburg in 1941 foresaw that such insane\ncarnage spelled the downfall of the Third Reich. (_615-PS._) He wrote:\n\n \u201cAnd if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there\n is yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of lack\n of love for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people.\n * * * High authority as a moral concept has suffered a severe\n shock as a result of these happenings.\u201d\n\n SUMMARY\n\nI have outlined the particular charges against the defendants under\ncount two, three, and four of the indictment; and I have sketched the\ngeneral nature of the evidence which we will present. But we must not\noverlook that the medical experiments were not an assortment of\nunrelated crimes. On the contrary, they constituted a well-integrated\ncriminal program in which the defendants planned and collaborated among\nthemselves and with others.\n\nWe have here, in other words, a conspiracy and a common design, as is\ncharged in count one of the indictment, to commit the criminal\nexperiments set forth in paragraphs 6 and 11 thereof. There was a common\ndesign to discover, or improve, various medical techniques. There was a\ncommon design to utilize for this purpose the unusual resources which\nthe defendants had at their disposal, consisting of numberless\nunfortunate victims of Nazi conquest and Nazi ideology. The defendants\nconspired and agreed together to utilize these human resources for\nnefarious and murderous purposes, and proceeded to put their criminal\ndesign into execution. Numbered among the countless victims of the\nconspiracy and the crimes are Germans, and nationals of countries\noverrun by Germany, and gypsies, and prisoners of war, and Jews of many\nnationalities. All the elements of a conspiracy to commit the crimes\ncharged in paragraphs 6 and 11 are present and all will be clearly\nestablished by the proof.\n\nThere were many co-conspirators who are not in the dock. Among the\nplanners and leaders of this plot were Conti and Grawitz, and Hippke\nwhose whereabouts is unknown. Among the actual executioners, Dr. Ding is\ndead and Rascher is thought to be dead. There were many others.\n\nFinal judgment as to the relative degrees of guilt among those in the\ndock must await the presentation of the proof in detail. Nevertheless,\nbefore the introduction of evidence, it will be helpful to look again at\nthe defendants and their part in the conspiracy. What manner of men are\nthey, and what was their major role?\n\nThe 20 physicians in the dock range from leaders of German scientific\nmedicine, with excellent international reputations, down to the dregs of\nthe German medical profession. All of them have in common a callous lack\nof consideration and human regard for, and an unprincipled willingness\nto abuse their power over the poor, unfortunate, defenseless creatures\nwho had been deprived of their rights by a ruthless and criminal\ngovernment. All of them violated the Hippocratic commandments which they\nhad solemnly sworn to uphold and abide by, including the fundamental\nprinciples never to do harm\u2014\u201cprimum non nocere.\u201d\n\nOutstanding men of science, distinguished for their scientific ability\nin Germany and abroad, are the defendants Rostock and Rose. Both\nexemplify, in their training and practice alike, the highest traditions\nof German medicine. Rostock headed the Department of Surgery at the\nUniversity of Berlin and served as dean of its medical school. Rose\nstudied under the famous surgeon, Enderlen, at Heidelberg and then\nbecame a distinguished specialist in the fields of public health and\ntropical diseases. Handloser and Schroeder are outstanding medical\nadministrators. Both of them made their careers in military medicine and\nreached the peak of their profession. Five more defendants are much\nyounger men who are nevertheless already known as the possessors of\nconsiderable scientific ability, or capacity in medical administration.\nThese include the defendants Karl Brandt, Ruff, Beiglboeck, Schaefer,\nand Becker-Freyseng.\n\nA number of the others such as Romberg and Fischer are well trained, and\nseveral of them attained high professional position. But among the\nremainder few were known as outstanding scientific men. Among them at\nthe foot of the list is Blome who has published his autobiography\nentitled \u201cEmbattled Doctor\u201d in which he sets forth that he eventually\ndecided to become a doctor because a medical career would enable him to\nbecome \u201cmaster over life and death.\u201d\n\nThe part that each of these 20 physicians and their 3 lay accomplices\nplayed in the conspiracy and its execution corresponds closely to his\nprofessional interests and his place in the hierarchy of the Third Reich\nas shown in the chart. The motivating force for this conspiracy came\nfrom two principal sources. Himmler, as head of the SS, a most terrible\nmachine of oppression with vast resources, could provide numberless\nvictims for the experiments. By doing so, he enhanced the prestige of\nhis organization and was able to give free rein to the Nazi racial\ntheories of which he was a leading protagonist and to develop new\ntechniques for the mass exterminations which were dear to his heart. The\nGerman military leaders, as the other main driving force, caught up the\nopportunity which Himmler presented them with and ruthlessly capitalized\non Himmler\u2019s hideous overtures in an endeavor to strengthen their\nmilitary machine.\n\nAnd so the infernal drama was played just as it had been conceived in\nthe minds of the authors. Special problems which confronted the German\nmilitary or civilian authorities were, on the orders of the medical\nleaders, submitted for solution in the concentration camps. Thus we find\nKarl Brandt stimulating the epidemic jaundice experiments, Schroeder\ndemanding \u201c40 healthy experimental subjects\u201d for the sea-water\nexperiments, Handloser providing the impetus for Ding\u2019s fearful typhus\nresearches, and Milch and Hippke at the root of the freezing\nexperiments. Under Himmler\u2019s authority, the medical leaders of the\nSS\u2014Grawitz, Genzken, Gebhardt, and others\u2014set the wheels in motion.\nThey arranged for the procurement of victims through other branches of\nthe SS, and gave directions to their underlings in the SS medical\nservice such as Hoven and Fischer. Himmler\u2019s administrative assistants,\nSievers and Rudolf Brandt, passed on the Himmler orders, gave a push\nhere and a shove there, and kept the machinery oiled. Blome and Brack\nassisted from the side of the civilian and party authorities.\n\nThe Wehrmacht provided supervision and technical assistance for those\nexperiments in which it was most interested. A low-pressure chamber was\nfurnished for the high-altitude tests, the services of Weltz, Ruff,\nRomberg, and Rascher for the high-altitude and freezing experiments, and\nthose of Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck for sea-water. In the\nimportant but sinister typhus researches, the eminent Dr. Rose appeared\nfor the Luftwaffe to give expert guidance to Ding.\n\nThe proper steps were taken to insure that the results were made\navailable to those who needed to know. Annual meetings of the consulting\nphysicians of the Wehrmacht held under Handloser\u2019s direction were\nfavored with lectures on some of the experiments. The report on the\nhigh-altitude experiment was sent to Field Marshal Milch, and a moving\npicture about them was shown at the Air Ministry in Berlin. Weltz spoke\non the effects of freezing at a medical conference in Nuernberg, the\nsame symposium at which Rascher and others passed on their devilish\nknowledge.\n\nThere could, we submit, be no clearer proof of conspiracy. This was the\nmedical service of the Third Reich at work. Among the defendants in the\nbox sit the surviving leaders of that service. We will ask the Tribunal\nto determine that neither scientific eminence nor superficial\nrespectability shall shield them against the fearful consequences of the\norders they gave.\n\nI intend to pass very briefly over matters of medical ethics, such as\nthe conditions under which a physician may lawfully perform a medical\nexperiment upon a person who has voluntarily subjected himself to it, or\nwhether experiments may lawfully be performed upon criminals who have\nbeen condemned to death. This case does not present such problems. No\nrefined questions confront us here.\n\nNone of the victims of the atrocities perpetrated by these defendants\nwere volunteers, and this is true regardless of what these unfortunate\npeople may have said or signed before their tortures began. Most of the\nvictims had not been condemned to death, and those who had been were not\ncriminals, unless it be a crime to be a Jew, or a Pole, or a gypsy, or a\nRussian prisoner of war.\n\nWhatever book or treatise on medical ethics we may examine, and whatever\nexpert on forensic medicine we may question, will say that it is a\nfundamental and inescapable obligation of every physician under any\nknown system of law not to perform a dangerous experiment without the\nsubject\u2019s consent. In the tyranny that was Nazi Germany, no one could\ngive such a consent to the medical agents of the State; everyone lived\nin fear and acted under duress. I fervently hope that none of us here in\nthe courtroom will have to suffer in silence while it is said on the\npart of these defendants that the wretched and helpless people whom they\nfroze and drowned and burned and poisoned were volunteers. If such a\nshameless lie is spoken here, we need only remember the four girls who\nwere taken from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp and made to lie\nnaked with the frozen and all but dead Jews who survived Dr. Rascher\u2019s\ntank of ice water. One of these women, whose hair and eyes and figure\nwere pleasing to Dr. Rascher, when asked by him why she had volunteered\nfor such a task, replied, \u201crather half a year in a brothel than half a\nyear in a concentration camp.\u201d\n\nWere it necessary, one could make a long list of the respects in which\nthe experiments which these defendants performed departed from every\nknown standard of medical ethics. But the gulf between these atrocities\nand serious research in the healing art is so patent that such a\ntabulation would be cynical.\n\nWe need look no further than the law which the Nazis themselves passed\non the 24th of November 1938 for the protection of animals. This law\nstates explicitly that it is designed to prevent cruelty and\nindifference of man towards animals and to awaken and develop sympathy\nand understanding for animals as one of the highest moral values of a\npeople. The soul of the German people should abhor the principle of mere\nutility without consideration of the moral aspects. The law states\nfurther that all operations or treatments which are associated with pain\nor injury, especially experiments involving the use of cold, heat, or\ninfection, are prohibited, and can be permitted only under special\nexceptional circumstances. Special written authorization by the head of\nthe department is necessary in every case, and experimenters are\nprohibited from performing experiments according to their own free\njudgment. Experiments for the purpose of teaching must be reduced to a\nminimum. Medico-legal tests, vaccinations, withdrawal of blood for\ndiagnostic purposes, and trial of vaccines prepared according to\nwell-established scientific principles are permitted, but the animals\nhave to be killed immediately and painlessly after such experiments.\nIndividual physicians are not permitted to use dogs to increase their\nsurgical skill by such practices. National Socialism regards it as a\nsacred duty of German science to keep down the number of painful animal\nexperiments to a minimum.\n\nIf the principles announced in this law had been followed for human\nbeings as well, this indictment would never have been filed. It is\nperhaps the deepest shame of the defendants that it probably never even\noccurred to them that human beings should be treated with at least equal\nhumanity.\n\nThis case is one of the simplest and clearest of those that will be\ntried in this building. It is also one of the most important. It is true\nthat the defendants in the box were not among the highest leaders of the\nThird Reich. They are not the war lords who assembled and drove the\nGerman military machine, nor the industrial barons who made the parts,\nnor the Nazi politicians who debased and brutalized the minds of the\nGerman people. But this case, perhaps more than any other we will try,\nepitomizes Nazi thought and the Nazi way of life, because these\ndefendants pursue the savage premises of Nazi thought so far. The things\nthat these defendants did, like so many other things that happened under\nthe Third Reich, were the result of the noxious merger of German\nmilitarism and Nazi racial objectives. We will see the results of this\nmerger in many other fields of German life; we see it here in the field\nof medicine.\n\nGermany surrendered herself to this foul conjunction of evil forces. The\nnation fell victim to the Nazi scourge because its leaders lacked the\nwisdom to foresee the consequences and the courage to stand firm in the\nface of threats. Their failure was the inevitable outcome of that\nsinister undercurrent of German philosophy which preaches the supreme\nimportance of the state and the complete subordination of the\nindividual. A nation in which the individual means nothing will find few\nleaders courageous and able enough to serve its best interests.\n\nIndividual Germans did indeed give warning of what was in store, and\nGerman doctors and scientists were numbered among the courageous few. At\na meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists held in Munich in 1931, when the\npoisonous doctrines of the Nazis were already sweeping Germany, there\nwas a discussion of mercy killings and sterilization, and the Nazi views\non these matters, with which we are now familiar, were advanced. A\nGerman professor named Oswald Bumke rose and made a reply more eloquent\nand prophetic than anyone could have possibly realized at the time. He\nsaid:\n\n \u201cI should like to make two additional remarks. One of them is,\n please for God\u2019s sake leave our present financial needs out of\n all these considerations. This is a problem which concerns the\n entire future of our people, indeed, one may say without being\n over-emotional about it, the entire future of humanity. One\n should approach this problem neither from the point of view of\n our present scientific opinion nor from the point of view of the\n still more ephemeral economic crises. If by sterilization we can\n prevent the occurrence of mental disease then we should\n certainly do it, not in order to save money for the government\n but because every case of mental disease means infinite\n suffering to the patient and to his relatives. But to introduce\n economic points of view is not only inappropriate but outright\n dangerous because the logical consequence of the thought that\n for financial reasons all these human beings, who could be\n dispensed with for the moment, should be exterminated, is a\n quite monstrous logical conclusion; we would then have to put to\n death not only the mentally sick and the psychopathic\n personalities but all the crippled including the disabled\n veterans, all old maids who do not work, all widows whose\n children have completed their education, and all those who live\n on their income or draw pensions. That would certainly save a\n lot of money but the probability is that we will not do it.\n\n \u201cThe second point of advice is to use utmost restraint, at least\n until the political atmosphere here in this country shall have\n improved, and scientific theories concerning heredity and race\n can no longer be abused for political purposes. Because, if the\n discussion about sterilization today is carried into the arena\n of political contest, then pretty soon we will no longer hear\n about the mentally sick but, instead, about Aryans and\n non-Aryans, about the blonde Germanic race and about inferior\n people with round skulls. That anything useful could come from\n that is certainly improbable; but science in general and\n genealogy and eugenics in particular would suffer an injury\n which could not easily be repaired again.\u201d\n\nI said at the outset of this statement that the Third Reich died of its\nown poison. This case is a striking demonstration not only of the\ntremendous degradation of German medical ethics which Nazi doctrine\nbrought about, but of the undermining of the medical art and thwarting\nof the techniques which the defendants sought to employ. The Nazis have,\nto a certain extent, succeeded in convincing the peoples of the world\nthat the Nazi system, although ruthless, was absolutely efficient; that\nalthough savage, it was completely scientific; that although entirely\ndevoid of humanity, it was highly systematic\u2014that \u201cit got things done.\u201d\nThe evidence which this Tribunal will hear will explode this myth. The\nNazi methods of investigation were inefficient and unscientific, and\ntheir techniques of research were unsystematic.\n\nThese experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use. It\nwas, indeed, ascertained that phenol or gasoline injected intravenously\nwill kill a man inexpensively and within 60 seconds. This and a few\nother \u201cadvances\u201d are all in the field of thanatology. There is no doubt\nthat a number of these new methods may be useful to criminals everywhere\nand there is no doubt that they may be useful to a criminal state.\nCertain advance in destructive methodology we cannot deny, and indeed\nfrom Himmler\u2019s standpoint this may well have been the principal\nobjective.\n\nApart from these deadly fruits, the experiments were not only criminal\nbut a scientific failure. It is indeed as if a just deity had shrouded\nthe solutions which they attempted to reach with murderous means. The\nmoral shortcomings of the defendants and the precipitous ease with which\nthey decided to commit murder in quest of \u201cscientific results\u201d, dulled\nalso that scientific hesitancy, that thorough thinking-through, that\nresponsible weighing of every single step which alone can insure\nscientifically valid results. Even if they had merely been forced to pay\nas little as two dollars for human experimental subjects, such as\nAmerican investigators may have to pay for a cat, they might have\nthought twice before wasting unnecessary numbers, and thought of simpler\nand better ways to solve their problems. The fact that these\ninvestigators had free and unrestricted access to human beings to be\nexperimented upon misled them to the dangerous and fallacious conclusion\nthat the results would thus be better and more quickly obtainable than\nif they had gone through the labor of preparation, thinking, and\nmeticulous preinvestigation.\n\nA particularly striking example is the sea-water experiment. I believe\nthat three of the accused\u2014Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, and\nBeiglboeck\u2014will today admit that this problem could have been solved\nsimply and definitively within the space of one afternoon. On 20 May\n1944 when these accused convened to discuss the problem, a thinking\nchemist could have solved it right in the presence of the assembly\nwithin the space of a few hours by the use of nothing more gruesome than\na piece of jelly, a semi-permeable membrane and a salt solution, and the\nGerman Armed Forces would have had the answer on 21 May 1944. But what\nhappened instead? The vast armies of the disenfranchised slaves were at\nthe beck and call of this sinister assembly; and instead of thinking,\nthey simply relied on their power over human beings rendered rightless\nby a criminal state and government. What time, effort, and staff did it\ntake to get that machinery in motion! Letters had to be written,\nphysicians, of whom dire shortage existed in the German Armed Forces\nwhose soldiers went poorly attended, had to be taken out of hospital\npositions and dispatched hundreds of miles away to obtain the answer\nwhich should have been known in a few hours, but which thus did not\nbecome available to the German Armed Forces until after the completion\nof the gruesome show, and until 42 people had been subjected to the\ntortures of the damned, the very tortures which Greek mythology had\nreserved for Tantalus.\n\nIn short, this conspiracy was a ghastly failure as well as a hideous\ncrime. The creeping paralysis of Nazi superstition spread through the\nGerman medical profession and, just as it destroyed character and\nmorals, it dulled the mind.\n\nGuilt for the oppressions and crimes of the Third Reich is widespread,\nbut it is the guilt of the leaders that is deepest and most culpable.\nWho could German medicine look to to keep the profession true to its\ntraditions and protect it from the ravaging inroads of Nazi\npseudo-science? This was the supreme responsibility of the leaders of\nGerman medicine\u2014men like Rostock and Rose and Schroeder and Handloser.\nThat is why their guilt is greater than that of any of the other\ndefendants in the dock. They are the men who utterly failed their\ncountry and their profession, who showed neither courage nor wisdom nor\nthe vestiges of moral character. It is their failure, together with the\nfailure of the leaders of Germany in other walks of life, that debauched\nGermany and led to her defeat. It is because of them and others like\nthem that we all live in a stricken world.\n\n-----\n\n[7] Tr. pp. 12-74.\n\n[8] This chart is contained in Section VI, Organization of the German\nMedical Service, NO-645, Pros. Ex. 3, p. 91.\n\n[9] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[10] Ibid., p. 271.\n\n[11] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[12] Ibid., p. 301.\n\n\n\n\n V. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ON THE PRESENTATION\n OF EVIDENCE MADE BY THE PROSECUTION,\n 10 DECEMBER 1946[13]\n\n\nMR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal:\n\nBefore any evidence is presented, it is my purpose to show the process\nwhereby documents have been procured and processed in order to be\npresented in evidence by the United States. I shall also describe and\nillustrate the plan of presenting documents to be followed by the\nprosecution in this case.\n\nWhen the United States Army entered German territory it had specialized\nmilitary personnel whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy\ndocuments, records, and archives.\n\nSuch documents were assembled in temporary document centers. Later each\nArmy established fixed document centers in the United States Zone of\nOccupation where their documents were assembled and the slow process of\nindexing and cataloging was begun. Certain of these document centers in\nthe United States Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the\ndocuments assembled there sent to other document centers.\n\nWhen the International Military Tribunal was set up, field teams under\nthe direction of Major William H. Coogan were organized and sent out to\nthe various document centers. Great masses of German documents and\nrecords were screened and examined. Those selected were sent to\nNuernberg to be processed. These original documents were then given\ntrial identification numbers in one of five series designated by the\nletters: \u201cPS\u201d, \u201cL\u201d, \u201cR\u201d, \u201cC\u201d, and \u201cEC\u201d, indicating the means of\nacquisition of the documents. Within each series, documents were listed\nnumerically.\n\nThe prosecution in this case shall have occasion to introduce in\nevidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some\nof these documents were introduced in evidence before the IMT and some\nwere not. As to those which were, this Tribunal is required by Article\nXX of Ordinance No. 7 to take judicial notice thereof. However, in order\nto simplify the procedure, we will introduce photostatic copies of\ndocuments used in Case No. 1 before the IMT to which will be attached a\ncertificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of our Document Control\nBranch, certifying that such document was introduced in evidence before\nthe IMT and that the photostat is a true and correct copy thereof. Such\ndocuments have been and will be made available to defendants just as in\nthe case of any other document.\n\nAs to those documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan\nwhich were not used in the case before the IMT, they are authenticated\nby the affidavit of Major Coogan dated 19 November 1945. This affidavit\nserved as the basis of authentication of substantially all documents\nused by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the IMT. It was introduced\nin that trial as USA Exhibit 1. Since we will use certain documents\nprocessed for the IMT trial, I would now like to introduce as\nProsecution Exhibit 1 the Coogan affidavit,[14] in order to authenticate\nsuch documents. This affidavit explains the manner in and means by which\ncaptured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trials. I\nshall not burden the court with reading it as it is substantially the\nsame as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a\nmoment.\n\nI have thus far explained the manner of authenticating documents to be\nused in this case which were processed under the direction of Major\nCoogan. I now come to the authentication of documents processed not for\nthe IMT trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. These\ndocuments are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which I\noffer in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 2. Since this affidavit\nexplains the procedure of processing documents by the Office of Chief of\nCounsel for War Crimes, I shall read it in full:\n\n \u201cI, Fred Niebergall, AGO, D-150636, of the Office of Chief of\n Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows:\n\n 1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch,\n Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes\n (hereinafter referred to as \u2018OCC\u2019) on 2 October 1946.\n\n 2. I have served in the U. S. Army for more than 5 years, being\n discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I\n am now a Reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the\n Army of the United States of America. Based upon my experience\n as a United States Army officer, I am familiar with the\n operation of the United States Army in connection with seizing\n and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of\n Translations for OCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when\n I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and\n Translation Division of OCC as assistant to the executive\n officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of\n the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am\n familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and\n photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief\n of Counsel.\n\n 3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then\n Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy\n documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled\n in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were\n established in Germany and Austria where these documents were\n assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloging was\n begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed\n and the documents assembled there sent to other document\n centers.\n\n 4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military\n Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as \u2018IMT\u2019) a great number of\n original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at\n Nuernberg, Germany. Major Coogan\u2019s affidavit of 19 November 1945\n describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief\n of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I\n received custody, in the course of official business, of all\n these documents except the ones which were introduced into\n evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room\n in Nuernberg. Same have been screened, processed, and registered\n in accordance with Major Coogan\u2019s affidavit. The unregistered\n documents remaining have been screened, processed, and\n registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals\n substantially in the same way as described below.\n\n 5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel\n thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the\n task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents\n which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis\n war criminals. Lawyers and research analysts were placed on duty\n at various document centers and also dispatched on individual\n missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats\n thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts\n to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence.\n Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and\n the original documents returned to the files in the document\n centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts\n to be true and correct copies of the original documents.\n German-speaking analysts either at the document center or in\n Nuernberg, then prepared a summary of the document with\n appropriate references to personalities involved, index\n headings, information as to the source of the document, and the\n importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC.\n\n 6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was\n forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division,\n OCC. Upon receipt of these documents, they were duly recorded\n and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six\n series designated by the letters \u2018NO,\u2019 \u2018NI,\u2019 \u2018NM,\u2019 \u2018NOKW,\u2019 \u2018NG,\u2019\n and \u2018NP,\u2019 indicating the particular Division of OCC which might\n be most interested in the individual documents. Within each\n series documents were listed numerically.\n\n 7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic\n copies were made. Upon return from the photostat room, the\n original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes\n in the document room. In the case of the receipt of certified\n photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic\n copies were treated in the same manner as original documents.\n\n 8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies\n treated as originals are now located in safes in the document\n room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the\n prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial.\n\n 9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as hereinabove\n stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in\n the same condition as when captured by military forces under the\n command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces;\n that they have been translated by competent qualified\n translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct\n copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly\n filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined.\n\n [Signed] FRED NIEBERGALL.\u201d\n\nThe Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan\naffidavit which was accepted by the International Military Tribunal as\nsufficient authentication of documents used in Case No. 1. However, in\naddition to these affidavits, the prosecution in this case will attach\nto each document submitted in evidence, other than self-proving\ndocuments such as affidavits signed by the defendants, a certificate\nsigned by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of\nCounsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows:\n\n \u201cI, Donald Spencer, of the Evidence Division of the Office of\n Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the\n attached document, consisting of one photostated page and\n entitled, \u2018Letter from John Doe to Richard Rod, dated 19 June\n 1943,\u2019 is the original of a document which was delivered to me\n in my above capacity, in the usual course of official business,\n as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records,\n and files captured by military forces under the command of the\n Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces.\n\n \u201cTo the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the\n original document is at the Berlin Document Center.\u201d\n\nSo much for the authentication of documents to be presented in this\ntrial. I turn now briefly to the distribution of documents which we will\nuse. The prosecution made available to the Defendants\u2019 Information\nCenter approximately a week ago three photostatic copies of the great\nbulk of the documents which will be used in our case-in-chief. These\ndocuments are of course in German. In addition, the prosecution has\nprepared document books in both German and English which contain, for\nthe most part, mimeographed copies of the documents, arranged\nsubstantially in the order in which they will be presented in this\ncourt. Each document book contains an index giving the document number,\ndescription, and page number. A space is also provided for writing in\nthe index number.\n\nTwelve official copies of the German document books will be filed in the\nDefendants\u2019 Information Center at least 24 hours prior to the time that\nparticular material will be introduced in court. In addition, defense\ncounsel will receive seven so-called unofficial German document books,\nwhich will contain mimeographed copies prepared primarily for the German\nPress. Six official copies of the German document books will be\npresented to the Tribunal\u2014one for each of the Justices on the bench and\none for the Secretary General. Two of such document books will contain\nphotostatic copies in order that the Tribunal may from time to time\nrefer to the original. Document books will also be made available to the\nGerman interpreters and court reporters.\n\nThe English document books will contain certified translations of the\ndocuments in the German document books. The documents will be numbered\nand indexed identically in both the English and German versions. The\nDefendants\u2019 Information Center will receive four copies of the English\ndocument books at the same time the corresponding German document book\nis delivered. A representative group of the defense attorneys have\nagreed that four of the English document books are sufficient to meet\ntheir needs.\n\nThe Tribunal will receive six English document books and sufficient\ncopies will also be made available to the interpreters and court\nreporters. Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will\nthereafter be made available to the press.\n\nThe prosecution will sometimes have occasion to use documents which have\njust been discovered and are not in document books. In such cases we\nwill try to have copies in the Defendants\u2019 Information Center a\nreasonable time in advance of their use in court. Now, I must point out\nto your Honors, and I do so without any embarrassment, that there will\nsurely be some instances during the course of this trial when the\nprosecution fails to comply with one or the other of the court\u2019s rulings\nin view of the fact that few of our personnel here were able to obtain\nexperience and training in the technicalities in the course of Case No.\n1 before the International Military Tribunal, but be that as it may, we\nshall constantly endeavor to present our case as fairly, as clearly, and\nas expeditiously as is humanly possible.\n\nThe prosecution, when presenting a document in Court, will physically\nhand the original, or the certified photostatic copy serving as the\noriginal, to the clerk of the Tribunal, and give the document a\nprosecution exhibit number.\n\nIn the IMT trial, the usual practice, to which there were many\nexceptions, was that only those documents or portions of documents which\nhad been read aloud in Court were considered to be in evidence and part\nof the record. Now this was due to the fact that the IMT trial was\nconducted in four languages and only through that method were\ntranslations in all four languages ordinarily available. However, the\nIMT ruled several times, for example on 17 December 1945, that documents\nwhich had been translated into all four languages and made available to\ndefense counsel in the Defendants\u2019 Information Center were admissible in\nevidence without being read in full.\n\nThe prosecution believed that, under the circumstances of this trial,\nwhich will be conducted in German and English only, and with all the\nprosecution\u2019s documents translated into German, it will be both\nexpeditious and fair to dispense with the reading in full of all\ndocuments or portions of documents. The prosecution will read some\ndocuments in full, particularly in the early stages of the trial, but\nwill endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when\npossible, or otherwise calling the attention of the Tribunal to such\npassages therein as are deemed important and relevant.\n\nWith respect to the order of trial, the prosecution intends to follow,\nto a large degree, the order in which the various experiments are set\nforth in the indictment. There will be some exceptions to that; for\ninstance, we will present the sea-water experiments, the proof of\nsea-water experiments following the malaria experiments, which will be\nthird in order, and in time we will move to the proof of reading the\nLost gas experiments because of the overlapping of the testimony of\ncertain witnesses. Insofar as possible, we will endeavor to present all\nof the evidence relating to a particular experiment at the same time.\nThis will be impossible, of course, where the testimony of a witness\noverlaps several experiments.\n\n-----\n\n[13] Tr. pp. 75-83.\n\n[14] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. II, pp. 157-160, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n\n\n\n VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GERMAN MEDICAL SERVICES\n\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe opening statement of the prosecution (pp. 27-74) deals rather\nextensively with the organization of the Medical Service of the\nWehrmacht, the Medical Service of the SS, and the Civilian Health\nService. The Ahnenerbe Society and the Institute for Military Scientific\nResearch, which was set up within the Ahnenerbe, are also mentioned.\n\nEvidence concerning the positions which the prosecution alleged the\ndefendants held is contained in its document book number one. Selections\nfrom this document book are set forth on pages 81-91.\n\n b. Evidence\n\n Pros.\n Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NO-080 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, concerning 81\n the Medical and Health Services.\n NO-081 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 September 1943, 83\n concerning the Medical and Health\n Services.\n NO-082 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August 1944, concerning 83\n the appointment of a Reich Commissioner\n for Medical and Health Services.\n NO-227 11 Fuehrer Decree of 7 August 1944, concerning 84\n the reorganization of the Medical\n Services of the Wehrmacht.\n NO-303 32 Table of Organization of the \u201cAhnenerbe\u201d 88\n from the files of the Ahnenerbe Society.\n NO-422 33 Letter from Himmler to Sievers, 7 July 89\n 1942, concerning the establishment of an\n \u201cInstitute for Military Scientific\n Research\u201d within the Ahnenerbe Society.\n NO-894 38 Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, concerning the 90\n Reich Research Council.\n NO-645 3 Table of organization of the Reich 91\n Commissioner for Health and Medical\n Services, drawn by the defendant Karl\n Brandt.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-080\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 5.\n\nFUEHRER DECREE, 28 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES\n\n 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 515\n\n Fuehrer Decree of 28 July 1942, Concerning the Medical and Health\n Services\n\nThe utilization of personnel and material in the field of medical and\nhealth matters demands a coordinated and planned direction. Therefore, I\norder the following:\n\n1. For the Wehrmacht I commission the Medical Inspector of the Army, in\naddition to his present duties, with the coordination of all tasks\ncommon to the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and the\norganizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, as\nChief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht.\n\nThe Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is to represent the\nWehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all common medical problems\narising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and\norganizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, and\nwill protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures\ntaken by the civilian authorities.\n\nFor the purpose of coordinated treatment of these problems, a medical\nofficer of the Navy and a medical officer of the Luftwaffe will be\nassigned to work under him, the latter in the capacity of chief of\nstaff. Fundamental problems pertaining to the Medical Service of the\nWaffen SS will be worked out in agreement with the Medical Inspectorate\nof the Waffen SS.\n\n2. In the field of the Civilian Health Service, the State Secretary in\nthe Ministry of the Interior and Reich Chief for Public Health, Dr.\nConti, is responsible for coordinated measures. For this purpose he has\nat his disposal the competent departments of the highest Reich\nauthorities and their subordinate offices.\n\n3. I empower Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me personally\nand receiving his instructions directly from me, to carry out special\ntasks and negotiations to readjust the requirements for doctors,\nhospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the military and the civilian\nsectors of the health and medical services.\n\n4. My plenipotentiary for health and medical services is to be kept\ninformed about the fundamental events in the Medical Service of the\nWehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He is authorized to\nintervene in a responsible manner.\n\nFuehrer Headquarters, 28 July 1942\n The Fuehrer\n ADOLF HITLER\n The Chief of the OKW\n KEITEL\n The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery\n DR. LAMMERS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-081\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 6\n\n SECOND FUEHRER DECREE, 5 SEPTEMBER 1943, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND\n HEALTH SERVICES\n\n 1943 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 533\n\n Second Fuehrer Decree of 5 September 1943, Concerning the Medical and\n Health Services\n\nIn amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and Health Services\nof 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, p. 515) I order:\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services, General\nCommissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt is charged with centrally\ncoordinating and directing the problems and activities of the entire\nMedical and Health Services according to instructions. In this sense\nthis order applies also to the field of Medical Science and Research, as\nwell as to the organizational institutions concerned with the\nmanufacture and distribution of medical material.\n\nThe Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health services is authorized to\nappoint and commission special deputies for his spheres of action.\n\nFuehrer Headquarters, 5 September 1943\n The Fuehrer\n ADOLF HITLER\n The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery\n DR. LAMMERS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-082\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 7\n\n FUEHRER DECREE, 25 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A REICH\n COMMISSIONER FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES\n\n 1944 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 185\n\nFuehrer Decree of 25 August 1944, Concerning the Appointment of a Reich\n Commissioner for Medical and Health Services\n\nI hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and Health\nmatters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and\nHealth [Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services] as well, for\nthe duration of this war. In this capacity his office ranks as highest\nReich Authority.\n\nThe Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is authorized to\nissue instructions to the offices and organizations of the State, Party,\nand Wehrmacht which are concerned with the problems of the medical and\nhealth services.\n\nFuehrer Headquarters, 25 August 1944\n The Fuehrer\n ADOLF HITLER\n The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery\n DR. LAMMERS\n The Head of the Party Chancellery\n M. BORMANN\n The Chief of the OKW\n KEITEL\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-227\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT II\n\n FUEHRER DECREE OF 7 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION OF THE\n MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE WEHRMACHT\n\n Copy\nThe Fuehrer\n and\nSupreme Commander of the Wehrmacht\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944\nChief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht [Chief OKW]\nOps. Staff of the Wehrmacht (WFSt)\nOrg. (I) No. 5008/44g\n\nTo obtain a better concentration of powers in the field of the Medical\nService of the Wehrmacht, I order in extension of my decree of 28 July\n1942:\n\n1. The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht will direct, as far\nas the special field is concerned, the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht\nand the organizations and services installed within the framework of the\nWehrmacht. He is authorized to issue orders, within the special field of\nhis jurisdiction.\n\n2. I approve the service regulation for the Chief of the Medical\nServices of the Wehrmacht issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of\nthe Wehrmacht. It will replace the one of 28 July 1942, which was in\neffect up to now.\n\n3. The personal union of the Chief of Medical Services of the Wehrmacht\nand the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army/Army Physician\n[Heeressanitaetsinspekteur/Heeresarzt] is herewith cancelled as of\nSeptember 1944.\n\n [Signed] ADOLF HITLER\nThe Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht\nReference No. 5008/44 secret\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944\n\n SERVICE REGULATION\n for the Chief of the Medical Services of the\n Wehrmacht[15] [Chef W San]\n\n I\n Subordination and Powers\n\n1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will be directly\nunder the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. He will have\nthe position of an office chief [Amtschef] and the disciplinary power\naccording to paragraph 18 of the Wehrmacht Regulation for Disciplinary\nAction (WDSTO) and the other powers of a Commanding General.\n\n2. He has authority according to No. 1 of the Fuehrer Decree over the\nfollowing:\n\n_a._ The Chief of the Army Medical Service, the Chief of the Navy\nMedical Service, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the\nChief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and the medical chiefs of\nthe organizations and services employed within the framework of the\nWehrmacht while they are acting in the area of command of the Wehrmacht.\n\n_b._ All scientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical\ninstitutions of the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS.\n\n II\n Duties\n\n1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is the adviser of\nthe Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht in all questions\nconcerning the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and of its health\nguidance,\n\n2. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will direct all\nthe Medical Services of the Wehrmacht[16] as far as the special field is\nconcerned, with regard for the military instructions of the Chief of the\nSupreme Command of the Armed Forces and the general rules of the\nFuehrer\u2019s Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Departments.\n[page 2 of original]\n\n3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will inform the\nFuehrer\u2019s Commissioner General about basic events in the field of the\nMedical Services of the Wehrmacht.\n\nHe will represent the Wehrmacht to the civilian authorities in all\nmutual medical affairs and he will protect their interests in connection\nwith the health measures of the civilian administrative authorities.\n\nHe will represent the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht to the medical\nservices of foreign powers.\n\n4. Other duties of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht\nwill be:\n\n_a. In the medical-scientific field_:\n\nUniform measures in the field of health guidance, research and the\ncombating of epidemics, and all medical measures which require a uniform\nruling within the Wehrmacht. Evaluation of medical experiences.\n\nMedical matters of the recruiting system, of welfare and maintenance and\nof prisoners of war.\n\nThe presidency of the Scientific Senate of the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht.\n\n_b. In the organization and training system_:\n\nUniform and planned direction of the allocation of persons and material.\n\nUnification of the tables of organization and the tables of equipment of\nthe medical troops and the equal provision of the forces with medical\npersonnel.[17]\n\nDirection of a uniform development of the medical equipment.[A1]\n\nUnification in the sphere of hospital matters, balanced planning, and\nallocation of hospitals.\n\nDirection of the distribution of wounded and sick soldiers to the\nhospital installations of the Wehrmacht.\n\nDirection of the voluntary sick-nursing within the Wehrmacht.\n\nAssimilation of the organization and of the training of the new\ngeneration of medical officers. Balancing of the proportion according to\nthe requirements of the services. Supervision of the ideological and\npolitical training of the new generation of medical officers during the\ncourse of their studies in cooperation with the Reich Student Leader.\nTraining and advanced training of medical officers.\n\nDirection of a uniform training of the medical subaltern personnel.[A2]\n\n_c. In the field of mat\u00e9riel_:\n\nCentralized procurement and direction of fresh supplies of medical\nmat\u00e9riel of all kinds for the Wehrmacht.\n\n_d. General and fundamental pharmaceutical matters._\n\n III\n Special Powers\n\n1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is entitled to\nrequest from the services all records necessary for the performance of\nhis assignments.\n\n2. He is entitled to express his view on the appointment of medical\nofficers or medical leaders in the Wehrmacht and also in the units of\nthe Waffen SS which are subordinated to the Wehrmacht\u2014if the position\nis that of a Generalarzt or a higher position. Before filling these\npositions, his opinion has to be heard.\n\n3. He is entitled to inspect the medical service, the medical units, the\nmedical troops and installations of the Wehrmacht after having informed\nthe high command of the service concerned or the headquarters of the\nunits concerned. He is entitled to give orders on the spot in the field\nof medical service, if these are necessary for the removal of\nemergencies and do not disagree with fundamental orders of the services.\nHe has to inform the high commands of the services concerned about the\nresults of the inspections and about the issued orders.\n\n4. Fundamental changes in the organization of the medical service, in\nthe subordination of medical officers, noncommissioned officers, and\nenlisted men and of the officials and employees of the medical service\nrequire the consent of the Chief of the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht.\n\n5. Deputy of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht shall be\nthe senior Medical Inspector or the Medical Chief of one of the\nservices. The Chief of Staff will act as his deputy for routine duties.\n\n6. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht issues orders\nnecessary for the performance of his assignments under the name:\n\n\u201cSupreme Command of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht.\u201d\n\nAs far as necessary the services will execute his orders and requests\nthrough army channels.\n\n7. For the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht the new table\nof organization of 1 April 1944 is taking effect.\n\nThe necessary personnel are to be taken from the services, etc., above\nall from their medical inspectorates or offices.\n\n [Signed] KEITEL\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-303\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 32\n\nTABLE OF ORGANIZATION OF THE \u201cAHNENERBE\u201d FROM THE FILES OF THE AHNENERBE\n SOCIETY\n\n \u201cTHE AHNENERBE\u201d\n\n _The President_\n The Reich Leader SS H. HIMMLER\n\n _Trustee_\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. WALTHER WUEST\n\n _The Reich Business Manager_\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer WOLFRAM SIEVERS\n\n _Reich Business Management_\n\n _Deputy Reich Business Manager_\n SS Obersturmfuehrer HERBERT MENZ\n\n _Consultant Secretary_\n Dr. GISELA SCHMITZ-KAHLMANN\n\n _The Special Commissioner of the Reich Leader SS_\n Sturmbannfuehrer BRUNO GALKE\n\n _Administration_\n SS Untersturmbannfuehrer HANS-ULRICH HUEHNE\n\n Graduate of a Business College ALFONS EBEN\n\nThe task of the Research and Instruction Group \u201cThe Ahnenerbe\u201d is\ninvestigation of space, spirit, accomplishments, and heritage of the\nIndo-Germanic peoples of Nordic race, the vivification of the results of\ntheir research and their transmission to the people.\n\n Realization\n\n Establishment of instruction and research centers\n\n Assignment of research work and conduct of research expeditions\n\n Publication of scientific works\n\n Support of scientific work\n\n Organization of scientific congresses\n\n The Ahnenerbe Foundation\n\n The purpose of the Foundation is to further the endeavors of\n \u201cThe Ahnenerbe\u201d, registered society, by donations from the\n proceeds of the capital of the Foundation and from the capital\n itself. To interest people who declare themselves willing to put\n certain contributions either once or at fixed intervals at the\n disposal of the Foundation.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-422\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 33\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO SIEVERS, 7 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE\nESTABLISHMENT OF AN \u201cINSTITUTE FOR MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH\u201d WITHIN\n THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY\n\nThe Reich Leader SS Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 July 1942\nAR 48/6/42\n\n [Stamp]\n\n1. Personal Staff Reich Leader SS\n Archives, File No. AR/22/21\n\n SECRET!\n\n1. To the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers\n _Berlin-Dahlem_\n\nI request the Ahnenerbe\n\n1. to establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research,\n\n2. to support in every possible way the research carried out by SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, and to promote all corresponding\nresearch and undertakings,\n\n3. to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and\nassistants, or to procure them,\n\n4. to make use of the facilities available in Dachau,\n\n5. to contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main\nOffice [Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt] with regard to the costs, which\ncan be borne by the Waffen SS.\n\n [Signed] H. H. [HEINRICH HIMMLER]\n\n2. Copy forwarded to the Chief of the Economic and Administrative Main\nOffice,\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl\n\nBerlin\u2014Lichterfelde\u2014West\n\n with the request to take note.\n\n By order,\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n M. 7.7.\n\nCertified True Copy:\nSigned M.\nSS Obersturmfuehrer\n7.7.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-894\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 38\n\n FUEHRER DECREE, 9 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL\n\n 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 389\n\n Fuehrer Decree of 9 June 1942 Concerning the Reich Research Council\n\nThe necessity to expand all available forces to highest efficiency in\nthe interest of the state requires, not only in peace time but also, and\nespecially, in war time, the concentrated effort of scientific research\nand its channellization toward the goal to be aspired.\n\nTherefore, I commission the Reich Marshal Hermann Goering to establish\nas an independent entity a Reich Research Council, which is to serve\nthis purpose, to take over its chairmanship himself and to give it a\ncharter.\n\nLeading men of science above all are to make research fruitful for\nwarfare by working together in their special fields. The hitherto\nexisting Reich Research Council which was under the Reich Minister for\nScience and Education [Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung] is to\nbe absorbed by the new organization.\n\nThe means needed for research purposes are to be established in the\nReich budget as far as they will not be raised from contributions (for\nresearch) of circles interested in research.\n\nFuehrer Headquarters, 9 June 1942\n The Fuehrer\n ADOLF HITLER\n The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery\n DR. LAMMERS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-645\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3\n\n[Illustration: Table of Organization of the Reich Commissioner for\nHealth and Medical Service, drawn by the defendant Karl Brandt]\n\n-----\n\n[15] To Wehrmacht in this connection belong: Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, the\nWaffen SS units under orders of the Wehrmacht and the organizations and\nservices engaged within the framework of the Wehrmacht. [Footnote in\noriginal document.]\n\n[16] Same as Footnote 15 above.\n\n[17] As to the Navy these rules will not apply or will apply with\nrestrictions only to personnel _on board_. [Footnote in original\ndocument.]\n\n\n\n\nVII. EXTRACTS FROM ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE\n\n\n A. Medical Experiments\n\n 1. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf\nBrandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng,\nand Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation\nin criminal conduct involving high-altitude experiments (par. 6 (_A_) of\nthe indictment). During the course of the trial, the prosecution\nwithdrew this charge in the cases of Karl Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick,\nand Mrugowsky. Only the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were\nconvicted on this charge.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the high-altitude\nexperiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants\nRuff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth below\non pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the\ndefense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs\nfor the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It appears below on pages 114 to\n140. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on\npages 140 to 198.\n\n b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS RUFF, ROMBERG, AND\n WELTZ_\n\nEarly in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct research in the\nfield of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings reached by the\nAllied fighter planes. This created the problem of availability of human\nexperimental subjects, inasmuch as animal experimentation was considered\ninadequate. The heights involved were 12,000 meters to over 20,000\nmeters, hence it goes without saying that such experiments were very\ndangerous and, as indicated by the evidence, volunteers were not to be\nhad. This difficulty was overcome by the use of concentration camp\ninmates without their consent. The first indication of this criminal\nplan appears in a letter from Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a Luftwaffe\nphysician, in a letter to the Reich Leader SS dated 15 May 1941:\n\n \u201cFor the time being, I have been assigned to the Luftgau\n Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection course. During\n this course, where research on high-altitude flying plays a\n prominent part, determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the\n English fighter planes, considerable regret was expressed that\n no experiments on human beings have so far been possible for us\n because such experiments are very dangerous, _and nobody is\n volunteering_. I therefore put the serious question: is there\n any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be\n made available for these experiments?\u201d [Emphasis supplied.]\n (_1602, PS, Pros. Ex. 44._)\n\nIt further appears in this Rascher letter of 15 May 1941 that Rascher\nhad conferred with another Luftwaffe physician and that a tentative\nagreement had been reached wherein it was determined that the\nexperiments on the concentration camp inmates, in which the experimental\nsubjects were expected to die, would be performed at the \u201cBodenstaendige\nPruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe\u201d at Munich:\n\n \u201cThe experiments are being performed at the Ground Station for\n High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe [Bodenstaendige\n Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at Munich. The\n experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may\n die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely\n essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot,\n as it had been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys,\n because monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had\n an absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the\n Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments. He also\n is of the opinion that the problems in question can only be\n solved by experiments on human beings.\u201d (_1602-PS, Pros. Ex.\n 44._)\n\n * * * * *\n\nWeltz testified that a meeting took place in the summer of 1941 on the\noccasion of a visit by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke to Luftgau VII. (_Tr.\np. 7056._) In a discussion between Weltz, Kottenhoff, and Hippke, Hippke\ngave his approval in principle to the experiments if they were deemed\nnecessary. (_Tr. p. 7065._) In the course of the summer of 1941, Rascher\nwent to Weltz and proposed the slow-ascent experiments, but Weltz turned\nthem down as unnecessary. (_Tr. p. 7176._) This testimony of the\ndefendant Weltz clearly indicates the jurisdiction Weltz had over\nRascher\u2019s activities. This refusal to permit the performance of\nslow-ascent experiments bears out the contention of the prosecution that\nthe defendant Weltz had the power and the authority to intervene at any\ntime. Weltz\u2019 actions throughout the entire development of the plans for\nthe experiments were not merely negative. He was in full accord with the\nentire enterprise and he realized that Rascher did not possess the\nnecessary qualifications to conduct these experiments without the\nassistance of a specialist in this particular field of aviation\nmedicine. Furthermore, although Rascher was attached to Weltz\u2019 Institute\nhe had no other definite work. (_Tr. pp. 7078 and 7187._) To find a\nspecialist to collaborate with Weltz and Rascher proved to be a\ndifficult task. Weltz first approached members of his own institute,\nnamely Lutz and Wendt, men of considerable reputation in this field, but\nto no avail. Wolfgang Lutz appeared before this Tribunal and testified\nthat Weltz requested his assistance, as well as the assistance of Wendt,\nbut that they both refused on moral grounds. (_Tr. p. 269._) Weltz did\nnot deny this, but contended that his questions to Lutz were purely\nrhetorical. (_Tr. p. 7069._)\n\nThe inability to interest a specialist in the field of high-altitude\nresearch to collaborate with Rascher explains the cause for the lapse of\ntime between the date of the authorization by Himmler and the actual\ndate of the commencement of the experiments, viz, July 1941 to February\n1942. Weltz was not a specialist in high-altitude research. Kottenhoff\nwas transferred to Romania, and Rascher was comparatively a novice in\nthis field.\n\nThe next step taken by Weltz, which led to the completion of the plans\nto conduct the high-altitude experiments on human beings at the Dachau\nconcentration camp, was his invitation to the defendants Ruff and\nRomberg to collaborate with Rascher. These two men were experts in this\nfield and were interested in further research in altitudes exceeding\n12,000 meters. Weltz testified that he made a trip to Berlin and that\nRuff accepted his invitation to collaborate with Rascher. (_Tr. p.\n7188._) The evidence shows that Weltz approached Ruff and Romberg as he\nneeded expert assistance. (_NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex.\n47_; _NO-191, Pros. Ex. 43_.) The defendant Ruff stated that he first\nheard of the plan to carry out research on inmates of the Dachau\nconcentration camp from the defendant Weltz and that Weltz desired\ncollaboration between Romberg and Rascher and between Weltz\u2019 Institute\nand Ruff\u2019s Institute. (_Tr. p. 6653._) Furthermore, Ruff testified that\nWeltz stated:\n\n \u201cIt is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in these\n experiments because Romberg had already carried out such\n parachute descent experiments and is therefore the man who knows\n about the whole problem of rescue from high altitudes.\u201d (_Tr.\n pp. 6654-5._) Ruff further testified that Weltz suggested that a\n new series of experiments in parachute descents from great\n heights should be carried out at Dachau on prisoners. (_Tr. p.\n 6653._)\n\nFrom this moment on, the experimental program started to move as a\nmutual undertaking. This is better stated by the defendant Weltz:\n\n \u201cThis was to be a mutual undertaking, during which Ruff was to\n detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff naturally was\n to be chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of course, was to be\n Rascher\u2019s chief. Ruff couldn\u2019t give any orders to Rascher.\n Rascher was a captain in the Medical Corps and Ruff was a\n civilian. I couldn\u2019t give any orders to Romberg because Romberg\n was a civilian while I was a soldier. Naturally, this is how the\n distribution was. It had to be that way. Furthermore, it was\n clear that I couldn\u2019t in any way retire. I could not just leave\n Rascher to Ruff. It was quite clear that I had to participate in\n these experiments by exercising supervision, but not by actively\n participating.\u201d (_Tr. p. 7079._)\n\nThis evidence certainly rebuts Weltz\u2019 vague contention that he was not\nin search of specialists in high-altitude research to collaborate with\nhim and Rascher. Without the efforts of Weltz the experiments could\nnever have taken place. In brief, to conduct these experiments at\naltitudes exceeding 12,000 meters Weltz found it necessary to secure the\nassistance of experts in the field, as well as a low-pressure chamber\nwhich would meet his needs. Ruff and Romberg possessed both, and in the\nabove manner Weltz skillfully engineered the whole plan.\n\nImmediately after Weltz had completed his negotiations with Ruff, he\ncalled a meeting at his institute in Munich, wherein discussions of a\ntechnical nature concerning the experiments were held. At this meeting,\nRuff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz were in attendance. This meeting was\nat Weltz\u2019 Institute and Weltz presided over the meeting. It was further\ndecided that a second meeting was to be held at Dachau a few days later\nin order to make the necessary arrangements with the camp commander.\nThis trip took place in order to discuss technical preparations with the\ncamp commander, and to arrange details concerning the selection of the\nexperimental subjects. Again, Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher were in\nattendance, in addition to Piorkowski, the camp commander, and\nSchnitzler of the staff of the Reichsfuehrung SS. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex.\n40_; _NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _Tr. pp. 7086-7_.)\n\nAfter the arrangements with the camp authorities at Dachau had been\ncompleted, the shipment of the low-pressure chamber from Berlin was the\nnext problem to overcome. As pointed out earlier, Weltz desired the\nlow-pressure chamber which was possessed by Ruff and Romberg for use in\nthe experiments at Dachau. It is interesting to note that Weltz had had\na low-pressure chamber available in his own institute from 1938 on (_Tr.\np. 7178._), and that Weltz testified that volunteers from his student\nbody or from the Luftwaffe were available. (_Tr. pp. 7180-83._) Despite\nthis, it was necessary to resort to the concentration camp for inmates\nand, in order to conduct the experiments, a mobile pressure chamber had\nto be brought down from the Ruff Institute in Berlin, as the\nlow-pressure chamber in the Weltz Institute was not mobile. The mobile\nlow-pressure chamber from Ruff\u2019s Institute at Berlin was driven to\nWeltz\u2019 Institute in Munich and arrived in the late afternoon. This\nchamber was driven to Munich by employees of the DVL and turned over to\nWeltz. On the following day, SS drivers came from Dachau, received the\nkeys to the chamber and drove it to the concentration camp. (_Tr. p.\n7199._) The purpose in camouflaging this activity was to deceive the\nemployees of the DVL because Weltz and Ruff did not want them to know\nthat the low-pressure chamber was to be used in an experimental program\nat a concentration camp. This is borne out by the fact that a completely\nnew set of drivers came from the concentration camp to take the chamber\nto Dachau. This particular action of secrecy is noticeable when it is\nconsidered that Dachau is merely 12 kilometers from Munich and actually\nthe DVL drivers had to go out of their way to deliver the chamber to the\nWeltz Institute. Ruff testified that the secrecy in the transfer of the\nchamber to Dachau was for security reasons. (_Tr. p. 6550._)\n\nFrom the evidence thus far summarized, and indeed from Weltz\u2019 own\nadmission, it is clear that he must be found guilty of the high-altitude\ncrimes committed in Dachau. This was a criminal undertaking from its\ninception. It was known to all concerned that the proposed experiments\nwere certain to result in deaths and that they were to be performed on\nnonvolunteers. That is proved by the very first letter to Himmler. Weltz\nsupported the ambition of his subordinate, Rascher, to perform the\nexperiments on behalf of the Weltz Institute. He secured the\ncollaboration of Ruff and Romberg. He obtained the consent of Hippke and\na research assignment from the Referat for Aviation Medicine under\nAnthony and Becker-Freyseng. He took care of the technical arrangements\nand participated in conferences with Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher which\ndecided on the experiments to be performed. Weltz did more in having the\nexperiments performed than anyone else. His guilt is clearly established\non this evidence alone. It is not disputed that Rascher was subordinated\nto him until February 1942. Weltz\u2019 main defense is that he had Rascher\ntransferred from his institute late in February 1942 and, hence, cannot\nbe held responsible for what happened thereafter. Even if true, this is\nno defense. Weltz had long since participated in the criminal\nenterprise. He cannot be heard to say that \u201cYes, I did all that, but I\u2019m\nnot responsible for the actual consequences which my acts were expected\nto bring about.\u201d The deaths which occurred in these experiments were\nforeseeable from the beginning. Weltz does not escape responsibility for\nthose deaths, even if it were true that Rascher was not subordinated to\nhim when they occurred. But that is not true, as the evidence proves.\n\nThe actual date of the commencement of the experiments at Dachau was 22\nFebruary 1942, which was recalled by the witness Neff because it was his\nbirthday. (_Tr. p. 606._) From this point on, the defendant Weltz takes\nthe position that he had no knowledge of the work and that, in fact,\nRascher was relieved from his command. Weltz admitted that it was his\nobligation to supervise Rascher and that the existing arrangement\nbetween Ruff and Weltz was that this was to be a joint undertaking. Ruff\nexercised supervision over Romberg, and Weltz was to exercise\nsupervision over Rascher. Weltz conceded that he was Rascher\u2019s\ndisciplinary superior and was responsible for the scientific programs to\nwhich he assigned Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7088._) Despite this chain of\ncommand and working agreement, Weltz takes the position that Rascher\nendeavored to work independently and that he did not desire to report to\nWeltz. (_Tr. pp. 7088-9._) It became necessary for Weltz to order\nRascher to report to him twice a week and, as a result of this order,\nWeltz alleges that Rascher came to him in the middle of February and\nthat they had their first conversation since the meeting in Dachau and\non that occasion, Rascher informed Weltz that the experiments had not\neven started yet and that he had nothing to report. (_Tr. p. 7089._)\n\nWeltz testified that Anthony, under whom Becker-Freyseng worked in the\nLuftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, in Berlin, telephoned him to inquire how\nthe Dachau experiments were progressing and that he could only reply\nthat nothing had been reported to him. Rascher reported to him for the\nsecond time, whereupon Weltz informed Rascher that a telephone call had\ncome through from Berlin and that he wanted to have some clarification\nas to how things stood at Dachau. Rascher did not want to report\nanything to Weltz at the second conversation, and Weltz maintains that\nhe told Rascher that he was going to Berlin to clear up the situation\nand obtain a clear decision whether or not Rascher was to report to him.\nThen, on the occasion of the third visit from Rascher, Weltz, expecting\na sharp argument, asked Wendt of his office to come into the room, and\non that occasion he confronted Rascher with the alternative either to\nreport to him or to leave the institute. Weltz asserts that at that time\nRascher showed him a telegram from Himmler, which read: \u201cExperiments are\nto be kept secret from everyone.\u201d (_Tr. p. 7089._) Thereupon, Weltz\nmaintains that he ordered Rascher from his institute and that he then\ncomposed a letter, together with Wendt, to the Luftgau and asked for\nRascher\u2019s immediate transfer and that within a few days Rascher\u2019s\nassignment had ended. (_Tr. p. 7090._)\n\nThe memorandum of Nini Rascher to Himmler of 24 February 1942 shows that\nat that time Rascher was still subordinate to Weltz. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex.\n47._) She reviewed the history of the experiments and pointed out that\non 24 July 1941 Rascher, Kottenhoff, and Weltz were to be in charge.\nKottenhoff was transferred to Romania in August and thereby excluded\nfrom the group. She stated that it was Weltz\u2019s task to initiate the\ntechnical execution of the experiments. Apparently because of a fear of\nmoral objections on the part of Hippke, Weltz had postponed the\nbeginning of the experiments but had finally secured Ruff and Romberg to\ncollaborate with Rascher. A conference took place in Dachau between\nPiorkowski, Schnitzler, Weltz, Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff. Weltz had\ngiven the assurance that he would take care of the authorization for\nRascher. Mrs. Rascher complained that on 18 February, after Rascher had\ncarried out all the preparatory work, Weltz stated: \u201cNow that you have\nremoved all obstacles from the path of Romberg with the SS, the\nauthorization must be handled differently.\u201d Mrs. Rascher stated that\nboth Romberg and Rascher agreed that Weltz was not needed anymore and\nthat both opposed his attempts to oust Rascher in favor of himself.\n\nWeltz contended that the truth of the matter was that he wished to get\nrid of Rascher, and that Mrs. Rascher had misrepresented this to Himmler\nso that it would appear that he was trying to eliminate Rascher in order\nto keep the work exclusively to himself. (_Tr. p. 7099._) There can be\nno question that Mrs. Rascher was quite correct in her analysis of the\nsituation. What possible reason could Weltz have for desiring, just\nbefore the experiments began, to eliminate Rascher unless he wished to\nparticipate himself personally and thus secure a larger share of the\nscientific credit? Certainly he had supported Rascher from the very\ninception of the proposal to perform the experiments. Be that as it may,\nthe proof shows that Rascher continued to participate in the experiments\nas a subordinate of Weltz. This is clearly proved by a file memorandum\nof Schnitzler of the SS office in Munich, dated 28 April 1942. (_NO-264,\nPros. Ex. 60._) This memorandum shows that Rascher was still\nsubordinated to Weltz, and that Weltz was insisting on active\nparticipation in the experiments and full responsibility. The RLM [Reich\nAir Ministry] had inquired of Weltz how long the experiments would last,\nand whether it was justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long.\nRascher, who was chafing under his subordination to Weltz, requested\nthat his assignment be changed to the DVL [German Aviation Research\nInstitute], Dachau Branch.\n\nWeltz\u2019 only reaction to this document was that the date was wrong and\nshould read 28 February 1942 instead of 28 April 1942. (_Tr. p. 7099\nff._) Weltz conceded on cross-examination that, assuming the date 28\nApril 1942 was correct, then of course Rascher was still his subordinate\nat that time. (_Tr. p. 7232._) The file memorandum of Sievers dated 3\nMay 1942 settled this question beyond any doubt. This memorandum reads\nas follows:\n\n \u201cSS Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported in Munich\n on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with\n Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested that Dr. Rascher be\n withdrawn if by Friday, 1 May 1942 he (Weltz) were not taken\n into consultation regarding the experiments. The Reich Leader SS\n was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff\n on 30 April 1942 to send a telegram to Field Marshal Milch\n requesting that Dr. Rascher be ordered to the German Aviation\n Research Institute [Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt],\n Dachau Branch, and there to be at the disposal of the Reich\n Leader SS.\u201d (_NO-1359, Pros. Ex. 493._)\n\nAfter having been confronted with this document Weltz in effect conceded\nthat his previous testimony about the transfer of Rascher had been, to\nsay the least of it, incorrect. He said:\n\n \u201cYes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had\n this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I\n would have known that the note of Schnitzler was correct, and\n that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Nini\n Rascher\u2019s letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be\n explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the\n documents which were available here, since I no longer know them\n today.\u201d (_Tr. p. 7239._)\n\nOn redirect examination by his defense counsel, Weltz was asked again to\nclarify the situation with respect to Rascher\u2019s subordination, and he\nreplied:\n\n \u201cSince my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to\n naught, I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way\n to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.\u201d (_Tr. p.\n 7251._)\n\nIn a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Wolff it is again made evident\nbeyond any doubt that Rascher was subordinate to Weltz:\n\n \u201cIn reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector\n reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the\n SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation\n of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However,\n the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to\n perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared\n in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.)\n Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. C.)\n Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition\n to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps.\u201d\n (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._)\n\nThus it is clear that Weltz must be held responsible for the numerous\nmurders which resulted during the high-altitude experiments in Dachau.\nNot only did he participate in plans and enterprises involving the\ncommission of these experiments, but he also was the direct superior of\nRascher who, together with Ruff and Romberg, actually executed the\nexperiments.\n\n _Status of Prisoners Used in the Experiments_\n\nAfter Weltz had successfully secured the collaboration of Ruff and\nRomberg, he held a meeting at his institute in Munich late in December\n1941, or early in January 1942. (_Tr. p. 6657_; _Tr. p. 7086_.) Ruff,\nRomberg, Weltz, and Rascher attended this meeting primarily to lay the\ngroundwork for the technical arrangements necessary to perform the work\nat Dachau. It is alleged by all the defendants that the question\nregarding the status of the prisoners to be used was discussed and that\nRascher had assured them that the subjects would be exclusively\nvolunteers. (_Tr. p. 7086_; _Tr. p. 6232_; _Tr. p. 6869_.) In fact, the\ndefendants state that Rascher exhibited a communication from Himmler\nwhich provided that the subjects must be volunteers under all\ncircumstances. (_Tr. p. 6869._) Unfortunately, this letter has not been\nproduced by the defense. Needless to say, the defendants take the\nposition that such experiments were to be performed on habitual and\ncondemned criminals and that considerations were to be offered to said\n\u201cvolunteers\u201d in the event of their surviving the experiments. As a\nmatter of fact, Romberg explicitly states that he saw the \u201cHimmler\nletter\u201d and he was able to observe the words \u201ccriminal\u201d and \u201cvolunteer\u201d\ntherein. (_Tr. p. 6870._)\n\nThe assertion on the part of the defendants that Himmler had ordered\nthat the criminals used be volunteers is ridiculous and incredible when\none considers that Himmler instructed Rascher to pardon these\nunfortunate inmates only if they could be recalled to life after having\nbeen subjected to the type of experiments outlined in Rascher\u2019s first\ninterim report, wherein it is shown that the experimental subjects had\nstopped breathing altogether and their chests had been cut open, i. e.,\nautopsy had been actually performed on them. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex.\n49._)\n\nIn this instance, Himmler graciously stated:\n\n \u201c3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the\n experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as\n to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should\n such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person\n condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for\n life.\u201d (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51._)\n\nIt is absurd to give any weight to the allegation that Himmler provided\nthat the subjects were to be volunteers. These men knew that volunteers\ncould not be secured and that was the very reason for going to Himmler.\nThis is shown in the letter from Rascher to Himmler requesting that\ncriminals be made available due to the fact that \u201cnobody is\nvolunteering.\u201d\n\nThe defendant Ruff admitted on the stand that the experiments conducted\non themselves and colleagues in Berlin concerned altitudes up to 12,000\nmeters and that the question of what would happen between 12,000 and\n20,000 meters was subsequently investigated at Dachau. (_Tr. p. 6679._)\nIt is obvious, therefore, that Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher were\nunwilling to perform such investigations on themselves.\n\nThe evidence has proved that the subjects used in the high-altitude\nexperiments were not, with a few minor exceptions, volunteers. The\ninmates were simply selected at random in the camp and forced to undergo\nthe experiments. Russians, Poles, Jews of various nationalities, and\nGermans were used. Russian prisoners of war were included, as were many\npolitical prisoners. Approximately 180 to 200 inmates were experimented\non, about 70 to 80 being killed as a result. Not more than 40 of these\nhad been \u201ccondemned to death.\u201d Among those killed were political\nprisoners. (_Tr. pp. 613-18_; _also Tr. p. 432_.) This testimony of\nNeff, who was the inmate assistant in the experiments and who identified\nRuff, Romberg, and Weltz, is corroborated by Rascher\u2019s cable asking if\nHimmler\u2019s amnesty rule applied to Russians and Poles who had been\nextensively used in the experiments. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) The\nnationality and status of inmates were easily discernible from the\nbadges worn on their uniforms. Ruff and Romberg could have told from\nthese that foreign nationals and political prisoners were being used.\n(_Tr. pp. 616-7._)\n\nThe witness Neff\u2019s testimony reveals that approximately 10 prisoners\nwere selected as permanent, experimental subjects, but they were not\nvolunteers. (_Tr. pp. 611, 622, and 430._) There were, however, a few\n\u201cvolunteers\u201d according to Neff. He stated that \u201cthere were certain\nvolunteers for these experiments, because Rascher promised certain\npersons that they would be released from the camp if they underwent\nthese experiments.\u201d (_Tr. p. 614._) Neff clearly pointed out that in\nview of the way the prisoner subjects were selected and used it was not\npossible to know who were volunteers, if any, and who were not\nvolunteers. (_Tr. pp. 606-26._) They were not brought in and used as a\nseparate group. Moreover, the evidence shows that these promises were\nnot kept. (_Tr. p. 615._) The only evidence of a release is the case of\nSabota, as outlined by Neff, and in that case he was sent to an\nundesirable special SS commando group. No death sentences were commuted.\n\nThe defense claims for Ruff and Romberg that the experiments at Dachau\nwere divided into two groups. The first group, the so-called\nRuff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, was noncriminal, while the second\ngroup, the Rascher experiments, encompassed all the crimes. They contend\nthat the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments were conducted independently\nof the Rascher experiments and that the 10 original subjects mentioned\nby Neff and Vieweg were used exclusively for the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher\nexperiments. Despite the testimony of the witnesses and the weight of\nthe documentary evidence, they would have the Tribunal believe that by a\nwondrous working of fate these were all volunteers and no crimes\noccurred. This defense is of course inapplicable to Weltz. Rascher was\nsubordinated to and subject to his orders.\n\nIt should be noted that Romberg and Rascher who tested themselves in the\naltitude chamber at Dachau with an air pressure equivalent to 12,500 and\n13,500 meters altitude respectively, for 30 to 40 minutes, discontinued\nthese experiments on themselves because of intense pain. (_NO-402, Pros.\nEx. 66._) Yet, these men proceeded, as proved by their own joint report,\nto conduct experiments on prisoners which they would not perform on\nthemselves.\n\nThe experimenters took no responsibility or even interest in seeing to\nit that the alleged promises made to the subjects to induce them to\n\u201cvolunteer\u201d were kept. (_Tr. p. 6993._) Although Romberg said he had no\nchannel to Himmler, he also admitted he visited Himmler with Rascher in\nJuly 1942. (_Tr. pp. 7015-6._)\n\nIn this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the defense.\nBy limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the 10 subjects, we\nfind that they further allege that no deaths occurred in those\nexperiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths in the Rascher\nwork. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day of the\nexperiments, emphatically stated that the first series of experiments\n_was not carried out on volunteers_. Furthermore, the defendant Ruff was\nalso present during these experiments. (_Tr. p. 622._) The defendants\u2019\ncontention that the experiments were in two groups is _explicitly\ndenied_ by Neff. He testified that Romberg not only experimented with\nRascher on the original 10 subjects, but also on a large number of other\nprisoners. The distinction fabricated by the defendants cannot possibly\nbe credited in the light of Neff\u2019s testimony. On being asked the\nquestion whether Romberg experimented only on the 10 original subjects,\nNeff replied:\n\n \u201cExperiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but,\n for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also\n conducted on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction\n which the defense counsel tries to make between experiments\n included in the report to the Luftgau or of death\u2014it is\n impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish\n between those which fell into one category or the other.\u201d (_Tr.\n p. 691._)\n\nWhich is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one\u2019s common sense,\nor the self-serving statements of the defendants? This is a question the\nTribunal must answer. There is no such thing as half a murderer. These\ndefendants are responsible for those murders or they are not\nresponsible. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the\nridiculous contention that a group of volunteers, segregated for use by\nRomberg, wore different colored shirts so he could tell them apart and\nwere treated with the greatest deference. But that is just what Ruff and\nRomberg ask the Tribunal to find. It is absolutely impossible in the\nface of the record.\n\nThis, alleged disassociation of Ruff and Romberg from the \u201ccrimes\ncommitted exclusively by Rascher\u201d is in complete contradiction to the\nacts of these defendants during the experiments, which after all speak\nmuch louder than their present testimony. Neff testified that Romberg\npersonally witnessed at least five deaths during the experiments, and\nthat he made no effort to stop them nor did he even protest after the\nevent. (_Tr. p. 619._) Romberg admitted seeing three deaths and that he\nknew that five to ten other murders took place in his absence. (_NO-476,\nPros. Ex. 40._) The first death Romberg saw, he said, occurred in April.\nHe reported this to Ruff. _Yet the experiments were not discontinued._\nThey went on to the end of June and still more deaths occurred which\nRomberg saw. _To say the least of it, these defendants made themselves a\nparty to murder by continuing the experiments._ This is true no matter\nhow innocent they may have been up to the first death. They were duty\nbound to stop the experiments immediately, remove the chamber, and force\na court martial of Rascher. They did none of these simple and obvious\nthings. They did not for the very reason that deaths were expected from\nthe very beginning and were a part of the experimental plan. Romberg saw\nthese men die and did absolutely nothing. It was within his power to\nsave them at the time. He said he was operating the electrocardiograph.\nHe knew precisely by their heart action when the subjects were in danger\nof dying. He also knew this from his knowledge of reaction to high\naltitudes. He could see and read the pressure gauges. He could have\nturned the pressure down and saved their lives by simply moving the\ngauge which was within arm\u2019s reach. He was a bigger man than Rascher.\nForce could have been used if necessary. Not only did he do nothing\nwhile the helpless victims died before his very eyes, but he assisted in\nthe autopsies.\n\nAfter all these murders had occurred and were known to them, Ruff and\nRomberg still went on. They issued a joint report on the experiments in\nthe name of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher in July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex.\n66._) They were still collaborating with this admitted murderer and gave\nhim the cover of their scientific reputation. Romberg received a medal\nfor his work in the experiments on the recommendation of Rascher.\n(_1607-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 65._) Romberg was still supporting Rascher in\nSeptember 1942 and was to have made an oral report to Milch on the\nexperiments with Rascher. He wrote a memorandum on Rascher\u2019s behalf\nexplaining that the report was not given because Milch was unable to\nreceive them at the scheduled time. This same memorandum, signed by\nRomberg, proves that _he was anxious to continue high-altitude\nexperiments with Rascher and asked for Milch\u2019s permission_.\n\nHe wrote:\n\n \u201cOberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to the\n State Secretary (Milch) our wishes concerning the distribution\n of the report and the continuation of the experiments. * * *\n Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on 11 September, our\n wishes concerning distribution and confirmation of the\n experiments to the State Secretary. The State Secretary had\n approved the distribution schedule, and said that a continuation\n of the experiment was not urgent.\u201d (_NO-224, Pros. Ex. 76._)\n\nIn the meantime, the murderous freezing experiments had been started\nwith the Luftwaffe team of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher. Ruff,\nRomberg, and Weltz all heard the report of those experiments in\nNuernberg in October 1942. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Hippke himself\nwrote his special thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942, and said: \u201cWhen\nthe work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be\nallowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?\u201d\n(_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Analysis of the Experiments_\n\nThe experiments at Dachau in the field of high-altitude research were\nconducted to determine human reactions to altitudes above 12,000 meters.\nThe defendant Romberg stated that four series of experiments were\nconducted (_a_) slow descent without oxygen, (_b_) slow descent with\noxygen, (_c_) falling without oxygen, and (_d_) falling with oxygen.\n(_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first two tests were designed to simulate\ndescent with parachute open while the latter two a free fall from an\nairplane before the parachute opens. As pointed out in Dr. Rascher\u2019s\nfirst interim report on the experiments, an additional problem was to be\nsolved, namely, the determination whether the theoretically established\nnorms pertaining to the length of life of human beings breathing air\nwith only a small portion of oxygen and subjected to low pressure\ncorrespond with the results obtained by practical experience. This\ninterim report of Rascher\u2019s states as follows:\n\n \u201c2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being\n above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been\n conducted at all, since it has been a foregone conclusion that\n the human experimental subject (Versuchsperson-VP) would suffer\n death.\u201d\n\n The experiments conducted by myself _and Dr. Romberg_ proved the\n following:\n\n \u201cExperiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen\n and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did\n not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type\n were carried out in which none of VP died. Very severe bends\n together with unconsciousness occurred, but completely normal\n functions of the senses returned when a height of 7 km. was\n reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering during the\n experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time the\n experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they\n did not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days.\n The extent to which deterioration of the organism may occur due\n to continuously repeated experiments can only be established at\n the end of the series of experiments. _The extreme fatal\n experiments will be carried out on specially selected VP\u2019s\n otherwise it would not be possible to exercise the rigid control\n so extraordinarily important for practical purposes._\u201d [Emphasis\n supplied.] (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._)\n\nThus, it is clear that the experiments were planned and executed with\nthe _intention_ that some were to terminate fatally. This report covered\nthe period up to the first week in April and mention of deaths and\nautopsies is made. This quite obviously was the instance when Romberg\nsays he saw his first death and autopsy, although he tends to place the\ndate as the latter part of April. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) If the\nexperiments had been stopped there the lives of many subjects would have\nbeen saved.\n\nThe defendants argue that, while the experiments may have killed\npersons, they did not involve torture and pain. This is on the theory\nthat the subjects lost consciousness before any sensation of pain. This\nanomalous defense is completely disproved by the photographic exhibits\nshowing the expressions of pain of the subjects. (_NO-610, Pros. Ex.\n41._) as well as the defendants\u2019 own report on the experiments.\n(_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The reaction of one subject was described in\nterms such as \u201csevere altitude sickness, spasmodic convulsions\u201d. In a\nself-experiment by Romberg and Rascher, the latter\u2019s reactions were\ndescribed as follows:\n\n \u201cAfter 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the\n right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg\n which increased continually as though Ra\u2019s [Rascher\u2019s] whole\n right side were being crushed between two presses. At the same\n time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were\n being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe so\n that at last the discontinuation of the experiment became\n necessary.\u201d (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._)\n\nThere is no case on record where an experiment on an inmate was\ndiscontinued because of pain.\n\nRuff and Romberg take the position that they would be most unwilling to\nkill prisoners in the course of an experiment. They insist that their\nexperiments with Rascher were concerned with the problem of explosive\ndecompression and on parachute descent from high altitudes, whereas\nRascher alone worked on sojourn or a more prolonged stay at high\naltitudes, and that it was in Rascher\u2019s experiments that prisoners were\nkilled. This again is the artificial division of the experiments into\nthe criminal and noncriminal which has already been proved to be\nspurious. But here again, the two self-experiments which Ruff, Romberg,\nand Rascher included in their joint final report as mentioned above\n_were experiments on prolonged stay at high altitude, a subject which\nthey now claim was exclusively Rascher\u2019s_. The only reason that this\nexperiment did not end fatally was the fact that it was interrupted in\ntime because of intense pain. Moreover, on page 11 of the final report\nby Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz the following is said: \u201cThis is worthy of\nspecial attention because in this case a person has fully recovered\nmentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. (27,230 ft.), after 3 minutes of the\nmost severe lack of oxygen, _while in altitude endurance experiments_ at\nthis altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes.\u201d\n[Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Here, again, it is proved\nfrom their own report that Ruff and Romberg, as well as Rascher, were\nconcerned with sojourn at high altitudes.\n\nExperiments, in which prisoners were killed, are reported in Rascher\u2019s\nreport to Himmler of 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) Some\nprisoners were killed by keeping them at 12,000 meters without oxygen\nfor 30 minutes; one was killed at 20,000 meters when exposed there for\nabout 6 minutes without oxygen. These prisoners were autopsied to\nascertain if bubbles of gas, called air embolism in Rascher\u2019s report of\n11 May 1942, were present in the blood vessels of the brain and other\norgans when dissected under water. Some \u201cJewish professional criminals\u201d\nwho had committed \u201cRassenschande\u201d (race pollution)[18] were killed for\nanother reason:\n\n \u201cTo find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as\n mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the\n following was done: After relative recuperation from such a\n parachute descending test had taken place, however before\n regaining consciousness, some VP\u2019s were kept under water until\n they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of\n the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of\n air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary\n vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.\u201d\n (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._)\n\nIt should be noted that these murders were committed in connection with\nthe _parachute descending tests_, not prolonged stay at high altitudes,\nand this was the very subject being studied by Ruff and Romberg. Romberg\ntestified that he was present at the death of three of these prisoners,\none in April and two in May 1942, and witnessed an autopsy of one, in\nwhich gas bubbles were present in the blood vessels of the brain. He\nreported these deaths to Ruff. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff testified\nRomberg was present in five cases where fatalities occurred (_Tr. pp.\n619, 692._) and Romberg admitted that he knew that five to ten other\nexperimental subjects were killed while he was not present. (_NO-476,\nPros. Ex. 40._) Neff stated that Romberg actively participated in the\nmajority of the experiments. He observed the experiments, took notes,\nand studied the electrocardiogram and thus was able to determine when an\nexperimental subject in the chamber was about to die. (_Tr. p. 651._)\n\nIt is incredible that Dr. Ruff was not informed regarding the finding of\nbubbles in the blood vessels of the brain since such observations in\nhuman beings who have died following too rapid atmospheric decompression\nis a very, very unique event, though bubbles had been observed many\ntimes prior to 1942 in the blood vessels of laboratory animals. It is\ninconceivable that Dr. Ruff, or anyone else in the field of aviation\nmedicine, had not heard of the bubble theory of the cause of joint\npains, coughing, blindness, or paralysis, or the symptoms of the\npressure drop sickness, which may occur on exposure to high altitude,\nsince this theory was well known in literature and text books of\naviation medicine available since 1938. How else would Rascher have had\noccasion to look for the bubbles? He either learned of the theory during\na course in aviation medicine or was told about it by Ruff and Romberg,\nwho knew much more than Rascher about aviation medicine.\n\nIt is fantastic that Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher did not have in mind the\nobservations of bubbles in the blood vessels of the murdered prisoners,\nwhen, in the final joint report of 28 July 1942, they wrote:\n\n \u201cIn spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the\n actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily\n failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon\n post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It\n appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness\n had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack\u201d. (_NO-402,\n Pros. Ex. 66._)\n\nIt has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with\ndecompression or pressure-drop sickness may be due to the formation of\ngas bubbles (air embolism) in the blood vessels of the brain or in the\nregions of the joints or in the blood vessels of the lungs. When the\nbubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain, they are supposed to\ncause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas\nbubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause\npain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood\nvessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks\nof coughing. That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20\nyears, and an expert in the field of aviation medicine could not have\nbeen unaware of it. (_Tr. pp. 9098-9._) Since Rascher had observed\nbubbles as is described in his report of 11 May 1942, and since Ruff and\nRomberg had complete knowledge of the deaths, obviously these important\nfindings of Rascher on air embolism did not escape the attention of Ruff\nand Romberg. It can only be concluded that these findings, which\nresulted from intentioned deaths, form the basis of the paragraph quoted\nabove from the final report. Because of the nature of the subject\nmatter, and a prior knowledge of the observations in the autopsies in\nthe experiments, the ideas expressed in the paragraph quoted above\ncannot be separated from those in the Rascher report of 11 May. So\ntestified the expert witness Dr. A. C. Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9151._) All of this\nproves again that the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect they\nhad nothing to do with the so-called \u201cRascher experiments\u201d is completely\nfalse. Even though deaths are not specifically mentioned in the joint\nreport of 28 July, it is clear from Dr. Ivy\u2019s testimony that the\nfindings in the death cases form the basis for a part of that report.\n\nRuff and Romberg would have the Tribunal believe that the experiments\nwere completed and the chamber removed from Dachau by 20 May 1942. Since\nRomberg knew of and reported on the deaths to Ruff in April, there\nclearly was no excuse whatever to leave the chamber in Dachau for even\nanother day. But according to their own story, it stayed until 20 May\nand Romberg saw two more men killed. They attempted to gloss over their\ncriminal participation in these later murders by saying that the chamber\ncould not be moved without orders from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector.\nBe that as it may, such a technical violation of moving the chamber\nwithout orders is hardly comparable to the crime of leaving the chamber\nfor further experiments by a man whom they admit they knew to have been\na murderer. Indeed, any decent superior who was not himself a party to\nthe crime, as they actually were, would undoubtedly have court-martialed\nRuff and Romberg for leaving the chamber there, not to speak of Rascher.\n\nBut it is not true that the chamber left Dachau on 20 May 1942 as they\nperjuriously stated. They seized upon this date from Milch\u2019s letter to\nWolff stating that the chamber was needed elsewhere. (_343-A-PS, Pros.\nEx. 62._) There clearly was an intention to transfer the chamber, but it\nwas _not_ in fact moved and this was undoubtedly due to the joint\nefforts of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher. Romberg was anxious to continue\nhis criminal work with Rascher in September 1942 as has been pointed out\nabove. In any event, on 4 June 1942, Milch authorized retention of the\nchamber in Dachau _for two more months_. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) On 25\nJune this order was passed on to Rascher by Heckenstaller, adjutant to\nWolff, reference being made to a letter of 5 June from Rascher.\n(_NO-284, Pros. Ex. 64._) These documents prove beyond doubt that the\nchamber remained in Dachau until July 1942.\n\nThe testimony of Neff not only proves that the experiments continued\nuntil July 1942 but also that Romberg was presented with a remarkable\nopportunity to discontinue the experiments without any trouble whatever.\nNeff stated that Romberg told him in the latter part of May that the\nchamber was to be transferred (undoubtedly as a result of Milch\u2019s letter\nof 20 May which was later countermanded) and, under the impression that\nRomberg might not be in favor of any continuation of the experiments, he\nsabotaged the chamber by breaking a glass barometer in order to make\nsure the chamber would be sent away. Instead of seizing this opportunity\nfor stopping the experiments by removing the damaged chamber, Romberg\nrushed to Berlin, obtained spare parts, and in a matter of 2 weeks had\nthe chamber functioning again for more murderous experiments. (_Tr. pp.\n623-4._) The chamber was used for another 3 weeks after it was repaired\nand five persons were killed on the last day of the experiments. (_Tr.\np. 624._) Although the defense attacked Neff on cross-examination\nconcerning the sabotage of the chamber (_Tr. p. 663_), by the time\nRomberg took the stand they admitted the chamber was damaged but moved\nthe whole incident to the month of May instead of June. (_Tr. p. 6905._)\nThis was obviously done on the theory that the Tribunal could be\ndeceived into believing that very few experiments could have been\nconducted in May since they contend the chamber was moved on 20 May. But\nthe documents and Neff\u2019s testimony clearly established that the chamber\nwas there until July. Moreover, it matters little whether the chamber\nwas damaged in May or June. Romberg in no event took the opportunity to\nstop the experiments on the ground of unavailable spare parts, although\nthis opportunity would not have been needed if he really wanted to\ndiscontinue them. He need have done nothing more complex than to have\nsent the chamber away or left himself.\n\nRuff\u2019s and Romberg\u2019s guilt is beyond doubt when we consider that they\ndid not take the opportunity to withdraw after the first death of an\nexperimental subject in April 1942. Romberg admitted his presence at the\ndeath of this first subject. (_Tr. p. 6924._) He was studying the\nelectrocardiogram at the time of the experiments (_NO-476, Pros. Ex.\n40_), but he would have the Tribunal find that he was an innocent\nbystander who was privileged to do nothing. This was just another \u201cSS\nexperiment\u201d according to Romberg. But Romberg admitted that he was\nworking the electrocardiogram and was studying the point of light that\nfollows the heart. When he saw that the critical point had been reached,\nhe said he spoke to Rascher (_Tr. p. 6927_), but to no avail as Rascher\ncontinued the experiment until death resulted. This testimony of assumed\nimpotence when a man was slowly killed before his eyes is an insult to\none\u2019s intelligence. Romberg was the senior scientist and was fully aware\nof the fact that the danger zone had been reached as he was thoroughly\nfamiliar with the equipment being used. He has outlined for the Tribunal\nthe proximity of the electrocardiogram to the controls of the chamber\n(_Tr. p. 6929_), and it is inconceivable that Romberg could not have\ntaken the necessary action to have spared this experimental subject\u2019s\nlife if he had so desired. The inescapable fact is that these deaths\nwere part of the plan and Romberg not only had no desire to interfere\nbut was very much interested in the cause of death through air embolism.\n\nAssuming that Romberg was opposed to this fatal experiment, it is\nimpossible to understand why he did not take the appropriate action to\nhave Rascher prosecuted for this premeditated murder. The fact of the\nmatter is that Romberg merely reported this death to Ruff (_Tr. p.\n6932_), and no appropriate action was taken by Ruff either. Although\nalleging an objection to this fatality, Romberg admits participation in\nthe autopsy of the unfortunate victim. This autopsy clearly bore out the\nfact that air embolism was the cause of death. When asked if he\nparticipated in this autopsy, Romberg answered, \u201cYes, I watched one\nautopsy. That was my duty.\u201d (_Tr. p. 6924._) Romberg testified that he\nsaw two other deaths and that air embolism also caused those. (_Tr. pp.\n6925-6._)\n\nRuff and Romberg lay great stress on the point that deaths are not\nmentioned in the joint report of 28 July 1942 of Romberg, Ruff, and\nRascher. This, of course, is a very understandable omission, but it in\nno way proves that they are not responsible for those murders. Indeed,\nthe joint report of 28 July 1942 (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66_) is identical\nwith Rascher\u2019s report of 11 May 1942 (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) except for\nthe specific mentioning of the deaths. For example, paragraph 3 of the\nRascher report is a summary of part III-1, pages 3 to 18, and part\nIII-2, pages 18 to 19 of the joint final report. Paragraph 4 of\nRascher\u2019s report contains results set out in part III-4, pages 21 to 22,\nof the joint final report. Paragraph 5 of Rascher\u2019s report is identical\nwith part III-3, pages 19 to 21, of the joint final report. Paragraph 6\nof the Rascher report where the pervitin experiments are mentioned is\nalluded to in the pervitin data in the joint final report on page 18.\nParagraph 7 of the Rascher report contains the conclusions incorporated\nin the joint final report and gives details on the gas bubble data which\nare referred to on pages 16 to 18 of the joint final report, but from\nwhich is omitted reference to the autopsy results of the murdered\nprisoners. These various passages were compared by the witness Ivy and\nhe concluded that they refer to the same subject matter. (_Tr. p.\n9097._)\n\nRuff attempts to explain the omission of mention of deaths in the final\nreport on the ground that the deaths did not occur as a result of their\nexperiments on rescue from high altitudes (i. e., parachute descending\ntests), but rather in Rascher\u2019s own experiments with which they had\nnothing to do (i. e., prolonged stay at high altitudes). (_Tr. p.\n6592._) It has already been proved that the basic premise to this\nspurious argument is completely false, since Ruff and Romberg themselves\nwere not interested in sojourn at high altitudes. The self-experiments\nof Romberg and Rascher were just such tests and they are specifically\nmentioned in the final report. These involved a stay of 30 to 40 minutes\nat altitudes between 12 and 13.5 kilometers (39,400 to 44,290 feet). But\nso also is the minor premise wrong. _Deaths were deliberately brought\nabout in the course of the parachute descending tests._ In these tests\nit had been noted that the subjects suffered from spasmodic and clonic\nconvulsions together with paralysis. This is reported in paragraph 3 of\nRascher\u2019s memorandum of 11 May 1942 on the experiments and also on pages\n13 through 18 of the final report. In his memorandum, Rascher stated:\n\n \u201cTo find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as\n mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the\n following was done: After relative recuperation from such _a\n parachute descending test_ had taken place, however before\n regaining consciousness, some VP\u2019s were kept under water until\n they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of\n the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of\n air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary\n vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.\u201d\n [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._)\n\n_This proves beyond any doubt that murders were committed in the\nparachute descending tests of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher._ Ruff again\ntried to deceive the Tribunal by testifying that it was substantially\nimpossible for air embolism to form in parachute descending tests. This\nis obviously disproved by the statement of Rascher quoted above and by\nthe reference in the final report, already mentioned above, which\nalludes to this same problem. But the lie was also squarely nailed by\nthe expert witness Ivy, who testified that it was possible for air\nembolism to form in subjects who were at altitudes above 12,000 meters\n(39,400 feet) only 3 minutes, that is to say, subjects who bailed out at\n15,000 meters. Bubbles may form as low as 30,000 feet. (_Tr. p. 9102._)\nThus, the defense that no deaths occurred during the experiments\nconcerning rescue from high altitudes is completely spurious.\n\nMoreover, it should be noted that while the joint final report does not\ndescribe any of the death cases, it also _does not deny_ that deaths\noccurred. On page 25 of the original, it says: \u201cIn conclusion, we must\nmake it particularly clear that, in view of the extreme experimental\nconditions in this whole experimental series, no fatality and no lasting\ninjury _due to oxygen lack occurred_.\u201d (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The\ndeaths described in Rascher\u2019s report quoted above _were not due to lack\nof oxygen_ but were deliberate killings to investigate air embolism.\n\nBut even the experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz admit were\nplanned and performed under their responsibility were highly dangerous\nto the life and health of the subjects. Both Ruff and Romberg agreed\nthat 12,000 meters was the upper limit of safety and that experiments of\nthe type they performed above that altitude were hazardous. The\ndescription of the reaction of the subjects as set forth in the final\nreport proves that the subject suffered severe convulsions and prolonged\nperiods of disorientation. The expert witness Ivy pointed out that the\nexperiments described in the final report of Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz\nwere highly dangerous for the following reasons:\n\n \u201cI consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period\n of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For\n example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty\n minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty\n to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to\n which to expose the brain. I agree that * * * the\n electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of these subjects\n was not momentarily affected or significantly affected by this\n prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not\n show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain\n were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is\n learning, and we know that the learning process is rather\n sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the\n possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged\n exposure to oxygen lack would have been to have determined the\n I. Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to\n learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a\n prolonged period of oxygen lack.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9036._)\n\nDr. Ivy testified that the experiments described in the final report had\nreached the physiological limit and that work was being done in a very\ndangerous and hazardous zone as far as the welfare of the experimental\nsubjects was concerned. He said that he should be reluctant to perform\nsuch experiments even on himself and that he would prefer to depend upon\nthat degree of accuracy which could be obtained from calculations of the\nresults of animal experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9081, 9112, and 9197._)\n\nFinally it should be noted that the experiments were neither necessary\nnor a scientific success. \u201cNecessity of the State\u201d has been much used by\nthe defendants as if it were a defense. This is clearly unfounded even\nthough necessity, military or otherwise, be assumed. It is to be\nsupposed that each defendant _thought_ there was some necessity to what\nhe was doing. This is no defense. Rascher thought the same thing. It was\ndeemed necessary to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of persons in\nconcentration camps. It was deemed necessary to murder millions of Jews.\nThe slave labor policy was bottomed on necessity. If that is a defense,\nthen these trials lose all meaning. But, on the other hand if it is\nproved that these experiments were not necessary, not of scientific\nvalue, then it makes the guilty even more guilty. The brutal sacrifice\nof human life was to no avail. And such was the case here. Hippke, Chief\nof the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, when writing his thanks to\nHimmler on 8 October 1942 said the following:\n\n \u201cIt is true that no conclusions as to the practice of\n parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important\n factor, namely, cold has so far not yet been taken into\n consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the\n entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in\n actual practice will very likely prove to be far more\n unfavorable than in the present experiments.\u201d (_NO-289, Pros.\n Ex. 72._)\n\nWhen asked his opinion concerning the necessity for the typical\nexperiment described on page 13 of the final report of Ruff, Romberg,\nand Rascher, the witness Ivy testified:\n\n \u201cI do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in\n order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to\n bail out of an airplane at high altitude.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9035._)\n\nThe witness Ivy stated further that the information which was obtained\nby these experiments on concentration camp inmates could have been\nobtained from animals as indicated by the results of Lutz\u2019 and Wendt\u2019s\nanimal work referred to in the final report. The differences in the\nreactions of human subjects and animals, as reported by Lutz and Wendt,\nwere not sufficient to warrant the carrying out of these hazardous\nexperiments on human beings. (_Tr. p. 9036._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections From the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT RUFF_[19]\n\n * * * * *\n\nCertainly Dr. Ruff gave his agreement and approval to high-altitude\ntests with a low-pressure chamber of the Reich Air Ministry being\nperformed by his collaborator of many years, Dr. Romberg, together with\nStabsarzt Dr. Rascher, in a concentration camp, using concentration camp\ninmates as experimental subjects. He agreed after the performance of\nurgent experiments in the Dachau concentration camp had already been\nagreed upon in principle and approved by Professor Dr. Hippke and\nProfessor Dr. Weltz.\n\nTherefore, the question arises whether these high-altitude experiments\nwere already illegal for the reason that they were performed on\nconcentration camp inmates.\n\nThis question must be denied for only such inmates were used for the\nexperiments as had volunteered for them, or who at least were regarded\nby Ruff as volunteers and could be regarded as such in view of the whole\nsituation, and no one could reproach him for having erred in this\nrespect because other persons had perhaps deceived him about these\nfacts.\n\nThere are, however, some witnesses who apparently maintain that the\nprisoners used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were not volunteers.\nAbove all the witnesses Vieweg and Neff are of this opinion.\n\nDuring his direct examination on 13 December 1946 the witness Vieweg\nmentioned a series of various experiments which were performed at the\nDachau concentration camp. Referring in particular to the high-altitude\nexperiments there, which alone can be considered in the indictment\nagainst Dr. Ruff, he states firstly that high-altitude experiments with\nthe low-pressure chamber were performed on 10 patients; \u201cfor these\nexperiments frequently patients and also male nurses were used who\nduring the experiments were seen in the corridor of the adjacent\nhospital ward.\u201d\n\nBy this Vieweg apparently wanted to point out that these \u201cpatients\u201d and\n\u201calso the nurses\u201d were not volunteers. These 10 \u201cofficial experimental\nsubjects\u201d had been well fed and supplied with smokes, but in addition to\nthese 10 so-called \u201cexhibition patients\u201d, a large number of people had\nbeen selected from the camp who were again and again sent to the\nhigh-altitude experiment institute. That happened to a block leader who\nprobably had pneumonia a few hours later and ended in the sick bay\nmortuary. The same happened in the malaria department of the witness\nVieweg. One day a patient who had some differences with Zill, the leader\nof the camp, concerning protective custody, was sent to the experimental\ninstitute, and he (Vieweg) found him in the mortuary the next day. He\n(Vieweg) knows by hearsay that, \u201ca great number of patients who took\npart in these experiments died, and ended up in the sick bay mortuary.\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 476._)\n\nBetween the lines of this rather obscure and vague statement one may\nread that, according to Vieweg\u2019s statement, these further experimental\nsubjects, and especially those who had died during the experiments, did\nnot belong to the 10 \u201cofficial experimental subjects\u201d and had not been\nvolunteers. However, in the direct examination by the prosecution the\nwitness Vieweg did not express himself explicitly about this alleged\ncompulsion of the so-called experimental subjects.\n\nDuring the cross-examination by the defense counsel of Dr. Romberg, the\nwitness Vieweg explained his expression, the \u201c10 exhibition patients\u201d.\n(_German Tr. p. 485._) The 10 selected patients who were used for the\nhigh-altitude tests had been accommodated in a special room and had been\nwell nourished; they had been exhibited, and they had been presented to\nHimmler during one of his visits. Himmler made them big promises; if\nthey survived, they would be set free * * * these 10 patients had been\ndrawn into the experiments * * * they had told him (Vieweg) that they\nwere very exhausted by the whole affair, but as far as he could remember\n\u201cthey all survived\u201d (_German Tr. pp. 486, 489_). On being questioned the\nwitness Vieweg repeatedly stated (_German Tr. pp. 486, 487, 489_), that\nas far as he could remember Dr. Rascher had carried out the experiments\nhimself. The only thing Vieweg could state about participation of\n\u201cLuftwaffe officers\u201d in these high-altitude experiments, was that some\nLuftwaffe officers \u201chad also been there\u201d. But he could not say anything\nabout the actual participation of the Luftwaffe officers. From the\ndescription on page 501 (German Transcript) these two gentlemen of the\nLuftwaffe certainly were not identical with Buff and Romberg. He himself\n(Vieweg) had only talked with these 10 official experimental subjects,\nthe so-called \u201cexhibition patients\u201d, but not with any of the other\nexperimental subjects. He himself had never observed that these other\nprisoners were used for high-altitude tests, but he had been told about\nit frequently. Vieweg repeatedly stated that the 10 official\nexperimental subjects had still been alive at the end of the experiments\n(_German Tr. p. 489_), that no deaths had occurred among them.\n\nSo much for the statement of the witness Vieweg. It is, of course,\nunreliable because it does not establish a clear distinction between the\nhigh-altitude experiments authorized by Ruff and carried out with the\ncooperation of Dr. Romberg, and other experiments in the low-pressure\nchamber which Rascher undertook by order of Himmler, without the\nauthorization or previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff and without the\ncooperation of Dr. Romberg. This distinction, which is of decisive\nimportance in judging this case, only appears in Vieweg\u2019s statement\ninsofar as the 10 official experimental subjects (the so-called\n\u201cexhibition patients\u201d) were exclusively used for the first experiments\n(Ruff-Romberg-Rascher), whereas other prisoners were used for the other\nexperiments (by Rascher alone). Of course, the significance of this\ndistinction was not clear to Vieweg at that time and could not be\nobserved by him because Vieweg did not know anything at all about Dr.\nRuff\u2019s activity and since he did not know anything at all about the\nagreements which had been reached between Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher.\n\nApart from these obscurities one has to regard the statement of the\nwitness Vieweg with the greatest reserve for another reason. Vieweg is\nthe witness who, with unusual unscrupulousness, committed plain perjury\nin the sessions of 13 and 16 December 1946. He tried first (_German Tr.\np. 474_) to give the impression that he had been sent to the\nconcentration camp without any reason, that he had been committed for\n\u201cpolitical protective security\u201d. This representation of the witness\nVieweg is completely in accordance with his previous behavior, because\nformerly he had generally pretended to be politically persecuted\u2014an\ninnocent man who had been thrown into a concentration camp without ever\nhaving learned the reason. Under this false pretense he offered himself\nas witness for this trial, and because of this misrepresentation he was\npresented as a witness by the prosecution whom he had deceived. However,\nduring cross-examination, Vieweg had to admit that in 1934 he was\nsentenced to 4 and to 6 years\u2019 penal servitude for forgery of documents\nand fraud, that is to say for common crimes which, as a rule, have\nnothing to do with politics. On repeated questioning the witness Vieweg\nstated again and again (_German Tr. pp. 483 ff._) that he could not\nremember having received any other previous conviction in addition to\nthose 4 and 6 years\u2019 penal servitude. He insisted on this statement,\neven though he had been repeatedly reminded that he was under oath. His\nstereotype phrase was, he could not remember; he even emphasized that he\nhad deposed to this or that under oath (_German Tr. p. 484_), and he\ncontinued to insist on his statement, even though he was told that his\nprevious convictions could be determined without difficulty since his\nfiles had been sent for.\n\nNow, let us compare the testimony given under oath with the list of\nconvictions of the witness Vieweg, which was submitted as Document Ruff\n24.\n\nBesides the 4 and 6 years of penal servitude which he admitted, the\nwitness Vieweg received in reality not less than 6 prison terms prior to\n1934, among them 5 years\u2019 penal servitude and 5 years\u2019 loss of civil\nrights for repeated grave thefts.\n\nThis extract from the penal register shows why the witness Vieweg had\nsuch a \u201cbad memory\u201d. He never was politically persecuted, as he\npretended to be, but he is the type of incorrigible professional\ncriminal who could not be changed or educated even by the most severe\npenalty. If anybody deserved to be sent to a concentration camp it was\nthis Vieweg. But even the 5 years he spent in the concentration camp did\nnot help. For now he is again in prison, in Bamberg, where charges were\nbrought against him on 5 March 1947 at the District Court for forgery of\ndocuments and fraud, as well as for five cases of repeated theft, for\nattempted abortion, for active bribery, and for black market dealings.\n\nThis incorrigible professional criminal allowed himself to be presented\nhere as a star witness for the prosecution against an honorable,\nblameless citizen, as which Dr. Ruff emerged in the course of this\ntrial. Can the Court base its verdict on the statements of a person like\nVieweg, who on top of everything shamelessly lied to the Tribunal and\ncommitted the worst possible perjury.\n\nThe other witness presented by the prosecution for the Dachau\nexperiments is Walter Neff.[20] He is at present in the Dachau camp for\nwar criminals and will soon have to stand trial himself before the\nAmerican Tribunal, for experiments in which he took an active part. This\nwitness Neff, who not only continuously participated in the successful\nexperiments of Dr. Romberg, but also in the inhuman freezing\nexperiments, in the deadly \u201csevere experiments\u201d of Rascher, and who\ncooperated in many other cruelties, is, I think the last who should\nappear as a witness against a man like Dr. Ruff, or condemn him.\n\nLet us recall what this witness said about himself at the close of his\ntestimony. According to his own admission, he produced three prisoners\n(a certain Robert Wagner, a prisoner named Hutterer, and a man named\nSammendinger) for deadly experiments, on his own initiative without\nbeing ordered to do so. According to his own testimony, he delivered\nthese three people over to a violent death; he murdered them. It is\ncharacteristic of his ethics that he even boasted of this act here in\nthe courtroom! (_German Tr. pp. 737-739._) That does not trouble his\nconscience, as he himself declared under oath (_German Tr. p. 737_); he\nis just the type of those inmates who, to quote his own words \u201cwere\noften worse than the SS in their cruelty and brutality\u201d. (_German Tr. p.\n737._) That is the second witness who was presented against Dr. Ruff by\nthe prosecution. The one, an unscrupulous swindler, an incorrigible\nhabitual criminal, an old jailbird; and the other a murderer many times\nover whose hands are stained with much blood\u2014a murderer who boasts that\nhe has no conscience. Is the Court to lend credence to such people?\nThese witnesses quite obviously believed they would be able to elude the\nhangman\u2019s noose by saddling other defendants with untrue, fabricated\nstatements.\n\nAll those facts are a warning that Neff\u2019s testimony, too, must be\nregarded with considerable caution. At any rate, his testimony has a\ncertain importance for Dr. Ruff inasmuch as Neff (_German Tr. p. 652_)\nconfirms that Dr. Ruff was in Dachau only on one single occasion during\nthe high-altitude experiments. Thus the truth of Dr. Ruff\u2019s own\ntestimony has been established. Furthermore, the witness Neff, states in\nhis testimony of 17 December 1946 that \u201c10 prisoners, designated as\npermanent experimental subjects, were taken to the station and told that\nnothing would happen to them; they were especially assured of this\u201d.\n(_German Tr. p. 711._) The witness Neff then told of the killing of the\n16 Russians who were sentenced to death and who were murdered by Dr.\nRascher. However, according to Dr. Neff, this act was carried out by Dr.\nRascher together with the two members of the SS, while Dr. Romberg was\nnot even present on that day. (_German Tr. pp. 654, 656._) Special\nimportance must be attached to the witness Neff\u2019s further assertion\nregarding a Jewish tailor who worked in the sick bay. Neff called Dr.\nRomberg\u2019s attention to the fact that this man was not sentenced to\ndeath, and Romberg thereupon immediately went to Rascher with Neff in\norder \u201cto set matters straight\u201d. Upon intervention by Dr. Romberg,\nRascher then actually sent the tailor back; when the accompanying SS man\nagain threatened the Jew, Rascher again intervened and \u201cimmediately had\nthe man (the tailor) brought to safety in the bunker\u201d. (_German Tr. p.\n655._) Again, in the case of a second inmate, a Czech, who wrongly and\nwithout his consent had been brought in for the experiments, Dr.\nRomberg, according to Neff\u2019s report, intervened on behalf of the\nprisoner, with the result that Dr. Rascher entered a complaint against\nthe criminal SS man with the camp commander, Piorkowski. Thereupon, the\nSS man was immediately transferred to Lublin. In that way the Czech was\nsaved from certain death by Dr. Romberg.\n\nThis testimony of the witness Neff plays an important part in answering\nthe question whether or not the experimental subjects used were\nvolunteers, and also, what Dr. Romberg, and therefore Dr. Ruff, knew\nabout them and what Dr. Romberg\u2019s attitude was toward this question. In\nthis connection, Neff said: \u201cRomberg, Ruff\u2019s deputy, therefore, did not\nwant any dangerous experiments. He tolerated no murder and considered\nonly experiments with volunteers.\u201d\n\nHowever, the further assertions of the witness Neff suffer from the same\nshortcomings as those of the witness Vieweg; for Neff also did not know\nthat only part of the high-altitude experiments in Dachau were carried\nout with the approval of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg; nor did Neff have any\nknowledge of the agreements made by the participating physicians, and he\ntherefore treated all high-altitude experiments equally, without\ndistinguishing whether or not Dr. Ruff had agreed to them that there\n\u201cwere 180 to 200 inmates who participated in high-altitude experiments\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 656_) and that \u201cduring the altitude flight experiments,\n70 to 80 people lost their lives.\u201d These figures may be correct, but\nthey refer to the whole of the Dachau low-pressure chamber experiments;\nthat is, they also include the experiments which Dr. Rascher made on his\nown authority, without the prior knowledge of Dr. Ruff, and in which\nalone all the fatalities occurred; while in the legitimate\nexperiments\u2014that is, those approved by Dr. Ruff\u2014no fatality occurred\nat all. Of course, Neff could not know all this. As he said himself it\nwas impossible for him to distinguish \u201cfrom whom the order came for the\nindividual experiment, and in whose interest the experiment was made.\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 715._)\n\nThe same shortcoming is demonstrated by Neff\u2019s testimony with regard to\nthe nationality of the experimental subjects (_German Tr. pp. 656, 657_)\nand the manner of their \u201cselection\u201d. However, Neff\u2019s testimony does show\nthat the selection of the experimental subjects was carried out in two\ndifferent ways: For the \u201c_dangerous experiments_\u201d Rascher ordered the\nsubjects through the local headquarters, and they were produced by the\nSS; they were therefore people condemned to death (_German Tr. p. 663_),\nfor the \u201c_serial experiments_\u201d. On the other hand, and \u201cfor most of the\nother experiments which took place, the people were brought to the\nexperimental station from the blocks, that is, from the camp\u201d (_German\nTr. p. 657_) by the block leaders. (_German Tr. p. 663._) These \u201cserial\nexperiments\u201d were obviously the experiments approved by Ruff, and Neff\nexpressly establishes that \u201c_volunteers reported for these\nexperiments_\u201d! (_German Tr. pp. 657, 712._) He even gives the reasons\nwhy the prisoners volunteered: As Rascher, and Himmler too, had promised\nvarious inmates that, \u201cif they, participated in the experiments, they\nwould be given a better labor assignment\u201d, and as Himmler promised that\nthey might even be released, volunteers reported to Rascher on their own\ninitiative as he went through the camp, without any special efforts\nbeing necessary to find volunteers (_German Tr. p. 657_).\n\nThere can be no doubt that these volunteers, estimated by Neff to number\nabout 10, are identical with the 10 \u201cofficial experimental subjects\u201d or\n\u201cexhibition patients\u201d mentioned already by the witness Vieweg, and it is\nnoteworthy that Dr. Ruff, too, in his testimony always spoke of 10 or\n12, or at the most 15 persons from the very beginning (of course he did\nnot count them himself), who were regularly called in for the\nhigh-altitude experiments, and whom he saw himself when he was once\npresent to observe and check the experiments in Dachau. This number Dr.\nRuff had mentioned at a time when Neff\u2019s and Vieweg\u2019s testimony was not\nyet available. He therefore could not have anticipated that these\nwitnesses would confirm his figures as correct.\n\nTo be sure, the witness Neff testified in another place (_German Tr. p.\n666_) that the first 10 experimental subjects were not volunteers. But\nthis statement is obviously in direct contradiction to his other\ntestimony which, in the last analysis implied\u2014and could not be\ninterpreted otherwise\u2014that the so-called \u201c10 official experimental\nsubjects\u201d were those prisoners who had voluntarily offered themselves,\nwho were given all possible privileges in return, who were promised\nrewards for their service by Rascher as well as by Himmler, and who were\nrepeatedly reassured that nothing would happen to them during the\nexperiments. This whole presentation would be incomprehensible if one\nwere to assume that these 10 persons were involuntary subjects as well,\nthat they were simply ordered to take part in the experiments, forced to\nparticipate, for them all this would not have been necessary at all,\nsince at that time nobody in a concentration camp would have thought of\ntroubling himself about these people, if they had been forced against\ntheir will to take part in the experiments.\n\nIn a concentration camp, according to the opinion of Himmler and his\nmen, 1,000 people were of no consequence. Therefore, if efforts were\nmade to obtain these inmates for the experiments, and to get them\nwillingly, if even a Himmler found kind words to say to them and\npromised them rewards, then as we know today, this can only be explained\nby the assumption that even in concentration camps, for some reason, it\nwas desirable to obtain voluntary subjects for the experiments and to\ninduce them to go through the experiments voluntarily. This assumption\nis not refuted by the contrary assertion of Neff (_German Tr. p. 666_).\nFor 1\u00bd days, during his examination on 17 and 18 December 1947, Neff did\nnot know that these first 10 experimental subjects had not been\nvolunteers. For 1\u00bd days he did not dare to make such an assertion here\nin the witness box, and only during the cross-examination did he finally\ngo so far as to make this assertion, thereby completely overthrowing his\nprevious statements.\n\nThis allegation of the multiple murderer Neff now stands, however,\ncompletely isolated. There can be no doubt that, if these statements by\nNeff were true, it would have been easy for the office of the public\nprosecutor to produce numerous other witnesses who, likewise, had been\ninmates of the concentration camp at Dachau, who had perhaps experienced\nthese experiments themselves, or who had spoken to subjects of these\nexperiments or had even observed the experiments. However, not a single\noutsider, not a single incontestable witness has been produced, although\nhalf a year has elapsed since the days when, here in the courtroom, one\ncould not fail to realize to what an unreliable and untrustworthy class\npersons of the caliber of Vieweg and Neff belong. This fact very\nstrongly indicates that obviously no other witnesses are available, or\ncould be made available, who could confirm that the experimental\nsubjects who were used in the Ruff-Romberg altitude tests were not\nvolunteers. Let the fact be mentioned here, for the sake of comparison,\nthat in the case of the Gebhardt sulfanilamide operations for example,\nhalf a dozen incriminating witnesses were brought from Poland and Russia\nand were interrogated here as witnesses. Why was not a single\ntrustworthy witness produced from among the Dachau experimental subjects\nand placed in the witness box? Because no one could be found, who could\nconfirm the untrue allegations of a Vieweg and a Neff. On the other\nhand, during the trial, a whole series of persons who deserve a great\ndeal more belief than Vieweg and Neff affirmed with certainty that all\nthe experimental subjects in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were\nvolunteers, and that from the very beginning the indispensable condition\nwhich was demanded and assured was that the subjects would be voluntary.\n\nThe witness Dr. Lutz for example, who was introduced by the office of\nthe public prosecutor and therefore recognized by it as a credible\nwitness, confirmed here on oath, \u201cit was a tacit assumption that the\ncriminals would volunteer\u201d; and he added that he could almost say that,\nin a way, a favor was being conferred upon the criminals, because \u201cthey\nwere given a chance of pardon by participating in the experiments,\u201d and\nit is significant that this witness deposed further: \u201csubsequently, we\nwere very much surprised when, probably during the later stages of the\nexperiments, as far as I recall now, no further mention was made of it,\u201d\nnamely, of the fact that only volunteers were to be used for the\naltitude experiments (_German Tr. p. 320_).\n\nThese depositions by the witness Dr. Lutz conform in every respect with\nthe general impression received from all the pertinent descriptions. At\nfirst, only the altitude experiments approved by Dr. Ruff regarding the\nproblem of \u201crescue from high altitudes\u201d were carried out. These\nexperiments were not dangerous as proved by their successful outcome;\nthe inmates volunteered for them. Gradually, however, Rascher misused\nmore and more the presence of the chamber in order to conduct his\narbitrary experiments on Himmler\u2019s orders for entirely different\nproblems, namely, to conduct his notorious \u201cdifficult experiments\u201d which\nhad numerous fatal results. These were Rascher\u2019s more cruel, painful\nexperiments; naturally, no more volunteers reported for these because\nword was passed quickly through the camp that the experiments which\nRascher himself conducted were dangerous, while the mere presence and\ncooperation of Dr. Romberg gave assurance to the inmates that his\nexperiments were conscientiously conducted and were not dangerous.\n\nOther witnesses also, not named by Dr. Ruff, have confirmed that the\nexperimental subjects for the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments\nwere voluntary, namely, the witness Dr. Hielscher (_German Tr. pp.\n6025-26, 6041, 6062_). Testimony on similar lines is given by the\ncodefendant Sievers (_German Tr. pp. 5471, 5881_); and Dr. Hippke\n(_German Tr. p. 793_) \u201cPrisoners who might volunteer\u201d; (_German Tr. p.\n795_) \u201cthese persons had to volunteer for the experiments.\u201d Also the\nwitness Karl Wolff, (_Ruff 21, Ruff Ex. 20_) \u201cvolunteer concentration\ncamp inmates who were to be given compensatory privileges * * * the\ninmates, about 10 in number, appeared quite relaxed and, in their turn,\nwillingly entered the low-pressure chamber which had been driven up * *\n* the inmates reported to Himmler, in my presence, that in this manner\nthey could at least voluntarily * * * give a proof of their genuine good\nwill * * * I never learned through Himmler, nor, as far as I remember,\nby any other means that later low-pressure chamber experiments * * *\ntook place on a nonvoluntary basis * * * I only knew about voluntarily\nlow-pressure chamber experiments and these were made, without doubt, on\na voluntary basis.\u201d Finally, the witness Herbert Wilschewske (_Ruff 11,\nRuff Ex. 9_).\n\nWhile the previous witness Wolff was only present for 1 day during the\nexperiments, the witness Wilschewske, during the 2 years he spent in the\nconcentration camp, spoke repeatedly to inmates who \u201chad volunteered for\nthe medical experiments\u201d, and who, by reason of his repeated\nconversations with the prisoners, could give the following as reason for\nthe willingness to volunteer for experiments \u201cthey could earn thereby\ntheir own liberty and rehabilitation as well as privileges for their\nfamily.\u201d The witness Wilschewske is certainly an absolutely reliable\nwitness with regard to his statements. He is a Polish Communist, served\n2 years in Dachau concentration camp for this, and was proved to be only\na political prisoner.\n\nIf one considers all these statements by witnesses, which certify that\nthe experimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments of\nDrs. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the\nconcordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz were\nabsolutely true. They are defendants, it is true; but from all sides\ntestimony is given of their irreproachable professional integrity.\nAlthough they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear\nstatements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory\nstatements of a habitual criminal who has committed downright perjury in\nthis Court, or of a murderer who is actually more deserving of a place\nin this dock than these defendants are.\n\nThe correctness of this conception is confirmed again on the one hand by\nthe fact\u2014already mentioned in another connection\u2014that Dr. Romberg, as\nhas been proved repeatedly, actively intervened and prevented the use of\nexperimental subjects for experiments by Rascher when he could see that\nnonvoluntary experimental subjects were to be used, and on the other\nhand, it was known that in the high-altitude experiments which Dr. Ruff\nhad carried out with Dr. Romberg only voluntary experimental subjects\ncould be used, and only with voluntary experimental subjects could the\nexperiments succeed. The whole idea of this type of high-altitude\nexperiment (the Ruff-Romberg method) was based on the theory that the\nexperimental subject, immediately on recovering from the state of\nunconsciousness\u2014the \u201chigh-altitude malady\u201d\u2014reaches up with his arm and\npulls down the handle of the parachute, which in practice reduces the\nspeed of the fall, insuring the flier of a smooth landing on the ground.\nAll this necessitated active cooperation on the part of the experimental\nsubject; one was absolutely dependent on his cooperation, otherwise each\nof these experiments would have been useless right from the start.\nNaturally, Dr. Ruff knew this, as did Dr. Romberg, and therefore for\nthem the first and most important condition for each experiment of this\ntype was that the experimental subject should be voluntary (_see Ruff\u2019s\nstatement in German Tr. pp. 6638-40_). There are therefore also\nimportant inherent reasons why the statements by Ruff and Romberg are\ncorrect.\n\nActually the high-altitude experiments carried out in Dachau were\nsuccessful. They were of considerable help in clarifying the problem of\n\u201crescue from great heights\u201d, and this was only possible when the\nexperimental subjects themselves cooperated when they took part in the\nexperiments voluntarily and took an interest in them. This was, by the\nway, also the reason why this type of high-altitude experiment could not\nbe made with animals as experimental subjects, a fact which, for\nexample, Ruff and Romberg pointed out in their summary report of 28 July\n1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._)\n\nI come, therefore, to the following conclusion: There can be no doubt\nthat the experimental subjects for the Dachau high-altitude experiments\nwere volunteers, at least as far as the experiments authorized by Ruff\nare concerned. Whether volunteers reported for the special experiments\ncontinued by Dr. Rascher or whether the prisoners were forced into the\nexperiments by Dr. Rascher does not need to be examined, because Ruff\nand Romberg did not participate in those experiments in any way. But\neven if any doubt as to their being volunteers were possible, it cannot\nbe denied that Ruff and Romberg were firmly convinced that all their\nexperimental subjects actually were volunteers. This was stipulated from\nthe very beginning, and in all the discussions of Dr. Ruff with Hippke,\nWeltz, and the representative of the SS, Ruff was consequently convinced\nthat only volunteers were actually concerned.\n\nDr. Ruff\u2019s conviction was strengthened through personal conversation\nwith various prisoners on that day on which he himself went to Dachau to\ncontrol the execution of the experiments and to ascertain that\neverything was carried out in a completely orderly manner. And finally\nin this connection it cannot be overlooked that Dr. Ruff, as he has\nstated under oath and as is confirmed by numerous affidavits, had never\nat any other time in his life worked with nonvoluntary experimental\nsubjects. Just because he considered it indispensable for the success of\nthe experiments that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that\nthey themselves cooperate, Dr. Ruff never thought that the Dachau\nprisoners were not fully and completely in agreement with the\nexperiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is obvious that the voluntary character of these experimental\nsubjects, whether an actual fact or whether Dr. Ruff deluded himself\ninto believing that this was the case, does not in itself relieve him of\nall responsibility. On the contrary, Dr. Ruff himself is of the opinion\nthat, besides voluntariness, several other conditions would have to be\nfulfilled before the experiments and the way in which they were\nperformed could be considered lawful:\n\n1. The experiment would have to be _necessary_, particularly necessary\nin the interests of aviation and thus essential to the fatherland\u2019s war\neffort. This condition is obviously fulfilled. This is confirmed above\nall by the statement of the witness Dr. Hippke who stated that it was\nDr. Ruff\u2019s duty to work on the research tasks assigned to him by the\nMedical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and to submit reports on them to\nthe Medical Inspectorate.\n\nThe experiments carried out by Ruff were necessary, for \u201chigh-altitude\nexperiments in particular have been undertaken intensively in America,\ntoo, because the question of pressure drop [Drucksturz] and the cabin\ndevelopment is of particular importance.\u201d (_Ruff 23, Ruff Ex. 22._) Dr.\nHippke developed this point of view not only during the trial but stated\nit very clearly in his letter to Himmler, dated as early as 8 October\n1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_), where he writes: \u201cThese-experiments\nrepresent a very valuable and important supplement. The fact that such\nan extreme deficiency of oxygen can be endured at all for some time is\nvery encouraging for further research.\u201d Dr. Hippke\u2019s opinion about the\nnecessity of the high-altitude experiments is therefore extremely\nimportant because Hippke was the highest official expert in that field\nin Germany at that time.\n\nBut most of all, the absolute necessity of Ruff\u2019s experiments is\nacknowledged by all experts who testified in this trial in connection\nwith these problems. I recall, for example, the statements of the\nwitness Dr. Scheiber that \u201cat a later judgment of Dr. Ruff\u2019s scientific\nwork, his name will be remembered together with the names of all of\nthose well-known scientific research workers who, by personal, devoted,\nand heroic effort, rendered immeasurable service to the advance of\nscience and therewith to the welfare of humanity.\u201d Professor Dr.\nStrughold expresses himself in a similar way in his affidavit. He was\nchief of a German institute for aviation medicine for several years and\nwrites concerning Dr. Ruff that \u201che (Ruff) can be considered as a man\nwho surpasses by far many academically proficient and recognized\nscientists as far as scientific experience and scientific success is\nconcerned.\u201d Of particular importance, however, seems to be the opinion\nof Dr. Grauer, who is at present in America as a research worker and\nexperimenter in matters of aviation medicine.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAccording to the opinion of the Air Force General, Adolf Galland, and\nthe statements of all the other experts, it is an established fact that\nthe Dachau experiments of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were absolutely\nnecessary.\n\nThis necessity does not cease to exist because the people concerned\nrealized that with this first series of experiments, carried out in\nDachau in the spring of 1942, the problem in question (rescue from high\naltitudes) was not yet entirely solved. Ruff and Romberg pointed out in\ntheir final report of 28 July 1942, that the \u201cdanger of freezing has to\nbe considered.\u201d On the basis of this final report the medical inspector,\nDr. Hippke, later pointed out in his letter to Himmler of 10 October\n1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_) that in the Dachau high-altitude\nexperiments of Ruff and Romberg of spring 1942, \u201ca very important factor\nwas not yet taken into consideration, namely freezing.\u201d He remarked,\nhowever, at the same time that \u201cthe necessary supplementary work was\nstarted meanwhile.\u201d Hippke did not leave any doubt that this fact would\nnot impair the value and the importance of the Dachau high-altitude\nexperiments, which he stressed; for it is in the nature of such\nexperiments that both parts of the problem, high altitude and freezing\ntemperatures, cannot be dealt with simultaneously, but that at first\nonly one part must be considered, then the other. This was Ruff\u2019s plan\nfrom the very beginning, and the special experiments with regard to the\ninfluence of freezing temperatures on descent from high altitudes were\ncarried out according to plan in the Berlin institute of Dr. Ruff in the\nsummer and fall of 1942. (Compare this with Dr. Grauer\u2019s affidavit of 28\nJanuary 1947.)\n\nAnother prerequisite for the justification of the high-altitude\nexperiments undertaken by Ruff and Romberg lies in the requirement that\nthe experiments should not be extended any further than is necessary for\nthe solution of the problems presented. This requirement, too, was\nfulfilled by Dr. Ruff. It is confirmed by his own testimony (_German Tr.\np. 6704_), as well as by the testimony of Dr. Romberg (_German Tr. pp.\n6879-80_), that Dr. Romberg was sent by Dr. Ruff to Dachau with a\ndefinite program which carefully outlined the kind as well as the extent\nof the experiments to be carried out. Only the problem of \u201crescue from\nhigh altitude\u201d was to be investigated. Only experiments for this purpose\nwere ordered by Dr. Ruff. Dr. Romberg was not allowed to undertake\nexperiments for any other purposes, and the experiments were to be\ncarried on only until either the problem was solved or its solution\nfound impossible. Had Dr. Romberg not adhered to this program, which had\nbeen strictly outlined, had he carried out further experiments behind\nDr. Ruff\u2019s back, the latter could in no case have been responsible for\nthem. Since he was not told of such further experiments by Dr. Romberg,\nhe could not stop them. However, it must be stated expressly that Dr.\nRomberg adhered to Dr. Ruff\u2019s orders; he did not carry out more\nextensive experiments than he had been permitted and had been ordered;\nthis was done alone and solely by Dr. Rascher. The latter, however, was\nin no way subordinated to Dr. Ruff, nor to Dr. Romberg; moreover, he\nwould certainly not have taken any orders from either of them. _The\nfinal report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942_ (_NO-402, Pros. Ex.\n66_) furnishes clear proof of the fact that Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg\nwere at all times conscious of their duty to restrict experiments to the\nextent which seemed absolutely necessary in order to explore a problem\nwhich was all-important at the time and to carry out no experiments\nwhich could not be considered especially important and of great\nconsequence.\n\nEven the introduction to this report of 28 July 1942 is significant for\nthe delineation of the tasks set for these experiments. It reads:\n\u201cConsidering the urgency of finding a practical solution to this\nimportant problem [the rescue of airplane crews from high altitude],\nparticularly in view of the prevailing experimental conditions, it was\nnecessary to forego for the time being a detailed clarification of the\npurely scientific problems involved.\u201d Here the basic tendency of all the\nexperiments finds its clear expression. Only such practical requirements\nof aviation which could not be postponed during time of war should be\nsolved, while investigations of purely scientific nature, without great\npractical significance, were to be excluded. This restriction of\nsolutions sought demonstrates that the scientists in question (Ruff and\nRomberg) were not subject to the unbridled desire for experimentation\nwhich may be found in people of Rascher\u2019s type.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWere the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments in Dachau dangerous to\nlife? If it is demanded that experiments on humans are carried out as\nhumanely as possible, pain avoided wherever possible, and damage to\nhealth eliminated, it is obvious that deaths must be prevented in every\nway possible. The conscientious research worker will always start from\nthe standpoint that experiments can only then be carried out when,\naccording to human estimation and the experience of science, death can\nin no way be expected. According to German Law (Article 216 of the\nGerman Penal Code) the intentional killing of a person would not be\nlegalized through his agreement, not even at his expressed desire.\n\nTo this question the presentation of evidence has shown the following:\n\n1. In the Summary Report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942, it is\n\u201cexpressly stated that in the whole series of experiments no death and\nlikewise no permanent oxygen deficiency damage occurred.\u201d (_NO-402,\nPros. Ex. 66._) In direct contradiction to this appears to be, at least\nat first glance, the intermediary report which Dr. Rascher alone made on\nhis experiments on 5 April 1942 to the Reich Leader SS Himmler\n(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) and also the following secret report, which\nlikewise Dr. Rascher alone sent to Himmler on 11 May 1942. (_NO-220,\nPros. Ex. 61._) These two special reports by Dr. Rascher prove that in\nthe experiments described by Rascher alone several deaths occurred.\n\nThe explanation of the apparent contradiction is shown clearly by the\npresentation of evidence: In the experiments authorized by Dr. Ruff and\ncarried out with his approval not a single death occurred. Only the\narbitrary experiments which Rascher carried out without the approval of\nDr. Ruff and against his will, and which were ordered by Himmler, were\ndeadly.\n\nThis can be seen from Rascher\u2019s intermediary report of 5 April 1942.\n(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) It falls into two parts.\n\nIn the first part Dr. Rascher describes the experiments carried out with\nDr. Ruff\u2019s approval. He states expressly, \u201cthe experiments conducted by\nmyself and Dr. Romberg,\u201d and he confirms that even \u201cin a total of 15\nextreme experiments, none of the experimental subjects died. Severe\nhigh-altitude sickness with unconsciousness occurred; however, the\nsubject was always fully capable of action when approximately 7 km. was\nattained in the descent.\u201d\n\nIn the second part, Rascher then describes his arbitrary experiments of\nwhich Ruff knew nothing, and was permitted to know nothing. This second\npart of the report is much more extensive and detailed than the first.\nThat can be explained without difficulty because the experiments\nmentioned in this second part were carried out by Rascher himself; here\nhe could describe the \u201cmerit\u201d of the results he apparently gained all by\nhimself. From this second part he obviously also hoped for complete new\nresults for science, which he emphasized in the accompanying letter to\nHimmler of 5 April 1942, and he was obviously very proud that following\nhis suggestions (as he emphasized) such \u201cinteresting standard\nexperiments\u201d were carried out. All this referred exclusively to the\narbitrary experiments mentioned in the second part of the report, which\nRascher carried out alone without the assistance of Dr. Romberg and\nwithout the authorization and previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff.\n(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._)\n\nRascher himself made this distinction in his report (_1971-A-PS, Pros.\nEx. 49_): He contrasts in the second part of his report the \u201cextremely\ndangerous experiments\u201d with the \u201cexperiments carried out by myself\n(Rascher) and Romberg,\u201d while he specially asked for an \u201cSS doctor from\nthe camp as witness\u201d for the arbitrary experiments of the second part of\nhis report, as \u201cI carried out these experiments by myself.\u201d But surely\nDr. Rascher had his reasons for specially requesting \u201ca camp doctor as a\nwitness\u201d for these experiments (which are described in the second part\nof his report), but intentionally kept Dr. Romberg away. Dr. Rascher\nindicates these reasons in his accompanying letter of 5 April 1942,\ntalking about difficulties which the Luftwaffe created for him up to\nthat time, whose removal he hopes for by the intervention of SS Fuehrer\nSievers. These difficulties which hindered the research work of Rascher\nwere discussed in various other documents which concerned the use of the\nlow-pressure chamber and its return to Dachau, which the SS tried to\narrange but never succeeded.\n\nIf Dr. Rascher in his intermediary report (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_)\nemphasized that \u201conly continuous experiments are fatal at heights above\n10.5 km.\u201d, this plainly confirms, in Dr. Rascher\u2019s own words, what Ruff\nand Romberg stated from the very beginning, that two kinds of\nhigh-altitude experiments were carried out in Dachau with the\nlow-pressure chamber. The one kind, which Dr. Romberg took part in and\nDr. Ruff knew about, was carried out completely humanely and without any\npain, and nothing happened; and the other kind, which Rascher carried\nout alone by order of Himmler, without Romberg and without the previous\nknowledge of Dr. Ruff, to which at one time an SS doctor was even asked\nto attend as a witness and which caused several fatalities.\n\nThis result is confirmed by the second report, which Rascher again alone\n(without the participation of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg) submitted to\nHimmler, dated 11 May 1942, as a secret report (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_).\nHe describes here the experiments which he carried out jointly with Dr.\nRomberg and again states: \u201cOn the average, the experimental subjects\nwere in complete accord of their actions at 12-13 km.; no disturbances\nof any kind in the general condition occurred in any of these\nexperiments,\u201d and even less, of course, a fatality. Only among the\nexperiments described under figures 6 and 7 of this secret report of\nRascher\u2019s did fatalities occur, and that \u201cduring a continued\nhigh-altitude experiment, for example after half an hour in an altitude\nof 12 km.\u201d But these experiments (according to figures 6 and 7) were the\narbitrary experiments in which Rascher had other aims in mind, which had\nnothing to do with Ruff\u2019s problem of \u201csaving from high altitudes,\u201d and\nwhich were carried out by Rascher alone.\n\nIt is also interesting that Rascher still mentions the partial\nassistance of Dr. Romberg in his first report (of 5 April 1942)\n(_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) but does not say anything more in the final\nsecond report (of 11 May 1942), (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) where he\ndescribed the affair as though he alone had carried, out the\nexperiments. Compare page 81, line 21: \u201cExperiments carried out by\nmyself\u201d; or page 79, lines 15-16: \u201c_My_ heart experiments * * * that a\nvery big sphere of work opened up for _me_,\u201d etc. By that Rascher has\nclearly expressed that he did not have any assistance from Dr. Romberg\nin the experiments he thought particularly valuable, when he explains as\nparticularly valuable his heart experiments and his observations\nconcerning air embolism. Those were all experiments in which Ruff and\nRomberg had not the least interest, in which they never participated,\nand for which they would never have risked the health and the life of an\nexperimental subject.\n\nEven specialists like Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg could never understand\nthe scientific or other aim which Rascher had in mind in the case of\nthose arbitrary experiments with fatal endings. Even the layman can\neasily recognize the basic difference between the two categories of\nexperiments. The legal experiments which had been authorized by Dr. Ruff\nwere always restricted to a very short period of a few moments; but the\nfatal experiments of Dr. Rascher were, as he emphasized himself,\ncontinuous experiments without oxygen, therefore experiments lasting\nover 30 minutes. It is easily understandable that experiments of such a\nlength without the administration of oxygen may be fatal. To prove this\nit would not have been necessary to sacrifice even one single human life\nin these experiments. Serious research workers like Dr. Ruff and Dr.\nRomberg had therefore never carried out and never authorized such\nexperiments. That was also well known to Rascher, and this explains the\nfact as stated by Neff (_German Tr. pp. 668, 670, 671_) that Rascher\nkept Dr. Romberg intentionally away from his arbitrary experiments;\nfurthermore that he even carried out his experiments at night to keep\nthem secret from Dr. Romberg, and that he also did not ask Romberg to\nsign his intermediary report of 5 April 1942, nor his summarizing secret\nreport of 11 May 1942, which Romberg would surely have refused to do.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt would therefore be quite wrong to attribute to Dr. Ruff and Dr.\nRomberg the intention of wanting to suppress something in their final\nreport of 28 July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) For it is a proven\nfact that not only Himmler was informed by Rascher of the cases of death\nwhich had occurred, but that Dr. Ruff had also reported the cases of\ndeath for which Dr. Rascher was guilty, to his supreme superior, the\nInspector of the Medical Service [of the air force], Dr. Hippke. For\nthis same reason he had caused the low-pressure chamber to be removed\nfrom Dachau and had asked the witness, Dr. Hippke, to consent to this.\nThese proven facts show that Dr. Ruff did not conceal anything and had\nnothing to conceal. The fact that the cases of death were not mentioned\nin the final report of 28 July 1942 has therefore nothing to do with any\nconcealment but is only due to the fact that those experiments which had\nfatal results had nothing whatsoever to do with the experiments of Dr.\nRuff and Dr. Romberg and their problem.\n\nFor the same reasons it is not surprising at all that Dr. Ruff did not\ninform Dr. Weltz of the fatal accidents during the special experiments\nof Rascher. Weltz was neither Ruff\u2019s superior nor his subordinate, and\nat the time when Dr. Ruff learned of the deaths which had occurred\nduring Rascher\u2019s experiments, Dr. Rascher had already been transferred\nfrom the Weltz Institute.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe defense, therefore, arrives at the following conclusion:\n\nDr. Ruff only did what his superiors ordered him to do. If they have\nfailed, they should be taken to account.\n\nDr. Ruff had no doubts concerning the orders of his superiors for his\nassignment was urgently necessary in the interest of his country,\nengaged in the most difficult war, and of its aviation. If Dr. Ruff at\nthe time had been able to read all the international literature about\nmedical experiments on human beings he would have learned that\nexperiments much more exacting and much more dangerous than those with\nwhich he was familiar\u2014which he knew and planned\u2014were being conducted\neverywhere, also on prisoners; and perhaps they are still being\nconducted without the competent authorities or medical societies\ndeclaring them impermissible and intervening against them. Over many\nyears, Dr. Ruff proved himself to be a particularly conscientious and\nconsiderate man of research who devoted his entire activity primarily to\nsave endangered human lives. Neither can he be blamed for having\ncollaborated for a short time with Dr. Rascher. He (Rascher) had been\nassigned to him as associate by his highest superiors; he had to rely\nupon that. If they ordered him to work together with a man who, later\non, turned out to be a criminal, no liability can be charged to Dr.\nRuff. When Dr. Ruff saw through his colleague who was forced upon him\nand realized his criminal activities, he immediately cut off all\nrelations to him on his own initiative, avoided any further\ncollaboration with him, and thus probably prevented much further\ndisaster.\n\nField Marshal Milch was acquitted as far as the Dachau altitude tests\nare concerned.[21] Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke was not indicted at all.\nUnder these circumstances justice demands that Dr. Ruff be acquitted.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Low-Pressure Experiments_\n\nLow-pressure experiments (high-altitude experiments) were carried out in\nthe Dachau concentration camp from 22 February to the end of May 1942.\n\nThe first plans to carry out experiments \u201cfor rescue from high\naltitudes\u201d were discussed already in 1941. The experiments were an\naffair of the Luftwaffe. (_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._)\n\nThe carrying out of experiments for \u201crescue from high altitudes\u201d was\nagreed upon, as far as the Dachau concentration camp was concerned, by\nthe Reich Minister for Aviation (represented by State Secretary and\nField Marshal Milch) and the Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_German Tr. p.\n274. Also judgment of Military Tribunal II, Nuernberg in case of Field\nMarshal Milch. See Vol. II._) The witness Neff gave the exact date of\nthe start of the experiments. The experiments were started on 22\nFebruary 1942. The witness could remember this date so well because it\nwas his birthday. (_German Tr. p. 606._) After a few interruptions the\nexperiments ended in the second half of May. (_German Tr. p. 6779._)\n\nWhen answering the question whether the experiments could inflict\ntorture and death on the experimental subjects, one has to distinguish\nbetween the experiments which according to the detailed instructions of\nDr. Ruff were carried out by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg in the Dachau\nconcentration camp, and the experiments which Rascher carried out either\nwith the knowledge and permission of Himmler, or without his permission\non his own responsibility.\n\nWith regard to the first experiments it has to be said that they caused\nthe experimental subjects some discomfort through high-altitude\nsickness, but that on no account did they mean torture and death for the\nexperimental subjects. (Evidence of Dr. Ruff in direct examination.)\n\nOn the other hand the experiments which Rascher conducted on his\nresponsibility have, according to Prosecution Document 1971-A-PS (_Pros.\nEx. 49_), apparently to be judged in a different manner.\n\nSievers came in contact with the low-pressure experiments only; in the\nsecond half of March 1942. By letter of 21 March 1942 Rudolf Brandt\nreplied to an inquiry of the Reich business manager of the Ahnenerbe of\n9 March 1942 concerning Rascher, and informed him that low-pressure\nexperiments were carried out in the Dachau camp: \u201cThe Reich Leader SS\ngave his permission on condition that Dr. Rascher would participate.\u201d\n(_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._)\n\nThe cause of Sievers\u2019 letter of 9 March 1942 was the statement of Dr.\nRascher to the curator Wuest, according to which certain research work\nwhich he carried out for the Luftwaffe in Dachau, and of which he could\ngive no details, was to be supported by the administration of the\n\u201cAhnenerbe\u201d. (_German Tr. p. 5671._) Following this, Sievers went to\nDachau in late March or on 1 April 1942. (_German Tr. p. 5672._)\n\nThus this date was the earliest on which Sievers could possibly have\ngained knowledge about the carrying out of high-altitude experiments in\nDachau. It is important that at this time the experiments had already\nbeen under way for over a month.\n\nThe cunning Rascher took the first visit of Sievers as an opportunity to\ninvite Sievers to have a look at the experiments directed by him, in\nspite of the fact that Sievers had nothing at all to do with the\ncarrying out of the experiments. Sievers watched two experiments. He\ntook the opportunity to speak to the two persons who were subjected to\nthe experiments on that day. Both told Sievers that they had volunteered\nfor the experiment. A few minutes after the experiment both experimental\nsubjects did not show any after-effects and finished the experiment\nwithout suffering any bodily or physical damage. (_German Tr. p. 5741._)\n\nThe following proceeding shows the special care which was taken in the\ncarrying out of these experiments: It was agreed with the experimental\npersons that in case of earache they were to point with the hand to the\near. When one of the experimental subjects did this, Dr. Romberg\nimmediately altered the pressure conditions, and the behavior of the\nexperimental subject showed that he had no more discomfort. (_German Tr.\npp. 5743 and 6845._)\n\nSince the question of the voluntary status of the human experimental\nsubjects may be of significance in the case of all experiments, a\ncomprehensive presentation of the most important depositions on this\nsubject is given here.\n\nHimmler stated at the Easter conference in 1942, in answer to the\nscruples of Sievers, that only volunteers were to be allowed to be drawn\nupon for the experiments, and if the experiments were fraught with\ndanger to life then only major criminals under sentence of death and no\npolitical prisoners would be taken. (_German Tr. p. 5677._) The witness\nNeff testified that volunteers presented themselves for the experiments.\n(_German Tr. p. 614._)\n\nDr. Craemer of the Mountain Institute for Psychology of the Army\nMountain Medical School [Gebirgspsychologisches, Institut der\nHeeres-Gebirgs-Sanitaets-Schule] has, in an affidavit, reported a\nconversation with Dr. Rascher in the course of which the latter said:\n\n \u201cHuman experimental subjects. It is a question of major\n criminals under valid sentence of death who come forward\n voluntarily for the experiments in Dachau in order to have life\n and liberty given to them if they survive an experiment.\u201d\n (_Handloser 37, Handloser Ex. 18._)\n\nThe witness Meine declared:\n\n \u201c* * * since, furthermore, I knew from the series of experiments\n in Oranienburg that the prisoners had come forward voluntarily\n in crowds * * * my suspicion was not aroused during these\n years.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 4864._)\n\nDr. Mrugowsky deposed the following in his direct examination regarding\nyellow-fever experiments:\n\n \u201cOnly volunteers were used, and Dr. Ding states in his\n declaration (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) that he knew of a list,\n and that for these kinds of cases always hundreds of volunteers\n offered themselves because they would not need to work for 4\n weeks and were better fed.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 5195._)\n\nFurther, I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, which was submitted by\nDr. Mrugowsky\u2019s defense counsel, Mrugowsky 32 (_Mrugowsky Exhibit 26_):\n\n \u201cAt the conference with Dr. Ding I learned that the human\n experimental subjects came forward voluntarily for these\n experiments. * * * In the case of the prisoner whose treatment I\n chanced to watch with others, I had the definite impression that\n he was a volunteer.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 5228._)\n\nIn connection with the high-altitude experiments in Dachau, I quote the\nfollowing from Dr. Ruff\u2019s deposition:\n\n \u201cProfessor Dr. Weltz told me that these human experimental\n subjects were professional criminals who were allowed to\n volunteer for the experiments.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 6532._)\n\n \u201cHippke told me also in this conversation that it was a question\n of major criminals who could offer themselves voluntarily for\n the experiments and who, following the experiments, were then to\n receive in some form a mitigation of their punishment, either\n reduction or remission.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 6534._)\n\nThe chief of Himmler\u2019s personal staff, SS General Karl Wolff, gave an\naffidavit in London on 21 November 1946, which is of special importance\nbecause Wolff himself watched experiments in Dachau together with\nHimmler, and also reported to Hitler concerning the experiments:\n\n \u201cThey (namely, the human experimental subjects) protested to\n Himmler in my presence that\u2014after their request to be sent to\n the front had been turned down\u2014they wanted to render a modest\n voluntary service to Germany and thereby give proof of the good\n will they really possessed. * * * That later low-pressure\n experiments are said to have taken place on prisoners on a\n nonvoluntary basis\u2014of that I received no knowledge either from\n Himmler nor in any other way.\u201d (_German Tr. pp. 6757-58._)\n\nDr. Romberg declared in direct examination:\n\n \u201cIn the course of time, not exactly on the first day, but as\n time went on, I spoke of course with all of them more often and\n in greater detail; then they told me gradually what previous\n sentences they had had, what prisons and penitentiaries they had\n already been at before coming to the camp. They told me also the\n reasons why they had come forward and had placed themselves\n voluntarily at the disposal of the experiments.\u201d\n\nTo the question: \u201cDo you mean by that, that all the human experimental\nsubjects who were used for the altitude experiments were voluntarily\nhuman experimental subjects?\u201d Dr. Romberg answered with a clear, \u201cYes.\u201d\n(_German Tr. pp. 6787-88._)\n\nThe following is quoted from Dr. Weltz\u2019 deposition:\n\n \u201cWhen I first heard anything from Kottenhoff concerning\n Rascher\u2019s proposals, Kottenhoff spoke already of volunteers.\n Later, after this conversation with Hippke I spoke again with\n Rascher. Rascher also spoke of volunteers. We then had Rascher\n at our joint consultation with Ruff and Romberg in my institute.\n There, too, he spoke of volunteers. In the observations that he\n made at the Nuernberg conference in connection with\n Holzloehner\u2019s lecture, he spoke of volunteers. He spoke further\n of volunteers, on the return journey from the Nuernberg\n conference, with Dr. Craemer from St. Johann. * * * Thus I never\n heard Rascher speak otherwise than of volunteers, and, as I said\n already, that was the reason why we did not speak for a long\n time at all concerning compulsory experiments with Hippke.\u201d\n (_German Tr. p. 7064._)\n\nThe affidavit of the Polish Communist Wilschewske, an inmate of Dachau\nconcentration camp, which was read on 28 April 1947, deposes as to the\nvoluntary status of the human experimental subjects:\n\n \u201cPrisoners who came forward for these experiments did so, as far\n as I know, voluntarily, because they could thereby gain their\n own freedom and rehabilitation, and also favorable treatment for\n their relatives.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 6555._)\n\nDr. Becker-Freyseng deposed the following in his direct examination:\n\n \u201cRascher spoke unequivocally of prisoners or criminal characters\n who were available because of special sanctions * * * by Hitler\n and Himmler, and through volunteering.\u201d (_German Tr. pp.\n 7850-51._)\n\nThe witness Dorn, a former prisoner in Buchenwald, deposed in answer to\nthe following question: Were these people now forced into these\nexperiments or was there a possibility of volunteering?\n\n \u201cI should like to give you an answer to that. Imagine the\n position of a prisoner who perhaps for years had not had enough\n to eat to satisfy him, and who perhaps learns from a camp\n conversation that if he were to offer himself for this or that\n experiment he would receive a double or triple amount of food.\n You can imagine that hundreds or more presented themselves\n merely from the purely human urge to eat their fill once again.\u201d\n (_German Tr. p. 8620._)\n\nDr. Beiglboeck likewise makes assertions in his direct examination\nconcerning the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects, and\ndeclares in conclusion:\n\n \u201cI had at that time absolutely no reason to doubt that this\n information was correct. Superiors, officers of the SS, and the\n human experimental subjects themselves admitted this to me. And\n I do not know what more I could have done in order to assure\n myself still further.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 8701._)\n\nThe voluntary status of the prisoners is likewise confirmed in his\naffidavit by the witness Dr. Lesse, who worked as a doctor with Dr.\nBeiglboeck in Dachau. (_Beiglboeck 14, Beiglboeck Ex. 20._)\n\nThe witness Mettbach has also confirmed the voluntary status of the\nhuman experimental subjects in connection with the sea-water\nexperiments.\n\nFinally reference is made to the deposition of the witness Nales, who\nwas examined by the prosecution on 30 June 1947 in the second half of\nthe forenoon session, and who testified to the voluntary status of the\nhuman experimental subjects used in the Lost gas experiments.\n\nThe evidence produced has not given the slightest grounds for believing\nthat Sievers had any knowledge at all that nonvoluntary human\nexperimental subjects were compelled to undergo experiments, or that the\nexperiments would be painful or fraught with danger to life.\n\nAs a precaution let us also examine the question as to what further\nactivity Sievers developed in connection with the low-pressure\nexperiments. From the document book presented by the prosecution it\nappears that Sievers passed on letters which came to his office. Sievers\nis mentioned in some documents. The following separate letters are at\nhand:\n\nIn connection with the altitude experiments, the prosecution\u2019s document\nbook contains the following documents in which the Reich Business\nManager of the Ahnenerbe is mentioned in one way or another. (_NO-263,\nPros. Ex. 47._) Letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leadership SS\ndated 24 February 1942:\n\n \u201cRascher requests SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler to acquaint\n the Reich Leader with the events and to say at the same time\n that Rascher, as a member of the Ahnenerbe, definitely wishes to\n participate scientifically in the experiments.\u201d\n\nFrom this it is seen how very keen even Frau Rascher was that her\nhusband should participate in the experiments in Dachau. This was at a\ntime when Sievers had as yet no knowledge at all of the altitude\nexperiments.\n\nLetter from the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt,\ndated 26 August 1942 (_NO-221, Pros. Ex. 68_). This letter contains a\ncopy of a letter from Rascher which had as its subject a report by\nRascher and Romberg to Field Marshal Milch. The second part of the\nletter contains the report and the assent to the publication of the\nscientific results. Here the date of the letter must be pointed out, 26\nAugust 1942, which was many weeks after the altitude experiments had\ncome to an end, in May 1942.\n\nDr. Brandt\u2019s reply to Sievers, dated 29 August 1942 (_NO-222, Pros. Ex.\n69_):\n\n \u201cThe letter of the Reich Leader SS, with which he has forwarded\n the report to Field Marshal Milch, was only signed and sent off\n a few days ago. Copy of the letter of the Reich Leader SS dated\n 25 August 1942 is enclosed for your information.\u201d\n\nHere it is to be observed that this letter likewise was written long\nafter the conclusion of the altitude experiments and, like the preceding\none, contains nothing at all concerning the experiments. It cannot be\ninferred from the letter dated 29 August 1942 that a copy of the report\nsent to Field Marshal Milch was also sent to the Ahnenerbe.\n\nBrandt sends Sievers a copy of his letter to Dr. Rascher dated 6\nSeptember 1942 (_NO-223, Pros. Ex. 71_). It contains the information\nthat Field Marshal Milch will ask Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg to meet\nshortly and report.\n\nLetter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 9 October 1942 (_1610-PS, Pros.\nEx. 73_). Sievers is mentioned in connection with the unsuccessful\nreport to Milch. It is worth noting that Rascher asks that the\nlow-pressure chamber may still be left at his disposal for further\nexperiments.\n\nLetter from the Reich Business Manager of the \u201cAhnenerbe\u201d to the\npersonal staff, for the attention of Dr. Brandt, dated 21 October 1942\n(_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_ (_Pros. Ex. 110 in Milch case_); _1617-PS, Pros.\nEx. 111 in Milch case_). This letter contains the information that the\nfreezing experiments are finished and that the altitude experiments\ndesired by the Reich Leader SS can now be continued. For this purpose\nthe low-pressure chamber will be needed again, and the Reich Leader SS\nis to write personally to Field Marshal Milch. The rough draft of a\nletter of the Reich Leader SS to Field Marshal Milch was enclosed with\nthis letter. This rough draft is submitted by the prosecution as NO-226,\nProsecution Exhibit 75. This draft was submitted by Sievers because of\nan assignment given to him by Himmler. The rough draft was drawn up in\naccordance with Rascher\u2019s suggestions. (_German Tr. p. 5682._)\n\nThis letter, dated 13 December 1942, contains several research\ncommissions given personally by Himmler to Rascher (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex.\n79_). Number 5 reads:\n\n \u201cThe procuring of the apparatus necessary for all experiments is\n to be discussed separately with the offices of the Reich\n Physician SS of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office,\n and with the Ahnenerbe Registered Association.\u201d\n\nA copy went to the Ahnenerbe.\n\nThis is a letter from the Vorstand [Board of Directors] of the\nSiemens-Schuckert-Werke, Berlin, and concerns the ordering of an\nelectrocardiograph (_NO-3675, Pros. Ex. 548_). This apparatus was never\ndelivered because the \u201cSS priority grade\u201d was not certified. Let it be\nremarked here, for the sake of understanding, that the designation \u201cSS\npriority grade\u201d was in general use and had nothing to do with the \u201cSS\u201d,\nthe so-called \u201cSchutzstaffeln\u201d of the NSDAP.\n\nLetter from Sievers to the Rector of the University of Munich concerning\nthe loan of different pieces of apparatus (_NO-3674, Pros. Ex. 549._)\nDr. Wuest was, as repeatedly pointed out, office chief of the Ahnenerbe.\nAs such he had exact information concerning the research commissions of\nthe Institute for Military Scientific Research. A simple way to obtain\nthe apparatus would have been an agreement made over the telephone. If\nSievers chose to do it by letter it was only because of the delaying\ntactics practiced by him. This is seen clearly from the postscript\nintended for Rascher, telling him not to participate. It is also worthy\nof note that the apparatus was to be used in Munich and not in Dachau.\n\nSievers had no right to issue orders or instructions in connection with\nthe low-pressure experiments, as is seen from part III of the closing\nbrief. Sievers had not the slightest influence on the carrying out of\nthe experiments.\n\nSievers could have had no knowledge that the experiments might be\ninhuman, because he, or the Ahnenerbe, was only brought in when the\nexperiments had already been in progress for over a month.\n\nThe question still to be examined is whether and when Sievers received\nknowledge of Rascher\u2019s reports concerning his experiments. To this the\nfollowing details are pointed out: On 5 April 1942 Rascher sent an\ninterim report on his low-pressure experiments direct to Himmler. He\nasked that the report should be treated as secret. (_1971-A-PS, Pros.\nEx. 49._)\n\nThe acknowledgment of the receipt did not go through the Ahnenerbe but\nwent directly from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher. (_1971-C-PS, Pros. Ex.\n50._) It is nowhere mentioned that a copy went to the Ahnenerbe. From\nthe distribution of the order issued by Himmler thereon (_1971-B-PS,\nPros. Ex. 51_), it is clearly seen that the Ahnenerbe received no copy\nof the order.\n\nOn 11 May 1942 Rascher sent a further secret report direct to Himmler,\nso that Sievers here too had no possibility of acquiring any knowledge\nof this report. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._)\n\nOn 22 September 1942 the German Experimental Station for Aviation sent\ncopies of Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report \u201cExperiments on Rescue from\nHigh Altitudes\u201d as \u201ctop secret\u201d matter to the Reich Leader SS \u201cto be\nfiled there\u201d. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Even if the first page of the\nreport bears the note, \u201cThe investigations were conducted in conjunction\nwith the Research and Instruction Association the Ahnenerbe\u201d, no kind of\nproof is thereby furnished that a copy of the report reached the\nAhnenerbe. It is true that Sievers does not exclude the possibility that\nsuch a report came to the Ahnenerbe, but he denies that he read such a\nreport, because it did not concern him, and it also did not interest him\nas it dealt with medical matters. If he did read any of it, it was at\nthe most the short summary to be found at the end. (_German Tr. p.\n5681._)\n\nIt must also be pointed out that there is nothing in this report which\ncould lead to the conclusion that the experiments had fatal results. The\nprosecution\u2019s expert Professor Ivy also confirmed this in answer to the\nCourt\u2019s question: \u201cIs there anything mentioned in the\nRuff-Romberg-Rascher report about experiments concerning which it can be\nasserted with absolute certainty that fatalities, permanent injury, or\ngreat pain have resulted in the case of human experimental subjects?\u201d\nThe expert\u2019s answer was \u201cNo.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 9217._) In addition this\nreport was sent to Himmler on 22 September 1942, thus, long after the\nclose of the experiments. Sievers cannot then have gained any insight\ninto Rascher\u2019s criminal activity from Rascher\u2019s reports.\n\nSievers had not the power or the opportunity of preventing Rascher\u2019s\ncriminal experiments or of bringing them to a standstill. It is true\nthat at the Easter conference in 1942 he tried to move Himmler to\ndiscontinue all experiments in the concentration camps, or at least to\nbring about the suppression of the research of Rascher and Professor Dr.\nHirt, which were not in harmony with the character of the Ahnenerbe.\nBoth his suggestions were refuted by Himmler\u2019s declaration that \u201call\nthat\u201d was no concern of Sievers and that he (Himmler) bore the sole\nresponsibility. (_German Tr. p. 5714._)\n\nIn spite of Himmler\u2019s declaration, Sievers endeavored to halt further\nlow-pressure experiments, when the low-pressure chamber had been removed\nfrom Dachau at the beginning of June 1942.\n\nAlready on 27 November 1942, the chief of the personal staff of the\nReich Leader SS, SS General Wolff, had applied to Field Marshal Milch in\norder to make possible Rascher\u2019s further experiments in Dachau. In the\nclosing sentence of this letter the loan of the low-pressure chamber is\nonce again requested. (_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_ (_Pros. Ex. 118 in the\nMilch Case_).)\n\nThat General Wolff by Himmler\u2019s orders laid great stress on making\nfurther experiments possible is seen from the fact that a copy of the\nletter went also to SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Wuest, who was office chief of\nthe Ahnenerbe. Thereby the special importance of the affair was to be\nshown also to the Ahnenerbe, on which the obligation rested to procure\nthe requisite apparatus in accordance with figure three of Himmler\u2019s\norder of 7 July 1942 (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33_) and repeated later under\nfigure five of Himmler\u2019s order of 13 December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex.\n79_).\n\nWhen the Luftwaffe did not make the low-pressure chamber available\nagain, Sievers was commissioned to buy a special portable low-pressure\nchamber for the SS. (_German Tr. p. 5800._) And then Sievers did\nsomething unheard of and rang up Dr. Romberg of the German Experimental\nStation for Aviation. Romberg was very much surprised at this telephone\ncall. (_German Tr. pp. 6839-40._)\n\nThrough his communication that he had been commissioned by Himmler to\nprocure a low-pressure chamber for Rascher, who at that time was still a\nmember of the Luftwaffe, he aroused the attention of the Luftwaffe. For\nDr. Romberg communicated this news to his superior Dr. Ruff, who, on his\nside, informed Dr. Becker-Freyseng of the Medical Inspectorate of the\nLuftwaffe. (_German Tr. pp. 6607-08, 7878_; _Becker-Freyseng 24,\nBecker-Freyseng Ex. 11_.) This was what Sievers counted upon. The\nconsent of the Luftwaffe would have been necessary for the purpose of\nsanctioning the requisite priority grade for a low-pressure chamber. The\nLuftwaffe denied this necessity and thus the low-pressure chamber under\nconsideration for Rascher was not procured.\n\nWhen Himmler in the year 1943\u2014probably at Rascher\u2019s urging\u2014ordered\nSievers again to procure a low-pressure chamber, Sievers was able once\nmore to prevent one from being procured. This time he pointed out that\nthe research management of the Luftwaffe did not consider it necessary\nto continue with altitude experiments. Sievers advanced this statement\nat random, profiting by the fact that Rascher, though probably known to\nthe Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, was not known to the research\nmanagement of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p. 5801._)\n\n _Summary_\n\nCriminal action on the part of Sievers cannot be proved in connection\nwith the low-pressure experiments. The carrying out of the experiments\nwas neither ordered nor arranged for by him. He did not come into\ncontact with the experiments until they had been in progress for over a\nmonth. What Sievers saw, heard, and read about the experiments could not\nin any way give him the knowledge that inadmissible experiments were\nbeing made. Sievers had no knowledge of Rascher\u2019s criminal experiments\nwhile the experiments were in progress, because Rascher kept these\nexperiments completely secret. Sievers\u2019 activity was of a completely\nsubordinate nature. Apart from that, however, Sievers helped to prevent\nRascher (whom Sievers could not bear, for he was a pompous fellow and a\nprot\u00e9g\u00e9 of Himmler) from being put again in a position to carry on\nfurther low-pressure experiments.\n\nThere is no criminal guilt then on the part of Sievers, as far as\nSievers\u2019 contact with the low-pressure experiments is concerned.\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros.\nDoc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n1602-PS 44 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 15 May 1941, 141\n concerning high-altitude experiments on\n human beings.\n1582-PS 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, undated, 143\n nforming him that prisoners would be made\n available for high-altitude research.\n1581-A-PS 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Sievers, 21 March 144\n 1942, concerning Rascher\u2019s participation in\n high-altitude experiments.\n1971-A-PS 49 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 5 April 1942, 144\n and report, undated, on high-altitude\n experiments.\n1971-C-PS 50 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 April 147\n 1942, regarding his success with\n high-altitude experiments.\n1971-B-PS 51 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 13 April 1942, 148\n requesting a repetition of high-altitude\n experiments on prisoners condemned to death.\n1971-D-PS 52 Teletype from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 20 149\n October 1942, requesting clarification on\n the pardon granted by Himmler.\n1971-E-PS 53 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Schnitzler, 21 149\n October 1942, concerning the pardon granted\n by Himmler.\nNO-218 56 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 April 1942, 150\n reporting on high-altitude experiments with\n fatal results and on experiments conducted\n together with Romberg.\nNO-264 60 File note for SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler, 151\n 28 April 1942.\nNO-220 61 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 11 May 1942, 152\n and secret report concerning high-altitude\n experiments.\nNO-402 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, and report, 28 July 155\n 1942, from Romberg and Ruff to Himmler\n concerning experiments on rescue from high\n altitudes.\n343-A-PS 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, 20 May 1942, 172\n regarding continuation of experiments.\n343-B-PS 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, 31 August 1942, 172\n acknowledging receipt of reports by Rascher\n and Romberg on high-altitude experiments.\nNO-289 72 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 8 October 1942, 173\n thanking the latter for his assistance in\n high-altitude experiments in Dachau.\nNO-224 76 Note by Romberg on showing of film in office 174\n of State Secretary Milch and proposed report\n to Milch, 11 September 1942.\n1612-PS 79 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 176\n December 1942, and Himmler\u2019s order assigning\n Rascher to high-altitude experiments.\nNO-610 41 Inmates of the Dachau concentration camp in 898\n different stages of simulated altitude in\n the low-pressure chamber; postmortem\n dissections of experimental subjects who\n died from the effects of high-altitude\n experiments. (_See Selections from\n Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution._)\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of tribunal witness Walter Neff 177\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Rudolf Brandt 183\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Romberg 186\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1602-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 44\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 15 MAY 1941, CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE\n EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS\n\n [Stamp]\nSigmund Rascher, M. D.\n Personal Staff Reich Leader SS\n Archives File No. Secret/58\nMunich, Trogerstrasse 56, 15 May 1941\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader,\n\nMy most sincere thanks for your cordial wishes and flowers on the birth\nof my second son. This time, too, it is a strong boy, though he arrived\n3 weeks too early. I shall take the liberty and send you a small picture\nof both children some time.\n\nSince I want a third child very soon, I feel very grateful to you that\nwith your help, highly esteemed Reich Leader, the wedding is made\npossible. Today I was informed by SS Standartenfuehrer Sollmann on the\ntelephone that the 165 marks as required for a wedding will be charged\nto the account \u201cR\u201d and will be transmitted by the Ahnenerbe. I thank you\nheartily! I only need a short certificate concerning Aryan descent for\nthe Luftwaffe, where the permit was already submitted. Tomorrow, prior\nto my departure, I shall dictate a rough text to Nini D; she will then\nforward the note to you, highly esteemed Reich Leader.\n\nI also thank you very cordially for the generous regular allowance of\nfruit; this is at present extremely important for mother and children.\n\nFor the time being, have been assigned to the Luftgau Kommando VII,\nMunich, for a medical selection course. During this course, where\nresearch on high-altitude flying plays a prominent part, determined by\nthe somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes, considerable\nregret was expressed that no experiments on human beings have so far\nbeen possible for us because such experiments are very dangerous and\nnobody is volunteering. I therefore put the serious question: is there\nany possibility that two or three professional criminals can be made\navailable for these experiments? The experiments are being performed at\nthe Ground Station for High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe\n[Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at\nMunich. The experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may\ndie, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely\nessential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot, as it has\nbeen tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, because monkeys offer\nentirely different test conditions. I had an absolutely confidential\ntalk with the representative of the Luftwaffe physician who is\nconducting these experiments. He also is of the opinion that the\nproblems in question can only be solved by experiments on human beings.\n(Feeble-minded individuals also could be used as experimental material.)\n\nFor the time being, SS men and some SS officers as well are detailed to\nthe antiaircraft school IV, for studying the range-finding technique.\nThe material is excellent. Nevertheless, I suggest that selection of\nrange-finding men among SS troops should be carried out according to the\nmethods of examination as used by the Luftwaffe. A still better\nselection would thus be the result. I am able to judge because I am the\nspecialist for medical selection with the Luftwaffe range-finding unit,\nand all those detailed to these courses once more have to pass my\nexamination. I therefore take the liberty to send to you from Schongau\nthe method of selection as drafted by me. For this, I received the War\nMerit Cross, 2d Class, with Swords. It will not be a note for\ninstruction but a draft for a lecture. I prefer to have it forwarded the\ndirect way rather than that any SS officer should put it down in a\nmutilated way during my lectures. A similar instructional note was\nsubmitted to the Reich Ministry for Aviation.\n\nThanks to your generosity, the cancer research is progressing well, in\nspite of the war.\n\nI do hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are in perfect health,\nin spite of your tremendous amount of work!\n\n With my most hearty wishes, I am with\n Heil Hitler!\n [handwritten] Yours, gratefully devoted,\n [Signed] S. RASCHER\n[Handwritten] RUSH\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1582-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 45\n\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, UNDATED, INFORMING HIM THAT\n PRISONERS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR HIGH-ALTITUDE RESEARCH\n\nAK/104a/LO Bra/V\n [Stamp unintelligible May 2 (?) 1941]\nSS Untersturmfuehrer Sigmund Rascher M. D.\nMunich\nTrogerstr. 56\nDear Dr. Rascher:\n\nShortly before flying to Oslo, the Reich Leader SS gave me your letter\nof 15 May 1941, for partial reply.\n\nI can inform you that prisoners will, of course, be gladly made\navailable for the high-flight researches. I have informed the Chief of\nthe Security Police of this agreement of the Reich Leader SS, and\nrequested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with\nyou.\n\nI want to use the opportunity to extend my cordial wishes to you on the\nbirth of your son.\n\nI shall refer as soon as possible to the second part of your letter.\n\n By order\n Heil Hitler!\n [initials] R BR [Rudolf Brandt]\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n[illegible markings]\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1581-A-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48\n\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SIEVERS, 21 MARCH 1942,\n CONCERNING RASCHER\u2019S PARTICIPATION IN HIGH-ALTITUDE\n EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS Personal Staff\n\nJournal No. AR 704/2 A/Bn.\n\n [Stamp]\n Personal Staff Reich Leader SS\n Documentary Administration\n Record number AR/704/2 A/Bn. 58\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 21 March 1942\n\nTo the Reich Chief Manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of the \u201cAhnenerbe\u201d\n\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers\n\nBerlin\u2014Dahlem\n\nDear Comrade Sievers,\n\nI refer to your inquiry of 9 March 1942 B/151/r1 S/Wo\u2014concerning Dr.\nRascher.\n\nReference is made to the subatmospheric pressure experiments which are\nbeing carried out on concentration camp inmates in the Dachau camp by\nthe air force. The Reich Leader SS has approved these experiments under\nthe condition that SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is an\nObersturmfuehrer of the air force, takes part in them. I am sure that\nDr. Rascher will be able to give you further details.[22]\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-A-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 49\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 5 APRIL 1942, AND REPORT,\n UNDATED, ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nSigmund Rascher, M. D.\n\n 5 April 1942\n [Marginal note] Very interesting. 8-4-42.\n [Apparently by Himmler]\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader:\n\nEnclosed is an interim report on the low-pressure experiments so far\nconducted in the concentration camp of Dachau. May I ask you\nrespectively to treat the report as secret?\n\nA few days ago Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] Professor Dr. Grawitz\nmade a brief inspection of the experimentation plant. Since his time was\nvery limited, no experiments could be demonstrated to him. SS\nObersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to watch some of the\ninteresting standard experiments and may have given you a brief report.\nI believe, highly esteemed Reich Leader, that you would be\nextraordinarily interested in those experiments. Is it not possible that\non the occasion of a trip to southern Germany you have some of the\nexperiments demonstrated to you? If the results so obtained by the\nexperiments are confirmed by further experimentation, entirely new data\nwill be secured for science; simultaneously, entirely new aspects will\nbe opened to the Luftwaffe.\n\nI hope that, thanks to the intended efforts of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\nSievers, the Luftwaffe will make no difficulties from now on. I am very\nmuch indebted to Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very\nactive interest in my work in every respect.\n\nI thank you respectfully, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for the generous\nrealization of my proposition to conduct such experiments in the\nconcentration camp.\n\nWith my best wishes for your personal well-being, I am\n\n With Heil Hitler\n Gratefully yours,\n [Signed] S. RASCHER\n _FIRST INTERIM REPORT ON THE LOW-PRESSURE CHAMBER\n EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP OF DACHAU_\n\n1. The object is to solve the problem of whether the theoretically\nestablished norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings\nbreathing air with only a small proportion of oxygen and subjected to\nlow pressure correspond with the results obtained by practical\nexperiments. It has been asserted that a parachutist, who jumps from a\nheight of 12 km. would suffer very severe injuries, probably even die,\non account of the lack of oxygen. Practical experiments on this subject\nhave always been discontinued after a maximum of 53 seconds, since very\nsevere bends [Hoehenkrankheit] occurred.\n\n2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being above the\nnormal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been conducted at all,\nsince it has been a foregone conclusion that the human experimental\nsubject [Versuchsperson\u2014VP] would suffer death.\n\nThe experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg proved the\nfollowing:\n\nExperiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen and the\nlow atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did not cause death.\nAltogether 15 extreme experiments of this type were carried out in which\nnone of VP\u2019s died. Very severe bends together with unconsciousness\noccurred, but completely normal functions of the senses returned when a\nheight of 7 km. was reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering\nduring the experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time\nthe experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they did\nnot indicate any abnormal changes during the following days. The extent\nto which deterioration of the organism may occur due to continuously\nrepeated experiments can only be established at the end of the series of\nexperiments. The extreme fatal experiments will be carried out on\nspecially selected VP\u2019s, otherwise it would not be possible to exercise\nthe rigid control so extraordinarily important for practical purposes.\n\nThe VP\u2019s were brought to a height of 8 km. under oxygen and then had to\nmake 5 knee bends with and without oxygen. After a certain lapse of\ntime, moderate to severe bends occurred and the VP\u2019s became unconscious.\nHowever, after a certain period of accustoming themselves to the height\nof 8 km. all the VP\u2019s recuperated and regained their consciousness and\nthe normal functions of their senses.\n\nOnly continuous experiments at altitudes higher than 10.5 km. resulted\nin death. These experiments showed that breathing stopped after about 30\nminutes, while in 2 cases the electrocardiographically charted action of\nthe heart continued for another 20 minutes.\n\nThe third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that\nI called an SS physician of the camp as witness, since I had worked on\nthese experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without\noxygen at a height of 12 km. conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good\ngeneral condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes\nthe VP began to perspire and to wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps\noccurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the\nVP became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to\nthree breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether.\n\nSeverest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth.\n\nAt 5-minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were written.\nAfter breathing had stopped, the electrocardiogram was continuously\nwritten until the action of the heart had come to a complete standstill.\nAbout \u00bd hour after breathing had stopped, dissection was started.\n\n_Autopsy Report_\n\nWhen the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was filled\ntightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the pericardium 80 cc. of\nclear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The moment the tamponade had\nstopped, the right auricle began to beat heavily, at first at the rate\nof 60 actions per minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes\nafter the pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by\npuncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood spurted\nforth. Thereafter clogging of the puncture wound in the auricle by\ncoagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of the action of the\nright auricle occurred.\n\nOne hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was completely\nsevered and the brain removed. Thereupon the action of the auricle\nstopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action, coming to a complete\nstandstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarchnoid oedema was found in the\nbrain. In the veins and arteries of the brain a considerable quantity of\nair was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart and\nliver were enormously obstructed by embolism.\n\nThe anatomical preparations will be preserved and so I shall be able to\nevaluate them later.\n\nThe last-mentioned case is to my knowledge the first one of this type\never observed on man. The above-described heart actions will gain\nparticular scientific interest, since they were written down with an\nelectrocardiogram to the very end.\n\nThe experiments will be continued and extended. Another interim report\nwill follow after new results have been obtained.\n\n [Signed] DR. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-C-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 50\n\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942,\n REGARDING HIS SUCCESS WITH HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\n1174/42 BRa/V\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942\n Top Secret\nSS Untersturmfuehrer Rascher, M. D.\nMunich, Trogerstrasse 56\nDear Comrade Dr. Rascher,\n\nYour report of 5.4.1942 has been seen by the Reich Leader SS today. The\ntests on which SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers gave a brief report\ninterested him very much.\n\nFor the further tests I wish you a continuation of the success you have\nhad so far.\n\nBest regards also to your wife.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] B. [R.] BRANDT\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-B-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 51\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942, REQUESTING\n A REPETITION OF HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS ON PRISONERS\n CONDEMNED TO DEATH\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942\nSS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher\nMunich 27, Trogerstrasse 56\nDear Dr. Rascher:\n\nI want to answer your letter with which you sent me your reports.\nEspecially the latest discoveries made in your experiments particularly\nhave interested me. May I now ask you the following:\n\n1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death.\n\n2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these\nexperiments.\n\n3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart the experiments\nshould be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine\nwhether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment\nsucceed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be\npardoned to concentration camp for life.\n\nPlease keep me further informed on the experiments.\n\nKind regards and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n\n2. Chief of the Security Police and SD.\n\n3. SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks.\n\nCopy for your information.\n\n by order [I. A.]\n [initialed] BR. [Rudolf Brandt]\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-D-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 52\n\n TELETYPE FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 20 OCTOBER 1942,\n REQUESTING CLARIFICATION ON THE PARDON GRANTED BY\n HIMMLER\n\n REICH SECURITY MAIN OFFICE\n Communication\nCommunication No. 11194 Urgent\nRFSS Munich\u2014Teletype No. 2020, 20 October 1942, 5:25 p. m.\nTo: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt\nField Command Post [Feldkommandostelle] Hegewald\nHighly esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer:\n\nWill you please clarify the following case with the Reich Leader SS as\nsoon as possible?\n\nIn communication RFSS [Reich Leader SS] of 13-1-42 under paragraph 3 it\nis ordered that if prisoners in Dachau condemned to death live through\nexperiments which have endangered their lives, they should be pardoned.\nAs up to now only Poles and Russians were available, some of whom had\nbeen condemned to death, it is not quite clear to me yet as to whether\nthe above-mentioned paragraph also applies to them, and whether they may\nbe pardoned to concentration camp for life after having lived through\nseveral very severe experiments.\n\nPlease answer by teletype via Adjutant\u2019s Office, RFSS, Munich.\n\n Obedient Greetings,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signed] S. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-E-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 53\n\n TELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SCHNITZLER, 21 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING\n THE PARDON GRANTED BY HIMMLER\n\n TELETYPE\nTo SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler\nMunich\n\nPlease inform SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher with regard to his\nteletype inquiry that the instruction given some time ago by the Reich\nLeader SS concerning amnesty of test persons does not apply to Poles and\nRussians.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n21 October 1942\nBra/Dr.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-218\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 56\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 APRIL 1942, REPORTING ON\n HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS WITH FATAL RESULTS AND ON EXPERIMENTS\n CONDUCTED TOGETHER WITH ROMBERG\n\n Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 16 April 1942\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader:\n\nMay I thank you for your letter of 13 April. I am delighted with the\ngreat interest which you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are taking in\nthe experiments and their results. I thank you for the inspiration you\nhave given me in your letter.\n\nThe experiment described in the report of 4 April was repeated four\ntimes, each time with the same results. When Wagner, the last test\nperson had stopped breathing, I let him come back to life by increasing\npressure. Since test person \u201cW . . .\u201d was assigned for a terminal[23]\nexperiment, as a repeated experiment held no prospect of new results,\nand since I had not been in possession of your letter at that time, I\nsubsequently started another experiment through which Test Person Wagner\ndid not live. Also in this case the results obtained by\nelectrocardiographic registration were extraordinary.\n\nIn accordance with your orders, I tried to contact Dr. Fahrenkamp\nimmediately upon receipt of your letter. However, I could not speak to\nhim since he is laid up with angina. In a few days I shall ask again if\nDr. Fahrenkamp is available.\n\nMeanwhile, at times together with Dr. Romberg, I have carried out\nfalling experiments from heights of from 16 to 20 kilometers. There,\ncontrary to theoretical assumptions, it was proved that falling through\nspace after jumping from an airplane in the stratosphere (pressure\ncabinplane) is quite possible, as after severe unconsciousness the test\nperson regained complete consciousness in each case, at between 7 and 8\nkilometers height when the parachute lever, installed in the chamber,\nwas pulled.\n\nWithin the next few days, I shall report at length on these experiments\nas well as on the above-mentioned Test Person Wagner.\n\nI also have a request to make: May I take pictures of the various\ndissection preparations in the dissecting room of the concentration camp\nto make a record of the strange formations of air embolism? In this\nconnection, my wife has already written to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr.\nBrandt.\n\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader, allow me to close by assuring you that\nyour active interest in these experiments has a tremendous influence on\none\u2019s working capacity and initiative.\n\nI am with devoted greeting and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours gratefully devoted\n [Signed] S. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-264\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 60\n\n FILE NOTE FOR SS OBERSTURMFUEHRER SCHNITZLER, 28 APRIL 1942\n\nFrau Rascher was here today in the office and stated the following to me\nfor you in a few words:\n\nOberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz still insists on participation in the\nexperiments and on full responsibility. If not, the assignment of Dr.\nRascher to the Weltz Institute must be changed. Weltz personally is\n_not_ interested in these experiments. RLM [The Reich Air Ministry] asks\nOberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz how long the experiments will last and whether\nit is justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long a time. RLM\ndemands from Weltz an opinion on the experiments which he, however,\ncannot give, unless he is fully informed about them. Weltz will be in\nBerlin with Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke on Friday. Weltz demands a\nstatement by Friday as to whether he should consider himself as still\nparticipating in the experiments, or whether it is requested that he\nshould not participate in the experiments.\n\nThe assignment of Dr. Rascher must immediately be changed to \u201cAssignment\nto Aviation Test Institute Berlin\u2014Adlershof, Dachau Branch\u201d (not Weltz\nInstitute), because Weltz\u2014as he stated\u2014intends to cancel the\nassignment immediately, if he is not to participate in it.\n\n_For personal confidential information_\n\nDr. Weltz confidentially informed Dr. Rascher that there is great\nmistrust against him in the RLM because of the experiments (SS\nmembership); there is also animosity in the air force administrative\ncommand (Luftgau) Munich for this reason.\n\nMunich, 28 April 1942.\nGr.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-220\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 61\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 11 MAY 1942, AND SECRET REPORT\n CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nSigmund Rascher M. D.\n Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 11 May 1942\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader:\n\nEnclosed I am forwarding a short summary on the principal experiments\nconducted up to date. A detailed report on the practical as well as the\ntheoretical results will take some more time. I shall hurry. Since the\nmaterial has to be processed the exploitation of the pathological\npreparations will take about \u00bd year though the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute\nfor Brain Research will help us, I hope.\n\nTonight I succeeded in seeing Dr. Fahrenkamp who has relatively\nrecovered. He appeared to be very interested and I think there will be a\nfine and fruitful cooperation. Dr. Fahrenkamp who has an enormous\nknowledge most amiably promised to help me in everything. He will give\nto you himself his opinion on my heart experiments. From our\nconversation I have had the impression that a great field of work will\nopen up to me yet. I thank you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for having\nopened these opportunities to me to such an extent.\n\nUnfortunately, the extension of my assignment has not been settled yet;\nin accordance with the present regulations, my assignment will be\nterminated on 15 May.\n\nThanking you again, I am with most obedient greetings and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours gratefully,\n [Signed] S. RASCHER\nMunich, 11 May 1942\n _SECRET REPORT_\n\nBased on results of experiments which up to now various scientists had\nconducted on animals only, the experiments in Dachau were to prove\nwhether these results would maintain their validity on human beings.\n\n1. The first experiments were to show whether the human being can\ngradually adapt himself to higher altitudes. Some 10 tests showed that a\nslower ascent without oxygen taking from 6 to 8 hours kept the functions\nof the senses of the various VP\u2019s [Versuchspersonen\u2014human experimental\nsubjects] fully normal up to a height of 8,000 meters. Within 8 hours\nseveral VP\u2019s had reached a height of 9.5 kilometers without oxygen when\nbends occurred suddenly.\n\n2. Normally it is impossible to stay without oxygen at altitudes higher\nthan 6 kilometers. Experiments showed however that after ascent to 8,000\nmeters without oxygen, bends combined with unconsciousness lasted only\nabout 25 minutes. After this period the VP\u2019s had mostly become\naccustomed to that altitude; consciousness returned, they could make\nknee bends, showed a normal electrocardiograph and were able to work (60\nto 70 percent of the cases examined).\n\n3. Descending tests on parachutes (suspended) without oxygen.\n\nThese experiments proved that from 14 kilometers on down severest bends\noccurred which remained until the ground was reached. The detrimental\neffects caused by these experiments manifested themselves at the\nbeginning as unconsciousness, and subsequently as spastic and limp\nparalysis, catotomy, stereotypy, and as retrograde amnesia lasting\nseveral hours. About 1 hour after the end of the experiment the VP\u2019s for\nthe most part were still disoriented as to time and locality. The blood\npicture often showed a shift to the left; albumen and red and white\nblood corpuscles were regularly found in the urine after the experiment;\ncylinders were sometimes found. After several hours or days the blood\nand urine returned to normal. The changes of the electrocardiograph were\nreversible.\n\nContrary to descending tests on parachutes without oxygen, descending\ntests with oxygen were carried out from heights up to 18 kilometers. It\nwas proved that on the average the VP\u2019s regained the normal function of\ntheir senses at 12 to 13 kilometers. No disturbances of general\nconditions occurred during any of these experiments. Brief\nunconsciousness at the beginning of the experiment caused no lasting\ndisturbances. Urine and blood showed only a slight change.\n\n4. As the long time of descent on parachutes, under actual conditions,\nwould cause severe freezing even if no detrimental effects were caused\nby lack of oxygen, VP\u2019s were brought by sudden decreases in pressure\nwith a cutting torch from 8 to 20 kilometers, simulating the damage to\nthe pressure-machine of the high-altitude airplane. After a waiting\nperiod of 10 seconds, corresponding to stepping out of the machine, the\nVP\u2019s were made to fall from this height with oxygen to a height where\nbreathing is possible. The VP\u2019s awoke between 10 and 12 kilometers and\nat about 8 kilometers pulled the parachute lever.\n\n5. In experiments of falling from the same height without oxygen, the\nVP\u2019s regained normal function of their senses only between 2 and 5\nkilometers.\n\n6. Experiments testing the effect of pervitin on the organism during\nparachute jumps, proved that the severe after-effects, as mentioned\nunder No. 3, were considerably milder. The ability to withstand the\nconditions at high altitudes was only slightly improved, while the\nbends, since they were not noticed, occurred suddenly\n(restraint-loosening effects of pervitin).\n\n7. Dr. Kliches, of the Charles University in Prague, reports in the\npublication of the Reich Research Council: \u201cBy prolonged breathing of\noxygen, human beings should theoretically be kept fully fit up to 13\nkilometers. In practice, the limit is around 11 kilometers. Experiments\nwhich I carried out in this connection proved that with pure oxygen no\nlowering of the measurable raw energy (ergometer) was noticeable up to\n13.3 kilometers. The VP\u2019s merely became unwilling since pains of the\nbody cavities grew too severe, due to the lowering of pressure between\nbody and thin air. When pure oxygen was inhaled bends occurred in all 25\ncases only at heights above 14.2 kilometers.\u201d\n\nAs practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted at\nDachau, the following can be assumed:\n\nFlying in altitudes higher than 12 kilometers without pressure-cabin or\npressure-suit is impossible even while breathing pure oxygen. If the\nairplane pressure-machine is damaged at altitudes of 13 kilometers and\nhigher, the crew will not be able to bail out of the damaged plane\nthemselves since at that height the bends appear rather suddenly. It\nmust be requested that the crew should be removed automatically from the\nplane, for instance, by catapulting the seats by means of compressed\nair. Descending with opened parachute without oxygen would cause severe\ninjuries due to the lack of oxygen, besides causing severe freezing;\nconsciousness would not be regained until the ground was reached.\nTherefore the following is to be requested: 1. A parachute with\nbarometrically controlled opening. 2. A portable oxygen apparatus for\nthe jump.\n\nFor the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had\ncommitted race pollution were used. The question of the formation of\nembolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the VP\u2019s died during a\ncontinued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at\na height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water\nan ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in\npart, free air in the brain ventricles.\n\nTo find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as\nmentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the\nfollowing was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute\ndescending test had taken place, however, before regaining\nconsciousness, some VP\u2019s were kept under water until they died. When the\nskull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened\nunder water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels\nof the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the\nintestines, etc.\n\nThat proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is\nnot fatal at all, but that is reversible as shown by the return to\nnormal conditions of all the other VP\u2019s.\n\nIt was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in\npractically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled. One VP\nwas made to breathe pure oxygen for 2\u00bd hours before the experiment\nstarted. After 6 minutes at a height of 20 kilometers, he died and at\ndissection also showed ample air embolism, as was the case in all other\nexperiments.\n\nAt sudden decreases in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to\nheights where breathing is possible, no deep reaching damages due to air\nembolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a\ncertain amount of time.\n\n [Signed] DR. RASCHER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-402\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 66\n\n LETTER, 29 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT, 28 JULY 1942, FROM ROMBERG AND\n RUFF TO HIMMLER CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES\n\nGerman Aviation Research Institute\nBerlin-Adlershof, Rudower Ch. 16-25\n [Stamp] Secret\nTo the Reich Leader SS\nBerlin SW 11\nPrinz-Albrechtstr. 8\nYour Ref.\n Your communication of DVL-Ref. Day\n\n R/Ru/Ko 2098/42, 22 September 1942\n Military Secret\n\nRe: Report \u201cExperiments on Rescue from High Altitudes\u201d\n\n [handwritten] to files\n B [initial]\n\nEnclosed we submit copies Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report \u201cExperiments on\nRescue from High Altitudes\u201d for your files.\n\n German Aviation Research Institute\n per procura\n [Signed] DR. ROMBERG\n L. RUFF\n\n[handwritten]\nReport-3-received 2 November\n[Signed] SIEVERS, SS Oberfuehrer\n\n_3 enclosures_\n\nPersonal Staff Reich Leader SS 29 September 1942\nDiary No. 1348/42 To RF\n\n [handwritten] 1943\n Top Secret [stamp]\n EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES.[24]\n\n_Abstract_: A report is to be made on experiments in which the\n possibility of rescue from high altitudes in the\n low-pressure chamber is studied. Experiments were made at\n parachute sinking speeds up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without\n oxygen, and up to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] with oxygen\n breathing, as well as falling experiments speeds up to 21\n km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with and without oxygen. The\n results with practical significance will be discussed\n below.\nOrganization: I. Introduction and statement of the problem.\n II. Procedure of the experiment.\n III. Results of the experiment.\n 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing.\n 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing.\n 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing.\n 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing.\n IV. Discussion of the results.\n V. Conclusions from the results.\n VI. Summary.\n Bibliography.\n The report includes 28 pages with 3 figures and 6 tables.\n\nGerman Aviation Research Institute\nFor the Institute\n [signed]: L. RUFF\n The Authors:\n [Draft copy signed by] DR. RASCHER\n Stabsarzt der Lw.\n [signed] DR. ROMBERG.\n\nBerlin, Adlershof, 28 July 1942.\nRf 401/20\n[page 2 of original]\n\n I. Introduction and Statement of the Problem\n\nIt is theoretically possible for man to reach as high altitude as he may\nwish in an aircraft with a pressure cabin. However, the question must be\nsettled as to what results or effects the destruction of the pressure\ncabin will have upon the human being, who in such cases is exposed in a\nfew seconds to the low air pressure and thereby to the lack of oxygen,\nwhich is characteristic of high altitude. Of particular practical\ninterest is the question from what altitudes and by what means the\nsafest rescue of the crew can be made. In the work at hand, a report is\npresented on experiments in which the various possibilities of rescue\nwere studied under special experimental conditions. Since the urgency of\nthe solution of the problem was evident, it was necessary, especially\nunder the given conditions of the experiment, to forego for the time\nbeing the thorough clearing up of purely scientific questions.\n\n II. Procedure of the Experiment\n\nThe experiments were carried on in a portable low-pressure chamber with\nequipment for explosive decompression. The performance of this apparatus\nlimited the highest altitude attainable to about 21,000 meters [68,900\nfeet].\n\nIn this experimental series, which was to clarify the possibilities of\nrescue from high altitudes, the experiments, simulating actual\nconditions, were carried out in such a way that rescue with parachute\nunfolded (designated as descending experiments) and with parachute\nfolded (designated as falling experiments) were studied sometimes with\nand sometimes without oxygen breathing. Since the altitude or posture of\nthe body is of essential significance for the demands made by the lack\nof O_{2} on the circulation, the experiments were carried out in sitting\nand prone positions; and, in descending experiments, in a suspended\n\n[page 3 of original]\n\nposition in a parachute harness corresponding to the actual position.\nFor purposes of demonstration certain of the experiments were recorded\non film. Electrocardiograms were made of several experiments in the\nexperimental series. Oxygen was breathed out of the customary\nlow-pressure apparatus with continuous flow at altitudes over 10 km.\n[32,800 ft.]. The following experimental sequence was chosen:\n\n 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing.\n 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing.\n 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing.\n 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing.\n\nThe sinking and falling times which were used in the experiments are\ntabulated in figures 1 and 2. [Figure 2 not reproduced.]\n\n III. Results of the Experiments\n\n_1. Sinking experiments without oxygen breathing_\n\nSince a thoroughly dependable parachute oxygen apparatus is not yet\ngenerally available, experimental tests were made to determine from what\naltitudes a rescue with open parachute without oxygen is possible.\nTherefore, sinking experiments were carried out in which the mask was\ntaken off after ascent with O_{2} (for speed of ascent of the chamber\nsee fig. 1), and, after a waiting period of 10 seconds the sinking was\nbegun.\n\nIn the experiment no altitude sickness occurred at 9 km. [29,500 ft.] as\nwas expected.\n\nIn the sinking experiments, from 10 km. [32,800 ft.] altitude, typical\naltitude sickness occurred after about 2 minutes, i. e., at an altitude\nof about 8.6 km. [28,200 ft.], which was indicated by a very pronounced\nscrawling in the writing test. However, no loss of consciousness\noccurred. (Kloos\u2019 writing test.)\n\n[page 7 of original]\n\nThe experiments from 12 to 15 km. altitude were made partly during\nsuspension in a parachute harness, partly in a sitting position, and\npartly in a prone position. These experiments show that the body\nattitude has a very essential influence on the tolerance for a high\ndegree of lack of oxygen. Since, besides this, every bodily exertion is\nof great importance, in one portion of the experiments six knee bends\nwere made by the subject during the waiting period before beginning the\ndescent. These six knee bends consisted of three knee bends while\nbreathing oxygen followed by deep inhaling and holding of the breath,\nand then three more knee bends without oxygen breathing. This procedure\nwas chosen in order not to neglect the bodily work involved in an actual\nparachute jump. The descending experiments from 12 km. [39,400 ft.]\naltitude yielded the following average times:\n\n Table 1\n\n Descending experiment \u2502 Unconsciousness \u2502Recovery of consciousness\n from 12 km. [39,400 ft.] \u2502 after\u2014 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\nSitting without knee bends \u25021\u203239\u2033 = 10.85 km. \u25026\u203238\u2033 = 7.45 km.\n \u2502 [35,600 ft.]. \u2502 [24,440 ft.].\nSitting after 6 knee bends \u250255\u2033 = 11.4 km. \u25026\u203255\u2033 = 7.25 km.\n \u2502 [37,400 ft.]. \u2502 [23,786 ft.].\nSuspended in parachute \u250237\u2033 = 11.65 km. \u25027\u203240\u2033 = 6.77 km.\nharness \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 [38,220 ft.]. \u2502 [22,212 ft.].\n \u2502 \u2502\n\nIt is to be noted in connection with the stated time and altitude values\nthat the beginning of unconsciousness, or of the recovery, was\ncalculated from the withdrawal of oxygen, while in most experiments the\nsinking or free fall was begun at the expiration of the 10-second\nwaiting period. Since in addition to this the stages of altitude were\nread off at the moment of unconsciousness, small variations from the\ntimes given in figs. 2 and 3 [not reproduced] are possible\n\n[page 8 of original]\n\nsince, especially in the falling experiments, variations occurred\nbecause of the somewhat crude valve control. These variations, however,\nare small and may be overlooked since in any case the fall and sinking\ntime under practical conditions are dependent on the flying attitude at\nthe moment of the leap from the catapult seat. In addition to this, the\ncalculated fall and sinking time are influenced to a high degree under\nactual conditions by weight and air resistance.\n\nIt should be kept in mind in regard to the experiments conducted in the\nsitting position that the subjects fell over at the beginning of\nunconsciousness and so passed the critical time of greatest load on the\ncirculatory system in a prone position, while those suspended in the\nparachute harness remained throughout the experiment in a vertical\nposition, the most unfavorable position for loading the circulatory\nsystem.\n\n[Illustration: Figure 1. Speed of ascent in the portable low-pressure\nchamber.]\n\nIn the writing test shown above [not reproduced] the occurrence of\naltitude sickness in a sinking experiment for 12 km. [39,400 ft.]\naltitude is shown in this manner: For example, after 1 minute and 20\nseconds at 11 km. [36,100 ft.] altitude, the writing is interrupted\nbecause of sudden altitude sickness with unconsciousness, and is resumed\nafter 4\u00bd minutes at an altitude of 8.8 km. [28,870 ft.], with erroneous\nwriting. At 8.3 km. [27,230 ft.] altitude the writing becomes free of\nerrors. This is worthy of special attention because in this case a\nperson has fully recovered mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. [27,230\nft.], after 3 minutes of the most severe lack of oxygen, while in\naltitude endurance experiments at this altitude severe altitude sickness\nsets in after about 3 minutes. Here we are dealing with a process which\nin any case is very favorable but which is not yet entirely clear and\nwhich was already observed in earlier experiments of parachute jumps\nfrom great altitudes. Still, it appears from this that a rather long\noxygen lack at altitudes up to 13 km. does not present any great strain\nin\n\n[page 12 of original]\n\nthe sense of using the last reserves, but, on the contrary, the human\norganism seems to react to this loading with a certain increase in\nresistance to altitude.\n\nIn descending experiments from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] altitude the waiting\ntime of 10 seconds was retained, but on the other hand exertion in the\nform of knee bends was omitted since technical difficulties interfered\nwith this procedure.\n\nThe experiments involving suspension could be done only in the large\nlow-pressure chamber, since suspension was impossible in the small\nlow-pressure chamber for reasons of space. Therefore, the ascent to 13\nkm. [42,700 ft.] altitude was carried out slowly in the main chamber\n(without explosive decompression) so that when 13 km. [42,700 ft.] was\nreached a certain oxygen lack existed. With this oxygen lack the knee\nbends would have presented a great burden which would have falsified too\ngreatly the results of the experiment. The same conditions were also\ngiven in further experiments at higher altitudes in the main chamber.\nFor this reason, the 13 km. [42,700 ft.] descending experiments were\ncarried out partly in the sitting position, partly in the sitting\nposition strapped in, and partly suspended. They yielded the following\naverage data:\n\n Table 2\n\n Descending experiment \u2502 Unconsciousness \u2502Recovery of consciousness\n from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] \u2502 after\u2014 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\nSeated (lying during \u250250\u2033 = 12.4 km. \u25028\u2032 12\u2033 = 7.2 km.\nunconsciousness) \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 [40,672 ft.]. \u2502 [23,620 ft.].\nSeated strapped in \u250235\u2033 = 12.6 km. \u250210\u2032 30\u2033 = 5.85 km.\n \u2502 [41,340 ft.]. \u2502 [19,190 ft.].\nSuspended \u250220\u2033 = 12.8 km. \u250219\u2032 = 1.6 km.\n \u2502 [41,980 ft.]. \u2502 [5,250 ft.].\n\n[page 13 of original]\n\nSince in unfavorable cases in these experiments, namely while suspended,\nrecovery of consciousness did not occur until 1.6 km. [5,250 ft.]\naltitude, it had to be concluded that in jumps from altitudes over 13\nkm. [42,700 ft.], recovery of consciousness would follow only after 0\nkm., which would mean that in an actual situation the landing would be\nmade in an unconscious condition. This raised the question of a safe\nmeans of rescue.\n\nDescending experiments were made in larger numbers from 15 km. altitude,\nsince it became evident that at this altitude the approximate limits for\nwhat was possible in emergencies had already been reached or essentially\nsurpassed. After an ascent made as rapidly as possible, using oxygen\napparatus with free flow, the mask was removed immediately upon\nattaining 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude and the descent was begun. Since\nthe results of these descending experiments were very typical and\nespecially impressive it is necessary to present one of these\nexperiments in detail. The record of an experiment is represented as\nfollows:\n\n15 km. [49,200 ft.] Lets the mask fall, severe altitude\n sickness, clonic convulsions.\n14.5 km. [47,560 ft.] 30 sec. Opisthotonus.\n14.3 km. [46,900 ft.] 45 sec. Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits\n up like a dog\n (\u201cPfoetchenstellung\u201d), legs spread\n stiffly apart.\n13.7 km. [44,950 ft.] 1 min. 20 sec. Suspended in opisthotonus.\n13.2 km. [43,310 ft.] 1 min. 50 sec. Agonal convulsive breathing.\n12.2 km. [40,030 ft.] 3 min. Dyspnea, hangs limp.\n7.2 km. [23,620 ft.] 10 min. Uncoordinated movements with the\n extremities.\n6 km. [19,690 ft.] 12 min. Clonic convulsions, groaning.\n5.5 km. [18,040 ft.] 13 min. Yells loudly.\n\n[page 14 of original]\n\n2.9 km. [9,520 ft.] 18 min. Still yelling, convulses arms and\n legs, head sinks forward.\n2-0 km. [6,560-0 ft.] 20-24.5 min. Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites\n his tongue.\n0 km. Does not respond to speech, gives\n the impression of someone who is\n completely out of his mind.\n5 min. (after reaching ground Reacts for the first time to vocal\nlevel). stimulation.\n7 min. Attempts upon command to arise, says\n in stereotyped manner: \u201cNo,\n please\u201d.\n9 min. Stands up on command; severe ataxia;\n answers to all questions: \u201cJust a\n minute\u201d. Tries spasmodically to\n recall his birth date.\n10 min. Typical stereotypes of attitude and\n movement (catatonia); mumbles\n number to himself.\n11 min. Holds his head turned convulsively\n to the right; tries repeatedly to\n answer the first question\n concerning his birth date.\n12 min. Questions of the subject: \u201cMay I\n slice something?\u201d (Note: In\n civilian work he was a\n delicatessen clerk.) \u201cMay I pant,\n will it be all right if I inhale?\u201d\n Breathes deeply, then says, \u201cAll\n right, thank you very much.\u201d\n15 min. On being ordered to walk, steps\n forward and says: \u201cAll right,\n thank you very much\u201d.\n17 min. Gives his name; says he was born in\n 1928 (born 1 November 1908).\n Experimenter asks: \u201cWhere?\u201d\n \u201cSomething 1928\u201d \u201cProfession?\u201d\n \u201c28\u20141928\u201d.\n18 min. \u201cMay I inhale?\u201d \u201cYes.\u201d \u201cI am content\n with that.\u201d\n25 min. Still the question continues:\n \u201cPant?\u201d\n28 min. Sees nothing; runs against open\n window sash upon which the sun is\n shining, so that large lump is\n formed on his forehead; says:\n \u201cExcuse me please.\u201d No expression\n of pain.\n\n[page 15 of original]\n\n30 min. Knows his name and place of birth.\n Upon being asked for the day\u2019s\n date: \u201c1 November 1928\u201d. Shivering\n of the legs; stupor continues;\n cannot be frightened by the report\n of a shot. Dark objects are still\n not discerned; subject bumps\n against them. Is aware of bright\n light; knows his profession;\n spacially disoriented.\n37 min. Reacts to pain stimuli.\n40 min. Begins to observe differences. Falls\n continually into his previous\n speech stereotypes.\n50 min. Spacially oriented.\n75 min. Still disoriented in time;\n retrogressive amnesia over 3 days.\n24 hours Normal condition again attained; has\n no recollection of the experiment\n itself.\n\nThe events of the descending experiments from 15 km., as shown here\nthrough this example, repeated themselves in a similar way in all the\nrest of the experiments. The average data from 20 experiments with 15\ndifferent subjects are as follows:\n\n Table 3\n\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 Clear\n 15 km. \u2502 Unconsciousness \u2502Subconscious awakening \u2502consciousness\n [47,200 ft.]\u2502 after\u2014 \u2502 movements \u2502 at 0 km.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Suspended \u250216\u2033 = 14.7 km. \u250220\u00bd\u2032 = 1.8 km. \u2502\n \u2502 [48,220 ft.]. \u2502 [5,910 ft.]. \u2502 18\u2032-90\u2032\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n Lying \u250220\u2033 = 14.6 km. \u250214\u2032 = 5 km. \u2502 15\u2032-80\u2032\n \u2502 [47,890 ft.]. \u2502 [16,400 ft.] \u2502\n\nUnconsciousness after discontinuation of oxygen occurs following a short\nmotor restlessness with severe altitude sickness, whereupon light\nspasmodic and then very severe tonic convulsions follow in a condition\nof complete unconsciousness. These tonic convulsions lasting virtually a\nminute are followed rather suddenly by a phase of complete\n\n[page 16 of original]\n\nflacidity with a drop in breathing rate and transition to convulsive\nbreathing with 3 to 4 breaths per minute until complete cessation of\nbreathing of 45 seconds duration (post-hypoxemic pseudo-death\u2014Lutz).\nThen follows a period of improvement in breathing, until the first\nsubconsciousness movements announce the gradual recovery of\nconsciousness, during which, nevertheless, the higher mental functions\nare temporarily entirely absent. Further recovery proceeds slowly during\nthe course of the following \u00bd to 1\u00bd hours as may be seen from the above\ncase record. During the time of complete unconsciousness, there was\ndefecation and urination in the case of most subjects, increased\nsalivation and, in some cases, vomiting.\n\nHere we obviously have the conditions which Lutz and Wendt in their\nanimal experimentation which is referred to in greater detail later\nfound in falling experimentation with O_{2} breathing and designated as\n\u201cpost-hypoxemic twilight state\u201d (\u201cPosthypoxaemischen Daemmerzustand\u201d)\nsince we are dealing with a slow recovery of consciousness, especially\nalso in view of the mental behavior of the experimental subjects. The\npost hypoxemic pseudo-death observed by Wendt and Lutz was not found in\nany experiments in the form which they had observed. The severe\ncondition described above we could designate as hypoxemic pseudo-death\nonly because it was limited to the period of the most severe O_{2} lack\n(on the average, between 13.3 and 12.3 km.).\n\nIn spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause\nof the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis,\nblindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains\nsomething of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of\npressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen\nlack. In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in\ntwo experiments each were interesting. In the case of Ro. during a half\nhour stay at 12 km. [39,400 ft.] with oxygen,\n\n[page 17 of original]\n\nonly the usual pains attendant with bends occurred. In a further\nexperiment with a stay of 40 minutes duration at an altitude of between\n13 [42,650 ft.] and 13.5 km. [44,290 ft.] there developed very gradually\na condition of weakness, combined with a peculiar headache, which then\nled to a considerable slackening of strength in the arms and hands. As a\nresult of this, Ro. could no longer hold the breathing mouthpiece (for\nspecial reasons in these experiments, Ro. had to breathe with a\nmouthpiece and nose clamp) so that it slid out of his mouth. All these\nphenomena were still clearly observed by Ro. Ra. returned the mouthpiece\nto Ro. However at this point Ro. failed rather suddenly with paleness,\nstrong cyanosis of the lips and complete unconsciousness. After Ro. had\nregained clear consciousness through descent and sufficient O_{2}\nbreathing, he determined the existence in himself of a complete\nparalysis of the legs, weakness of the arms and severe disturbances of\nvision. These serious disturbances developed although the time of oxygen\nlack and unconsciousness had lasted only about 5 seconds. Following\ndescent soon after this to 0 km., the paralysis of the legs continued\nfor about 5 minutes more and the very severe visual disturbances only\ncleared up after 2 hours. While this episode of Ro.\u2019s occurred in an\nexperiment at a special altitude, the disturbances occurred in Ra. at an\naltitude of between 12 [39,400 ft.] and 13 km. [42,700 ft.] while he was\nbreathing sufficient oxygen with a mask and continuous flow into the\ncircuit. After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the\nright side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg which\nincreased continually as though Ra.\u2019s whole right side were being\ncrushed between two presses. At the same time there were most severe\nheadaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became\ncontinually more severe so that at last the discontinuation of the\nexperiment became necessary. The pains disappeared when ground level was\nreached while the disturbances of the right leg continued about 5\nminutes more. Shortly before the\n\n[page 18 of original]\n\nsecond experiment, Ra. took two tablets of \u201cAntineuralgica\u201d (a coal tar\nderivative) and two tablets of pervitin. In the course of the\nexperiments there occurred only light pains in the right arm and leg,\nmoderate headaches, but a very severe uncontrollable urge to cough,\nactually less severe difficulties than in the foregoing experiment,\nalthough this one was made at 1,000 m. [3,280 ft.] higher.\n\nRo. experienced disturbances which in quality resembled the severe\ndisturbances in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] sinking experiment, although the\ndegree of oxygen lack in this experiment was negligible in comparison to\nthe 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiment, so that the idea of a combination of\npressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely\nsuggested.\n\n_2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing_\n\nSince obviously the utmost limits of these experiments had been reached\nwith the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen\nbreathing, descending experiments with oxygen breathing were conducted\nfrom greater heights.\n\nIn the experiments, the following experimental procedure was chosen:\nascent to 8 km. [26,300 ft.], remaining there 5 to 10 minutes with\noxygen breathing; then turning on the oxygen blower explosive\ndecompression to a predetermined altitude; 10 seconds waiting time\n(experiments from 17 [55,800 ft.] and 18 km. [59,100 ft.], altitude\nwithout waiting time) and descent at sinking speed. In order to imitate\nthe perpendicular body position as occurs in suspension in a parachute\nharness, the experimental subjects had to stand during the experiments\nsince suspension was not possible in the small decompression chamber.\n\nIn the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude there\nwas no altitude sickness or only a slight temporary kind. In the further\ndescending experiments, the following results were obtained (Table 4):\n\n[page 19 of original]\n Table 4.\u2014Descending experiments with oxygen breathing\n\n Unconsciousness \u2502 From\u2014 \u2502 Recovery of\n after\u2014 \u2502 \u2502 consciousness after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\n23 sec. = 15.75 km. \u250216 km. [52,500 ft.] \u25022 min. 35 sec. = 13.55\n \u2502 \u2502km.\n [51,660 ft.] \u2502 \u2502 [44,460 ft.]\n10 sec. = 16.8 km. \u250217 km. [55,800 ft.] \u25023 min. 50 sec. = 13 km.\n [55,120 ft.] \u2502 \u2502 [42,700 ft.]\n7 sec. = 17.9 km. \u250218 km. [59,100 ft.] \u250210 min. 35 sec. = 8.5 km.\n [58,740 ft.] \u2502 \u2502 [27,890 ft.]\n\nThus it was shown that unconsciousness developed relatively early in\nspite of oxygen breathing, while the following convulsive stage ran its\ncourse in a much less severe form than in the experiments without oxygen\nbreathing. Primarily spasmodic convulsions with only occasionally light\ntonic convulsions developed. Breathing paralysis never set in and upon\nrecovery of consciousness the experimental subjects were again\ncompletely in control of themselves. The markedly quick development of\nunconsciousness was caused by the fact that the subjects were standing\nduring the experiments (to be considered in comparison with the\ncorresponding times in the falling experiments with oxygen breathing).\nDescending experiments from still greater altitudes were not undertaken,\nsince in practice there is no need to escape from such altitudes with\nopen parachute and thus to expose oneself to the danger of severe\nfreezing.\n\n_3. Falling experiments without oxygen_\n\nSince the results of falling experiments from 12 km. altitude were known\nfrom earlier experimentation and indeed descending experiments up to 15\nkm. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen had been conducted within the scope of\nthis work, falling experiments were begun at an altitude of 14 km.\n[45,900 ft.], in order not to increase unnecessarily the number of\nexperiments.\n\n[page 20 of original]\n\nThe ascent preceded by explosive decompression from 8 to 14 and 15 km.\naltitude, in which the ascent to 8 km. was made with oxygen and the\nexplosive decompression with continuous flow, followed after 5 to 10\nminutes waiting time. After the removal of the oxygen mask directly in\nconnection with the explosive decompression, five knee bends were made\nduring the waiting period of 10 seconds, then descent at free fall\nspeed. During the explosive decompression the oxygen supply was\ninterrupted from the outside. The results of these experiments were\n(Table 5):\n\n Table 5.\u2014Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing\n\n Unconsciousness \u2502 From\u2014 \u2502 Recovery of consciousness\n after\u2014 \u2502 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\n30 sec. = 13.2 km. \u250214 km. \u250265 sec. = 9.7 km.\n [43,310 ft.] \u2502 [45,900 ft.] \u2502 [31,830 ft.]\n28 sec. = 14.3 km. \u250215 km. \u250296 sec. = 7.6 km.\n [46,900 ft.] \u2502 [49,200 ft.] \u2502 [24,940 ft.]\n\nThe further experiments up to 20 km. [65,600 ft.] altitude were made\nwith the same procedure as those up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.], although\nwithout knee bends during the waiting period of 10 seconds, since\nunconsciousness would have occurred too soon as a result of the knee\nbends and the experimenters had become convinced that rescue from these\naltitudes would have to be brought about by abandonment of the aircraft\nwithout bodily exertion (catapult seat).\n\n (Table 5\u2014Continued)\n\n Unconsciousness \u2502 From\u2014 \u2502 Recovery of consciousness\n after\u2014 \u2502 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\n32 sec. = 14.7 km. \u250216 km. \u2502118 sec. = 6.6 km.\n [48,220 ft.] \u2502 [52,500 ft.] \u2502 [21,650 ft.]\n27 sec. = 15.9 km. \u250217 km. \u2502126 sec. = 6.3 km.\n [52,150 ft.] \u2502 [55,800 ft.] \u2502 [20,660 ft.]\n\n[page 21 of original]\n\n Unconsciousness \u2502 From\u2014 \u2502 Recovery of consciousness\n after\u2014 \u2502 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\n23 sec. = 17 km. \u250218 km. \u2502156 sec. = 4.6 km.\n [55,800 ft.] \u2502 [59,100 ft.] \u2502 [15,090 ft.]\n20 sec. = 18.5 km. \u250219 km. \u2502173 sec. = 3.7 km.\n [60,700 ft.] \u2502 [62,300 ft.] \u2502 [12,140 ft.]\n17 sec. = 19.75 km. \u250220 km. \u2502178 sec. = 3.2 km.\n [61,520 ft.] \u2502 [65,600 ft.] \u2502 [10,500 ft.]\n15 sec. = 20.875 km. \u250221 km. \u25021 min., 10 sec. after\n [68,490 ft.] \u2502 [68,900 ft.] \u2502 reaching 0 m.\n\nFrom 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude only one experiment was made in this\nseries, just as in the falling experiments, with oxygen breathing since\nthe pumps achieved the evacuation of the main chamber necessary for a\npressure drop to 21 km. altitude only after hours of overloading and the\nfact that the mercury barometer used in these experiments had its limit\nof measurement at this altitude. The two experiments were considered\nonly as an orientation on the behavior of the human organism at this\naltitude at which the ebullition point of the blood had already been far\nsurpassed. A systematic working over of these altitudes must be carried\non with perfected measuring instruments and a two-stage pump aggregate\nin a new experimental series.\n\nThe result of this falling experiment from 21 km. altitude was made\nunreliable through the fact that the subject experienced a paralysis of\nbreathing from 11 to 7 km., through which his recovery was doubtless\ngreatly delayed. However, no permanent damage occurred.\n\n_4. Falling experiments with oxygen breathing_\n\nFalling experiments with oxygen breathing were undertaken only in small\nnumbers for crude orientation for the following reasons: The altitude\n\n[page 22 of original]\n\nwas limited by the available equipment to a maximum of 21 km. [68,900\nft.], but indeed from this altitude falling experiments without oxygen\nbreathing had already been profitably carried out. It is self-evident\nthat oxygen breathing during parachute jumps from such extreme altitudes\ngreatly increases in any case the chances of success of the jump and,\ntherefore, is to be unconditionally demanded. For that reason it\ndevolved upon the experimenters only to determine to what degree the\nresults of the experiments are influenced by oxygen breathing,\nespecially in regard to the recovery of consciousness, which, of course,\nfollowed without oxygen only at relatively low altitudes. As was to be\nexpected, these experiments showed clearly the favorable effect of\noxygen breathing. (Table 6):\n\n Table 6.\u2014Falling experiments with oxygen breathing\n\n Unconsciousness \u2502 From\u2014 \u2502 Recovery of consciousness\n after\u2014 \u2502 \u2502 after\u2014\n \u2502 \u2502\n21 sec. = 19.5 km. \u250220 km. \u250287 sec. = 10.55 km.\n [63,980 ft.] \u2502 [65,600 ft.] \u2502 [34,620 ft.]\n15 sec. = 20.875 km. \u250221 km. \u250260 sec. = 12.9 km.\n [68,490 ft.] \u2502 [68,900 ft.] \u2502 [42,320 ft.]\n\nThe astonishing value of 60 seconds = 12.9 km. [42,320 ft.] for the\nrecovery of consciousness in the 21 km. [68,900 ft.] experiment is\nexplained on the basis that this value was obtained from a single\nexperiment with one subject, who had shown himself in numerous other\nexperiments to be especially resistant to altitude. On the other hand\nthe 20 km. [65,600 ft.] values are the average of a series of\nexperiments.\n\n IV. Discussion of the Results\n\nThe descending experiments without oxygen show that the limit for a safe\nescape with an open parachute lies approximately at a jumping altitude\nof 13 km. [42,700 ft.], since in a jump from 13 km. [42,700 ft.]\nrecovery of consciousness occurred only at an altitude of 1.6 km. [5,250\nft.], and so one must already consider the possibilities of landing in\nan unconscious condition with all the attendant dangers. This still does\nnot take into account the heavy demands made on the body by the cold and\nthe consequent risk. The great effect of the body position during the\nexperiment makes it obvious how severe is the effect of every additional\ndemand. While, for example, in the 13 km. [42,700 ft.], experiment upon\na seated subject, recovery of consciousness took place after 8 minutes\n12 seconds at an altitude of 7.2 km. [23,620 ft.], the suspended\nsubjects recovered consciousness only after 19 minutes at 1.6 km. [5,250\nft.] altitude. Correspondingly also, unconsciousness occurred in the\nsuspended subjects much more rapidly than in those who were seated. The\nsame observation was made in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiments, and\nindeed those who went through the experiment lying down could already\nstate name and birth date immediately upon reaching ground level\nalthough they were paralyzed, while those who had been suspended did not\nrespond at all to speech within this time. Except for one mentally very\nsluggish subject, the return of normal condition occurred much earlier\nto those who were lying down, namely within 15 minutes. The descending\nexperiments extended to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] altitude with oxygen\nbreathing showed that, except for the danger of cold, escape with an\nopen parachute is possible from these altitudes even though,\npractically, no need exists for it.\n\nBefore we go into a discussion on the falling experiments it seems\nessential for us to cite the work of Lutz and Wendt on \u201cAnimal\nExperiments on Parachute Jumping from High-Pressure Cabins.\u201d\nUnfortunately this work was not available to us during these experiments\nso that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and\nderived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the\nauthors. Although both authors approach with necessary scepticism the\nproblem of \u201creaching decisions through animal experimentation upon\nquestions in\n\n[page 24 of original]\n\nwhich, in the final analysis, the behavior of the human being in\nidentical situations is of exclusive interest,\u201d they could, and had to\ndepend upon the previously proved experience that no fundamental\nqualitative differences in the manner of reaction to oxygen lack is to\nbe expected between animals and human beings although there are\nconsiderable quantitative differences which, in this case, mean temporal\ndifferences. However, the results of our experiments show that to some\nextent quantitative as well as qualitative differences are present to\nthe extent that the above animal experiments must lead to great\nfallacies which are significant to future developments. This appears\nespecially in a comparison of results obtained with animals with the\ncollective results of human experimentation upon escape from high\naltitudes through free fall without oxygen. On the basis of animal\nexperiments, Lutz and Wendt were forced to the conclusion that if oxygen\nis breathed before the pressure drop \u201cjumps from 14 km. [45,900 ft.]\naltitude can theoretically be survived\u2014at any rate, that is the maximum\naltitude * * *,\u201d whereas we were able to carry out human experiments up\nto 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude without any harm whatever. In all\nexperiments at 20 km. [65,600 ft.] the subjects recovered clear\nconsciousness with spontaneous control above 3 km. [9,800 ft.], and so\nwithin a sufficient altitude for actual parachute jumping. As instructed\nbefore the experiment, the subject rang a cowbell hung up in the chamber\nby pulling a handle (the equivalent of pulling the rip cord) without a\nnew order to do so, so that under actual conditions they would certainly\nhave also pulled the rip cord at the right time.\n\nExperiments with a pressure drop from 4 km. [13,100 ft.] without\nprevious breathing in of oxygen were not carried out by us because we\nproceeded from the viewpoint that when contact with the enemy is\npossible, pressure cabin machines fly with a pressure corresponding to 8\nkm. [26,200 ft.] altitude and, therefore, the crews would already be\nbreathing oxygen in case of a possible pressure drop as a result of\ndamage to the cabin.\n\n[page 25 of original]\n\nSince the falling experiments without oxygen had already given such good\nresults, falling experiments were begun only at 20 km. [65,600 ft.]\naltitude, and, because of the limitations described above, could be\ncarried out only to 21 km. [68,900 ft.]. In these the results obtained\nby Lutz and Wendt were fully corroborated in this respect, that jumps\nfrom above 21 km. [68,900 ft.] can probably be made without danger, and\nthat ebullition of the blood does not yet take place up to 21 km.\n[68,900 ft.] altitude. On the other hand in a falling experiment with\nhuman beings, neither a post-hypoxemic pseudo-death nor a post-hypoxemic\ntwilight sleep were ever observed (Lutz).\n\nIn conclusion, we must make it particularly clear that, in view of the\nextreme experimental conditions in this whole experimental series, no\nfatality and no lasting injury due to oxygen lack occurred.\n\n V. Conclusions from the Results\n\nFor practical rescues by parachute jump from the highest and higher\naltitudes the experiments yielded the following:\n\nThe parachute jump without oxygen with immediate opening of the\nparachute is possible up to a jumping altitude of 13 km. [42,700 ft.];\nthe jump with oxygen equipment can be made at jumping altitudes up to 18\nkm. [59,100 ft.]. Advice must be given against jumping and immediate\nopening of the parachute since there is considerable danger of freezing\nand there is no need to pull the rip cord at high altitudes. However the\nexperimental data give some indication of the chances of the parachute\njumper whose parachute has become unfolded from whatever cause.\n\nThe jump with a free fall and opening of the parachute at low altitudes\ncan be made without oxygen equipment up to altitudes of 20 km. [65,600\nft.], with oxygen up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.], and probably considerably\nhigher.\n\nIn all the experiments at great height, even in experiments with oxygen\nbreathing, unconsciousness occurred extraordinarily rapidly and was\nnaturally preceded by loss of control before that. In one unfavorable\ncase of a subject in the standing position during a descending\nexperiment with oxygen, jumping from an altitude of 18 km. [59,100 ft.],\nunconsciousness occurred after 7 seconds. One may not count on a longer\ntime than 10 seconds before loss of control occurs at high altitudes\neven with the body at rest. So within that time the airplane must be\nabandoned or at least one must activate the ejection seat. The technical\nsolution of this problem must be found through a different approach. It\nis certain only that it will be impossible to climb out under one\u2019s own\npower, that one must avoid absolutely all bodily exertion, and that the\ntime must be kept as short as possible. Rescue is still possible from\nvery great heights; the critical part is the abandoning of the aircraft.\n\nOxygen equipment is absolutely necessary at these altitudes, since it\nassures the most favorable conditions for the jump. In case of failure\nof the equipment, loss of the mouthpiece or other mishaps, we still need\nnot count upon serious disturbances or injuries up to 20 km. [65,600\nft.]. Even jumps from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] will go well if there is\nautomatic opening of the parachute through barometrical control at 7 to\n4 km. [23,000 to 13,100 ft.] altitude.\n\nThe automatic opening is also essential for several other reasons:\n\n1. In particular cases the parachute jumper is not able to regain\nconsciousness at a sufficient altitude above the ground because of\ncollapse or injury.\n\n2. As a result of cold the jumper may be handicapped by immobility of\nhis hands, and thus be hindered in pulling the rip cord.\n\n3. As a result of the unconsciousness resulting from anoxia, the\n\n[page 27 of original]\n\nparachute jumper loses all sense of the time which has elapsed since his\njump, as was shown in all experiments, so that it is impossible for him,\nwith failing eyesight, to estimate his altitude.\n\nOn the other hand it is desirable, on the basis of the reason adduced\nunder number 3 above, that the opening of the parachute at altitudes\nabove 7 km. [23,000 ft.] be prevented, since very often the parachute\njumper would pull the rip cord immediately after recovering from his\naltitude sickness, which may be too soon and at too high an altitude.\n\nThe best conditions for explosive decompression itself and for the\nseconds elapsing until the appearance of altitude sickness are provided\nif flying is done at a cabin pressure corresponding to 8 km. [26,300\nft.] and with oxygen breathing.\n\nSince it may become necessary to abandon the aircraft for reasons other\nthan damage to the pressure cabin, the pressure equalization at a\npredetermined rate must be made possible by means of a valve.\n\nIn case abandonment does not appear necessary in spite of the loss of\ncabin pressure the danger of oxygen lack is still less with the\nautomatic diving control mechanism than in a parachute jump, since the\ndive may be made with considerably greater rate of descent.\n\n VI. Summary\n\nExperiments were instituted upon the possibility of rescue from\naltitudes up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.].\n\nWithout parachute oxygen equipment, rescue in descending experiments is\nstill possible from 13 km. [42,700 ft.], with equipment, from 18 km.\n[59,100 ft.]. The danger arising from cold must be considered.\n\nIn falling experiments, rescue from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with\nand without oxygen was proved possible. Automatic parachute opening is\nnecessary. Ebullition of the blood does not yet occur at 21 km. [68,900\nft.] altitude.\n\n[page 28 of original]\n\nOxygen must be breathed before explosive decompression. Abandonment must\nbe by means of the ejection seat. The dive to safe altitude offers good\npossibilities of rescue if abandonment of the plane is not necessary\nafter loss of the cabin pressure.\n\n Bibliography\n\nLutz and Wendt\u2014\u201cAnimal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from\nHigh-Pressure Cabins.\u201d Communications in the Field of Aviation Medicine,\nResearch Report 5/42.\n\nRomberg\u2014\u201cThe Parachute Jump from Great Heights.\u201d German Aviation\nResearch, Research Report No. 1416.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-A-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 62\n\n LETTER FROM MILCH TO WOLFF, 20 MAY 1942, REGARDING CONTINUATION OF\n EXPERIMENTS\n\nField Marshal Milch\n Secret\n Berlin W 8, 20 May 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7\nDear Wolffy!\n\nIn reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector reports to\nme that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at\nDachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems\nessentially unreasonable. However the carrying out of experiments of\nsome other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important.\nThese have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices;\nMajor (M. C.) Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M.\nC.) Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition to\nhis duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps. A change of these\nmeasures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is\nnot considered pressing at this time.\n\nThe low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature\nexperiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no\nlonger remain in Dachau.\n\nI convey the special thanks from the Supreme Commander of the Air Corps\nto the SS for their extensive cooperation.\n\nI remain with best wishes for you, in good comradeship and with\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Always yours\n [Signed] E. MILCH\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff\nBerlin SW 11.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-B-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 70\n\n LETTER FROM MILCH TO HIMMLER, 31 AUGUST 1942, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF\n REPORTS BY RASCHER AND ROMBERG ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nField Marshal Milch\n Berlin, W 8, 31 Aug. 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7\nDear Herr Himmler!\n\nI thank you very much for your letter of 25 August. I have read with\ngreat interest the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. I am informed\nabout the current experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a\nlecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the\nnear future.\n\nHoping that it will be possible for me to see you on the occasion of my\nnext visit to Headquarters, I remain with best regards and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] E. MILCH\n\nReich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Himmler\nBerlin SW 11.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-289\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 72\n\n LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, THANKING THE LATTER FOR\n HIS ASSISTANCE IN HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU\n\n Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942 Leipziger Str. 7\n Telephone 52 00 24\n\nTo the Chief of the German Police, Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, Berlin SW.\n11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8\n\nSubject: Letter 1309/42 of 25 August 1942 to State Secretary Milch\nconcerning experiments for rescue from high altitudes.\n\nVery honored Reich Leader SS,\n\nIn the name of German research on aviation medical problems, I beg to\nthank you very obediently for the great help and all the interest shown\nin the Dachau experiments; these experiments form a complement which is,\nfor us, of great value and importance.\n\nThe fact that an atmosphere with so little oxygen can be endured at all\nfor some time is most encouraging for further research.\n\nIt is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be\ndrawn for the time being, as a very important factor, namely cold, has\nso far not yet been taken into consideration; it places an extraordinary\nexcess burden on the entire body and its vital movements, so that the\nresults in actual practice will very likely prove to be far more\nunfavorable than in the present experiments.\n\nIn the meantime the supplementary tasks required now have been begun. In\npart they will have to be finished only after completion of the new\nResearch Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Reich Air Ministry in\nTempelhof, whose low-pressure chamber will include all cold generating\napparatus and also an installation for producing conditions at a height\nof 30 kilometers.\n\nFreezing experiments in another direction are, in, part, still being\nmade at Dachau.\n\nWhen the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be\nallowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?\n\n Heil Hitler\n [Signed] PROF. DR. HIPPKE\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-224\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 76\n\n NOTE BY ROMBERG ON SHOWING OF FILM IN OFFICE OF STATE SECRETARY MILCH,\n AND PROPOSED REPORT TO MILCH, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942\n\nOn 11 September 1942, at 9:45 o\u2019clock, Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr.\nRomberg met, according to telephonic and oral agreements with Colonel\nPendele, in the antechamber of the State Secretary. We were informed\nthat the State Secretary had ordered this conference at the present\nstage, in the course of which a report on experiments concerning \u201crescue\nfrom great heights\u201d was to be made, and the motion picture concerning\nthese experiments was to be shown. The gentlemen waiting in the\nantechamber of the State Secretary and in the corridor (most of them\nfrom the experimental staff) were informed that previous to the\nconference a motion picture was to be shown, so that all went to the\nprojection room on the fifth floor. Here quite a large number of people\nwere already present, so that 30-40 persons were there in all. Among\nthem were officers, medical and engineer officers\u2014we know some of them\npersonally\u2014some whose presence surprised us in view of the top secret\nnature of the motion picture and of the experiments. No checking of the\npersons present was done, nor was there an attendance list. As, after a\nshort time of waiting, the State Secretary had not come, the motion\npicture was shown, without giving us an opportunity for preliminary or\nexplanatory remarks. During the intermission between the two parts of\nthe motion picture, Dr. Rascher referred once more to the strict\nobligation of secrecy ordered by the Reich Leader SS. After completion\nof the showing of the motion picture\u2014the State Secretary had not come,\nas he had been summoned to see the Reich Marshal [Goering]\u2014the persons\npresent still talked a little while about the motion picture, on which\noccasion less interest was shown in the subject itself than in the place\nof the experiments and the individuals who had been the subjects. After\nthis period of time, during which we were neither called upon to make\nany statements whatsoever nor were we, considering the great forum and\nthe absence of the State Secretary, inclined to give any reports the\ngreater part of those present went back to the development conference,\nwhile Oberstarzt Wuerfler, Oberstarzt Professor Kalk, Stabsarzt Bruehl\nand Regierungsrat Benzinger asked us to make a report to a small medical\ncircle. As, however, the State Secretary had prohibited that any report\nbe made before the distribution had been decided on, we refused to\ndisclose the results of the experiments. Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he\nwas willing to report to the State Secretary our wishes concerning the\ndistribution of the report and the continuation of the experiments. The\nfilm was handed to Colonel Vorwald.\n\nAccording to the conference with Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, I tried\nto get the film back on the same day, but Colonel Vorwald was still at\nthe development conference. When I telephoned the next day and requested\nthat the film be handed back, Colonel Vorwald declared that he would\nlike to keep the film until after Sunday, 13 September, since on this\nday the Reich Marshal was coming and might perhaps desire to see the\nfilm. Accordingly, I let Colonel Vorwald keep the film for that day. On\n14 September, I went to fetch the film from Colonel Vorwald, and was\ninformed that it had not been shown. On the same day I spoke with\nStabsarzt Bruehl, who informed me that Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted,\nstill on 11 September, our wishes concerning distribution and\nconfirmation of the experiments to the State Secretary. The State\nSecretary had approved the distribution schedule, and said that a\ncontinuation of the experiments was not urgent. A few days later the\ndistribution schedule accepted by the State Secretary was sent to the\nGerman Aviation Research Institute by Colonel Pendele, and the report\nwas subsequently transmitted by the Institute to the offices concerned.\nSince that time I have not received any news either concerning the film\nor concerning the report.\n\n [Signed] DR. ROMBERG\n\n\n\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1612-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 79\n\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 DECEMBER 1942, AND HIMMLER\u2019S\n ORDER ASSIGNING RASCHER TO HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\n\n Field Command Post\n [Rubber stamp]: Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS\n Documentation Section\n File No.: Confidential\n Field Command Post, 13 December 1942\nThe Reich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff\nJournal No. 19/10/43 g, Bra/Secret\n1. Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. med. Rascher [illegible] * * * SS\n2. Reich Leader SS Berlin\n3. Medical Office in SS Fuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office)\n Berlin\n4. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin\n5. Ahnenerbe Berlin-Dahlem\n\nEnclosed I am sending you a letter of the Reich Leader SS (copy of same)\nwith an order for SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher.\n\nYou are requested to duly note and accord needed assistance to\nHauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher in the carrying through of his\nexperiments.\n\n By order\n [Initialed] B.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n Prinz Albrechtstrasse\n [Rubber stamp] Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS\n Documentation Section\n Journal No.: Confidential\n\nSS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry\nthrough the following experiments:\n\n1. Low-pressure chamber experiments\u2014to be carried out under conditions\ncorresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating\nconditions\u2014for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes.\nDetermination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas\nequilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a\nscientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing\nof pressure-proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be\ncarried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective\nsuits.\n\n2. Tests for reimparting warmth after total chilling of the human body,\nrecording all changes of chemical and gas characteristics, are to be\nfurther continued until complete clarification of doubtful questions. I\nattach particular value to conditions for experiments coming as close to\nactual conditions as possible, particularly as regards reimpartation of\nwarmth. Sauna equipment available in Dachau should be used in connection\nwith experiments on reimpartation of warmth.\n\n3. Experiments on removal of effects due to freezing of parts of human\nsystem, especially the extremities, to be carried through in suitable\nform (e. g. applications with Gastein water).\n\n4. Experiments concerned with adaptation to freezing cold in snow huts\n(igloos) to be carried out under varying diets in order to establish\nwhether adaptation to cold [German text says \u201cGewaehrung\u201d, i. e.\nconsent, which evidently is a typographical error] and resistance\nincrease against freezing is possible. These experiments are to be\ncarried out on the site of the SS Mountain Retreat Sudelfeld.\n\n5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments\nshould be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reicharzt SS, of\nthe SS Main Office for Economic Administration and with the Ahnenerbe.\nThe necessary chemical products, medical supplies, and glassware will be\nmade available by the SS Medical Office, Berlin.\n\n6. Publication of results obtained in such tests subject to my approval\nonly.\n\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS WALTER NEFF[25]\n\n_EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: * * * When did the high-altitude experiments begin in\nDachau?\n\nWITNESS NEFF: The first high-altitude experiments were on 22 February\n1942. The so-called low-pressure chambers had been brought in earlier\nand dismounted. The exact time when the chambers came is not known to\nme.\n\nQ. Why do you remember the date when the first experiments were made in\nthe low-pressure chambers so well?\n\nA. The 22d of February is my birthday and the tubercular patients gave a\nparty for me. On that date the experiments started, and that is why I\nremember the date.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Will you tell the Tribunal who worked on these experiments?\n\nA. The experiments were conducted by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. Ten\nprisoners were selected and were taken to the station as permanent\nexperimental subjects; and they were told that nothing would happen to\nthem. In the beginning, the first 3 weeks, the experiments went off\nwithout incident. One day, however, Rascher told me the next day he was\ngoing to make a serious experiment and that he would need 16 Russians\nwho had been condemned to death, and he received these Russians. Then I\ntold Rascher that I would not help, and I actually got Rascher to send\nme away to the tubercular ward. On that day I know for certain that\nRascher\u2019s SS man Endres or other SS men conducted these experiments. Dr.\nRomberg was not there that day. The SS man Endres took the Russian\nprisoners of war to Rascher and in the evening the parties were taken\nout. On the next day when I returned to the station, Endres was already\nthere and he said that two more, two Jews, would be killed. I am quoting\nwhat he said. I left the station again, but I watched to see who would\nbe taken for the experiments. I saw the first one getting into the car.\nI could only see his profile. It seemed familiar to me. I knew that man\nworked in the hospital as a tailor. I tried to find out if it was really\nthat man. I went to the place where he worked, and I was told that\nEndres had just taken the man away. The first person that I informed was\nDr. Romberg whom I met in the corridor. I told Romberg that this was not\na person who had been condemned to death, that this was a clear case of\nmurder on the responsibility of Endres. Romberg went with me to see\nRascher to clear the matter up, but it was discovered that Endres had\nput this man in the experimental car because he had refused to make a\ncivilian suit for him. Rascher sent the man back; Endres went with him\nand remarked: \u201cWell, then you will get an injection today.\u201d I must say\nthat Rascher interfered once more and put the man in safety into the\nbunker. In the meantime, Endres had brought a second man up, a Czech,\nwhom I knew very well. Again it was Romberg together with me who talked\nto Rascher to stop this experiment or to inquire why a man like Endres\nwas simply taking people who had never been condemned to death. Rascher\nwent to the camp commandant, Piorkowski, who personally came to the\nstation and Endres was transferred to Lublin immediately.\n\nAnd now I come to the subject: it was actually the day on which my\ncomrade and I reached the decision that under all circumstances, no\nmatter what happened, I would not remain at this\u2014\u2014\n\nQ. Now, Witness, let me interrupt you just a minute. We will come back\nand you can tell the full story then.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I will ask the Secretary General to turn this\nbook over to counsel for the prosecution, and defense counsel may\nexamine the book.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Now, Witness, before the recess, you had been telling the\nTribunal about the high-altitude experiments which you stated began on\n22 February 1942, and you had related how early in March Rascher had\nexperimented upon some 15 Russians who were killed and you stated that\nneither you nor the defendant Romberg were present on that occasion and\nyou then had gone on to relate that an SS man in Dachau named Endres had\nbrought in the tailor at the camp and wanted him to be experimented upon\nand how you recognized the tailor and interceded with Romberg and had\nthis man returned. Now, before you continue with your story, I would\nlike to put some specific questions to you. It is true, is it not, that\nconcentration camp inmates were experimented on during these\nhigh-altitude experiments?\n\nWITNESS NEFF: Yes.\n\nQ. About how many concentration camp inmates were subjected to these\nhigh-altitude experiments?\n\nA. There were 180 to 200 inmates who were subjected to the high-altitude\nexperiments.\n\nQ. When, to the best of your recollection, did the high-altitude\nexperiments end?\n\nA. The incident of the dead\u2014I am afraid I didn\u2019t quite get your\nquestion. Will you repeat it?\n\nQ. I am asking you, Witness, when the high-altitude experiments ended,\nthat is, when they were completed.\n\nA. During the course of June\u2014maybe the beginning of July, the\nlow-pressure chambers were taken away. I don\u2019t recollect the exact date,\nhowever.\n\nQ. And you state that between 22 February 1942 and the end of June, or\nthe beginning of July 1942, approximately 180 to 200 concentration camp\ninmates were experimented on?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What nationalities were the experimental subjects?\n\nA. I cannot say that with certainty but I think that approximately all\nnations were represented there; that is, all nations that were in the\ncamp, mostly Russians, Poles, Germans, and Jews belonging to any nation.\nI do not remember any other nationalities being represented there.\n\nQ. Were any of these experimental subjects prisoners of war?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What nationalities were they? Do you recall?\n\nA. They were Russians.\n\nQ. Now, will you tell the Tribunal how these experimental subjects were\nselected?\n\nA. The experimental subjects who had to be subjected to severe\nexperiments, experiments that would end in death, were requested by\nRascher from the camp administration and then furnished by the SS;\nhowever, this procedure differed with the so-called series of\nexperiments and a number of other experiments. For those experiments,\nthe people were brought into the experimental station straight from the\ncamp, that is, from the blocks.\n\nQ. Now, did they, to your knowledge, make any effort in the camp to\nsecure volunteers for these experiments?\n\nA. There were certain volunteers for these experiments. That was because\nRascher promised certain persons that they would be released from the\ncamp if they underwent these experiments. He sometimes promised them\nthat they would be detailed to more favorable work.\n\nQ. Now, about how many of such volunteers would you say there were for\nthe high-altitude experiments?\n\nA. I do not know the exact number. It was not very high; approximately\n10 inmates volunteered for that purpose.\n\nQ. Did these volunteers come one at a time, or did they come in a body,\nor just how did they present themselves to the experimental stations?\n\nA. Rascher moved around the camp quite a lot and on that occasion the\ninmates spoke to him.\n\nQ. In other words, the camp officials and Rascher and Romberg made no\neffort to find volunteers, did they?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know, but I should not think so. I should not think that they\nmade great efforts to get volunteers.\n\nQ. Now, other than these approximately 10 persons who you state\npresented themselves as volunteers, were all the rest of the\nexperimental subjects simply picked out and brought in and experimented\non?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were any of these prisoners experimented upon released from the\nconcentration camp because they underwent the experiments?\n\nA. There is only one man who was released after the high-altitude\nexperiments.\n\nQ. And who was that?\n\nA. An inmate with the name of Sobota.\n\nQ. And did Sobota assist Rascher in his experimental work other than\nsimply undergoing the experiment? Was he something in the nature of an\nassistant to Rascher?\n\nA. No. Sobota was one of those persons who had to undergo most of the\nexperiments and he was also used on one experiment which was conducted\nin the presence of the Reich Leader SS. On that occasion he was asked by\nthe Reich Leader how long he had been in the camp and he promised him\nthat he would be released. He was later sent to the Group Dirlewanger.\n\nQ. Was it considered a privilege to be released to the Group\nDirlewanger?\n\nA. No. The inmates who later were forced to transfer to the Group\nDirlewanger thought that this was the worst thing that could happen to\nthem.\n\nQ. Will you tell the Tribunal just what the Group Dirlewanger was?\n\nA. The Group Dirlewanger was an SS division who received their education\nin Oranienburg and who were used for special purposes. At one time 200\nGerman political inmates in this group were transferred to Russia. All\npersons who were forced to join this group were very disgusted at being\nforced to join the SS and fight for them. They considered being selected\nto join the SS as the very worst disgrace.\n\nQ. Was the Dirlewanger a special commando group?\n\nA. Yes, it was a special commando group and was assigned to the most\ndangerous spots. However, I only know that from comrades to whom I have\nspoken about this matter after the liberation.\n\nQ. Other than the prisoner Sobota, were there any other concentration\ncamp inmates released as a result of undergoing the high-altitude\nexperiments?\n\nA. I know of no case except Sobota.\n\nQ. Do you know of any cases where a prisoner condemned to death had his\nsentence commuted to life imprisonment because he underwent the\nhigh-altitude experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Witness, were any political prisoners used in these high-altitude\nexperiments?\n\nA. Yes, there were political prisoners who were used in these\nexperiments. All foreigners were considered political prisoners.\n\nQ. Witness, tell the Tribunal how one could tell the difference between\na political and a criminal prisoner in a concentration camp?\n\nA. All inmates had certain squares with letters; the political inmates\nhad red squares; the German political inmates had a plain red square;\nthe Poles had a red square with a \u201cP\u201d marked on it; the Russians with an\n\u201cR\u201d; all nationalities could be identified by the first letter of their\ncountry. The red square with a yellow star was the Jew. The green\nsquare, on the other hand was the sign of the so-called professional\ncriminal. Here it must be said that there were quite a number of people\nwith green squares who did not fall under the classification of\nprofessional criminals, but who were sent to the camp with that square\nsince the Gestapo could find no excuse to send them into the camp as\npolitical prisoners.\n\nQ. Now, was this square really a square or a triangle?\n\nA. It was really a triangle with the head of the triangle pointed down\nto the earth. If it pointed upward, it indicated a member of the\nWehrmacht who was sent to the camp for punishment.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, were any Jews experimented on in these high-altitude\nexperiments?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, tell the Tribunal approximately how many prisoners were killed\nduring the course of the high-altitude experiments?\n\nA. During the high-altitude experiments 70 to 80 persons were killed.\n\nQ. Did they experiment on prisoners other than those condemned to death?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were any of those prisoners who had not been condemned to death\nkilled during the course of the high-altitude experiments?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you have any idea how many may have been killed?\n\nA. There could have been approximately 40 persons.\n\nQ. That is, 40 persons were killed, who had not been condemned to death,\nout of a total of 70, did you say?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, were some of those killed political prisoners?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Is there any way of telling whether or not a prisoner had been\ncondemned to death\u2014that is, when the experimental subject arrived in\nthe pressure chamber, was there any way to know whether he had been\ncondemned to death?\n\nA. Once the experimental subjects came from the Bunker, that is, if the\nSS brought them out, we could always tell they were prisoners who had\nbeen condemned to death. When the inmates were sent by the camp leader,\nand were brought there by him, then we could also tell they were persons\nwho came from the camp, and that they were not persons who had been\ncondemned to death.\n\nQ. Could Romberg know this just as you did?\n\nA. He could only know it if he tried to find out about it, because he\ncould hardly differentiate whether the person concerned came from the\nBunker or came from the camps.\n\nQ. But you could tell that yourself?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did Romberg ever ask you whether or not these experimental subjects\nhad been condemned to death?\n\nA. I do not remember Romberg ever asking me about that.\n\nQ. Were records kept in the concentration camp which showed whether or\nnot a man had been condemned to death?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know whether Romberg ever checked these records?\n\nA. I do not know that.\n\nQ. You do not know if he ever checked them, is that right?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Can you remember, approximately, how many deaths Romberg witnessed\nduring these high-altitude experiments, if any?\n\nA. I can remember five cases where Romberg was present during cases of\ndeath; whether he was present on other occasions, I do not know. It is\npossible, but I am not sure of it.\n\nQ. You are sure of only five cases?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did Romberg ever make any objections concerning these deaths?\n\nA. I do not know of Romberg having made any protests against it.\n\nQ. He did not make any protest in your presence?\n\nA. Only at the time when we were concerned with the incident which I\nspoke of earlier. I do not know anything about anything else.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[26]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. KAUFFMANN: Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No.\n2, concerning the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher. You said\nthis morning that you knew Rascher?\n\nDEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes.\n\nQ. Did you see him frequently?\n\nA. Very few times in the course of 4 to 5 years.\n\nQ. Did he come to your office and speak with you?\n\nA. Twice when I was about to leave Munich by train, he and his wife\nbrought a letter for Himmler to the station and gave it to me.\n\nQ. And what did he want when he came to Himmler\u2019s front office and saw\nyou?\n\nA. Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said, this could not\nhave happened more than 4 or 5 times.\n\nQ. Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher?\n\nA. No. I was never present at those conferences.\n\nQ. Did Rascher ever tell you personally, either before or after a\nconference with Himmler, why he had come?\n\nA. No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits because I had no\ntime for that.\n\nQ. But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying\nout experiments on human beings in Dachau?\n\nA. Yes, that I knew.\n\nQ. Did you ever visit Dachau yourself?\n\nA. No. I was never in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp.\n\nQ. Did you yourself ever take part in experiments on human beings?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document\nbooks?\n\nA. I cannot recall ever having seen them.\n\nQ. Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler\nin which he makes suggestions to Himmler for the first time that human\nbeing experiments should be carried out in Dachau. In this letter he\nsays that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on fatal\nconsequences for some of the subjects. Do you remember receiving this\nletter? If not, can you say how you probably would have handled this\nletter when it came?\n\nA. I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have\nput this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally, after\none glance through it had assured me that it was a medical matter in\nwhich Himmler was generally interested.\n\nDR. KAUFFMAN: We are speaking now, your Honor, of 1602-PS, Prosecution\nExhibit 44.\n\nQ. Now, please look at page 57 of the German document book. This is\n1582-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which\nyou tell him that, of course, prisoners will gladly be made available\nfor high-altitude experimentation. Was this letter written on your own\ninitiative or is it a case similar to all the others that you have\nbrought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler?\n\nA. This letter does not originate with me. It can be traced back to\nclear orders from Himmler.\n\nQ. Now, please take a look at 1581-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 48, a\nletter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write\nthat low-pressure experiments are being carried out by the Luftwaffe in\nDachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next Document, 1971-A-PS,\nProsecution Exhibit 49, a letter from Rascher to Himmler. In the first\nsentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed interim report,\nand there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, did\nyou read this interim report?\n\nA. I should assume that I did not because firstly, such medical reports\nwere quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of\nall the work which I had to do, I did not have enough time to concern\nmyself with reports which, first of all, I didn\u2019t understand and,\nsecondly, did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with\nthe mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself.\n\nQ. Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 52, apparently a\nteletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles\nand Russians are also to be pardoned if they have survived several\nsevere experiments. In 1971-E-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 53, your answer is\nto be found, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in\nMunich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be\npardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given\nparticular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature\nwas emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any\nexplanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message?\n\nA. I cannot remember this communication. Of course, I cannot here state\nunder oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype\nmessage was sent on Himmler\u2019s orders with my signature to it. It is also\nquite possible that I saw this message and knew its contents and sent it\noff, after receiving instructions from Himmler.\n\nQ. But I should think that you would still remember a document with such\ncontents today; and yet you say that you do not remember it?\n\nA. No, I do not. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got\nfrom Himmler, I could not concern myself enough with the details of each\nmatter in order to be able to remember them for any length of time.\n\nQ. Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler\nand then waited for his orders?\n\nA. I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his\nmail and then received his instructions along with all the rest of his\norders.\n\nQ. Now, I want to discuss NO-402, Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a\nletter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter\naccompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from\nhigh altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it?\n\nA. I certainly did not work on it, and I did not even give it a cursory\nglance, first of all because it is a medical report, and secondly,\nbecause it is much too long.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROMBERG[27]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. VORWERK: Now, we\u2019ll go back to the point of Rascher\u2019s position in\nthe experiment.\n\nDEFENDANT ROMBERG: I said that without Rascher there would never have\nbeen any intention of carrying out the experiments and it would never\nhave been possible. This can be seen from Himmler\u2019s original assignment.\nPractical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped\nimmediately when there were difficulties with Rascher\u2019s assignment. This\nis proved by the letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated\n24 February 1942. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) In this letter Frau Rascher\nwrites that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments\nwere stopped; that Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time\nwhen I went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually\ncarried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments\nin Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did\nperform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was\nthere. On the days when he was in Schongau no experiments were\nperformed. Generally, I did not even go to the experimental station.\nSometimes I went to write\u2014but certainly never to carry out experiments.\nThis rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed\njustified to me because Rascher had permission from Himmler to perform\nthese experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental\nsubjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau\nwhich seriously restricted my independence, for example, my freedom of\nmovement or talking to prisoners and similar things. Rascher himself, on\nthe other hand, had a very free position on the basis of the powers\nwhich he had received from Himmler and because of a special pass. The\nDachau camp was under Himmler\u2019s authority. This is shown by the letter\nfrom Himmler to Milch of November 1942. (_1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 77_ (_Pros.\nEx. 111, Milch Case_).) In this letter Himmler spoke of Holzloehner\u2019s\nconduct and adds that the Dachau camp was under his orders, and\nHolzloehner would have to submit. It was under these conditions that\nRascher took the low-pressure chamber from the SS in Munich and set it\nup there.\n\nQ. Who took care of the maintenance work on the chamber during the\nexperiments?\n\nA. There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary; loading the\nbatteries or supplying the oxygen for the experiments was taken care of\nby Rascher and was probably paid for by the camp.\n\nQ. Was Rascher responsible to you for that?\n\nA. No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to\nthe Medical Inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them.\n\nQ. Did you have ah opportunity to give Rascher any orders or\ninstructions, or to prohibit anything?\n\nA. No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could\nnot give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do\nanything. Concerning the conduct of these experiments on rescue from\nhigh altitudes, I merely had a certain advisory right as is customary\nfor two scientists who are working together on the same task when one of\nthe two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task.\n\nQ. You said the experiments began on 22 or 23 February; was that when\nyou saw the experimental subjects for the first time?\n\nA. Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau with Rascher for the first time\nand met the experimental subjects for the first time.\n\nQ. About how many were there?\n\nA. There were 10 or 12.\n\nQ. Could it have been 5?\n\nA. Five? No, there were certainly more than that.\n\nQ. Could it have been 15?\n\nA. Yes, that is possible.\n\nQ. Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the\nexperiments began?\n\nA. I believe on that day we mostly talked. Whether any proper\nexperiments were done at all on that first day, I don\u2019t remember. At any\nrate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little\non the first day.\n\nQ. What did you talk about with the experimental subjects?\n\nA. They were quite new surroundings for me, of course. They were all\nprofessional criminals who were in custody.\n\nQ. How do you know that?\n\nA. They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They\ndidn\u2019t, of course, have complete confidence on the first day and did not\ntell me all about their previous convictions. But after careful\ninquiries one discovered that they had been condemned for certain\ncrimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to\nprotective custody.\n\nQ. Why did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day?\n\nA. It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group that a\ncertain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other.\nI talked to them about their profession, if I may call it that, and of\ncourse I told them something about the experiments, what the whole thing\nwas all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate in the same\nway as my usual experimental subjects.\n\nQ. Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects for\ntheir activity or to check whether these people were actually\nvolunteers?\n\nA. No. It was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation\nwas this: in the discussion with the camp commandant on the basis of the\nagreement with Rascher and his authorization from Himmler, a very\ndefinite agreement had been reached to the effect that these people were\nto be selected from the volunteers. Therefore, a clear agreement had\nbeen reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts\nbasically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and\ntalked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties,\nand so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered\u2014not\nbecause of any distrust of the camp commandant, but just for that\nreason.\n\nQ. You thought, accordingly, that they were volunteers?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t only think they were. They told me so themselves.\n\nQ. How do you know that so definitely for each case?\n\nA. In the course of time\u2014not on the first day but in the course of\ntime\u2014I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually\nthey told me about their previous convictions and what other prisons and\npenitentiaries they had been in before they came to the camp, and they\nalso told me the reasons why they had volunteered.\n\nQ. Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects used for the\nhigh-altitude experiments were volunteers?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now before these subjects entered the chamber did you prepare them\nfor what they had to do and tell them the significance of the whole\nthing?\n\nA. Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad\noutline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose\nof the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had\nto do in the experiments. There was the writing test during which they\nhad to write numbers from 1,000 backwards; then the cardinal point was\nthat after the altitude sickness during the experiments, as soon as they\ncame to, they had to pull the rip cord. We had a handle in the chamber\nconnected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the\nparachute. This had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they\nwouldn\u2019t have understood it and wouldn\u2019t have reacted correctly.\n\nQ. Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram\nof each separate subject?\n\nA. Yes and again later on.\n\nQ. Please explain that.\n\nA. Rascher had first examined the people to see if they were suitable\nfor the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like\nthat. Then in order to get an exact control, before the beginning of the\nexperiments we took an electrocardiogram of all the subjects. In almost\nall the experiments the electrocardiograms were registered and at the\nend, when the experiments were finished, we took another\nelectrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material because\nperhaps even if there was no visible injury, there might still be some\neffects which could only be determined by such tests.\n\nQ. Now, how long did these experiments on rescue from high altitude\nlast, approximately?\n\nA. Well, they really began on about 10 or 11 March and they lasted until\n19 or 20 May.\n\nQ. Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by\nthe prosecution?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments\non rescue from high altitudes there were no deaths and there had been no\ninjury to health; is that correct?\n\nA. Yes, it is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is\nalso true that there were no deaths or other injuries.\n\nQ. But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there\nwere deaths?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What do you have to say about that?\n\nA. In addition to our joint experiments on rescue from high altitudes,\nRascher conducted experiments of his own. He did not tell me the exact\nproblem; he merely said that he was performing these experiments for\nHimmler and that they had to do with explosive decompression sickness\nand electrocardiograms. He had apparently carried out secret experiments\nfor some time on this problem, but then in my presence he continued them\nwith special subjects. In the course of these experiments the first\ndeath occurred at the end of April in my presence. He told me in the\ncourse of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on\nthe basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted\nto get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this cooperation never came about\nbecause the experiments were broken off.\n\nBefore this death I had no reason to object to the experiments in any\nway since Rascher was using other subjects and had a separate assignment\nfrom Himmler for them. My assignment was to perform the experiments on\nrescue from high altitudes and I carried it out together with Rascher.\n\nQ. How many deaths took place in your presence?\n\nA. Three.\n\nQ. But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present.\n\nA. There could only have been three.\n\nQ. Why could there only have been three?\n\nA. Because I remember. After all they were deaths and they made a\ndefinite impression on me; I know it.\n\nQ. Why did death in the low-pressure chamber make such an impression on\nyou?\n\nA. In the innumerable low-pressure-chamber experiments not only\nperformed by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never\nhad any deaths at all, and the opinion at that time was that any\nnecessary problem of aviation medicine could be solved without deaths.\n\nQ. Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, since\nyou say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments?\n\nA. At the beginning of April or in the middle of April, Rascher told me\nfor the first time that he was performing experiments with slow\nascension and that he had attempted to work with Fahrenkamp but the work\nhad been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had\nnothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and\nuninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that, but said it was\na specific question which especially interested him personally and which\nhe had to work on. I did not see these experiments, which according to\nrecords here lasted 8 to 10 hours. He probably always performed them on\nthe days I was absent because these 8 to 10 hours would have interfered\nconsiderably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and\nperformed time-reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the\nadaptation which he had been testing before in the slow-ascension\nexperiments. This was an experiment in which the subject remains at the\nsame altitude, in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where\nthe pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is\ndecreased. As his interim reports show, he extended these experiments to\nhigh altitudes and the time reserve was studied either with or without\noxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work,\nsuch as that of Dr. Kliches.\n\nI sometimes observed these experiments. He performed them correctly; he\nwatched the subjects so that there was, in itself, no objection to these\nexperiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our\nexperiments from the point of view of time, and Rascher\u2019s lack of\npunctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to\nthe documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had\ndeaths in these experiments. The first deaths were evidently unexpected.\nIn these unexpected deaths the electrocardiogram and the autopsy\nfindings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea\nthat these experiments should be carried on further, and in addition\nthat Fahrenkamp should be called in to extend them as far as possible\nscientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently\ninduced him in my presence to perform experiments which were dangerous,\nand in which deaths occurred. The fact that I had been present several\ntimes at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal\nexperiment, too.\n\nQ. Did you not think it unusual that during an experimental series which\nyou and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave\nRascher orders for special experiments?\n\nA. Yes. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on\nprinciple it is nothing unusual if when two people are working together\non a certain job, one of them receives an additional assignment from his\nchief to carry out other work on his own. In addition, Rascher was also\nworking in Schongau at the same time on behalf of Luftgau VII. I,\nmyself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying\non and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. No one\ncould dispute the fact that Himmler, as Reich Leader SS and Chief of the\nGerman Police and as Rascher\u2019s boss insofar as he was an SS member, had\nthe right to give assignments to his subordinates and to order them to\ncarry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence\nat the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and your occasional\npresence during Rascher\u2019s experiments?\n\nA. In the experiments on rescue from high altitudes I was not merely\npresent. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I called the\nexperimental subjects myself, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of\ncourse, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they\nhad to write, what they had to pay special attention to, and that when\nthey registered the electrocardiogram, in order not to interfere with\nit, they had to keep still; and then when the experiment had started I\ndirected the experiment myself. I watched the altitude of the mercury\nindicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I\nchecked with the stop watch. Of course, at the same time I observed the\nsubject, in other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher\u2019s\nexperiments which were at a certain altitude\u2014that is, the subjects were\nascended to a certain altitude and then remained at that altitude\u2014I\nsometimes watched if I happened to be in the low-pressure chamber, but\notherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was\nnot present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is\nclear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results;\nthat is apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening\nor when I was away.\n\nQ. After the first death was there an autopsy?\n\nA. Yes, there was an autopsy.\n\nQ. Did you participate in it?\n\nA. No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy.\n\nQ. Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment?\n\nA. Today, of course, it looks different than it did at the time. It was\na matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had\nhad a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the\nautopsy, and, of course, I went. I also had a quite natural scientific\ninterest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it\nfrankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone may say I was\ninterested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every\nhospital; all doctors watch the autopsies. If, for example, in the\nsurgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief\nphysician, or if he had no time, the senior physician, and the other\ndoctors who had nothing specifically to do with the patient, watched the\nautopsy, and generally even X-ray doctors came over who didn\u2019t know the\npatient at all. Besides if I had not been present, that would today be\nconsidered as an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death\u2014if I\nhad not accepted Rascher\u2019s invitation. If such a death happened during a\ncentrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had\nhappened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone\nto watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings; that is one\u2019s\nduty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw\none\u2019s own conclusions and be able to avoid subsequent accidents.\n\nQ. Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Why not?\n\nA. After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward\nRascher and the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case\nof later deaths I was not present because of this attitude. I do not\nbelieve he invited me to the autopsies either, and under the conditions\nin Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative.\n\nQ. Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, or did you warn him\nbefore the death?\n\nA. Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I\nhad sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments,\npurely out of curiosity, just as in our institute if centrifugal\nexperiments were performed, I sometimes watched them, too. There was no\nreason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out\nof curiosity. That was how it happened that I was present by accident at\nthe experiment and looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. On\nthe screen of the electrocardiograph one can see a little point of light\nwhich moves, and that is determined by the heart action. When it seemed\nto me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart action was\nlessening, I said to Rascher: \u201cYou had better stop now.\u201d\n\nQ. And what did Rascher do?\n\nA. Nothing. He kept that altitude and later death suddenly occurred.\n\nQ. When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you\nthat the person would die in the next second?\n\nA. No, of course not. First of all I had never seen a death from high\naltitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn\u2019t know that, and,\nin the second place, this death certainly resulted from aero-embolism\nand, therefore, suddenly. In the third place, the electrocardiogram\nchange was, shall we say, doubtful. I myself would have stopped the\nexperiment at this stage but he didn\u2019t. I only spoke up because I would\nhave stopped the experiment at that moment.\n\nQ. Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment?\n\nA. It was not possible for me to object in view of Rascher\u2019s position,\nbut I told him that such things should not happen.\n\nQ. And what else did you do?\n\nA. After this death I went to Berlin and told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed\nwith me that death should not be allowed to occur in high-altitude\nexperiments and it had never occurred before. Since Rascher, however,\nperformed these experiments for Himmler on men who were condemned to\ndeath, we saw no way of preventing Rascher after we had made an official\nreport. In general when objections were made Rascher simply referred to\nthe orders from Himmler and to the fact that he was covered by them. It\nwas quite impossible to remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler\u2019s\nand Rascher\u2019s will. And to give this death as a reason for removing the\nchamber was even more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not\nhave reacted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might\nhave started proceedings for treason or for sabotage of an essential war\nexperiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature to\nthe contrary in a concentration camp. Like every other visitor to a\nconcentration camp I had to sign a statement to the effect that\neverything I saw and so forth in the camp would be secret. Besides, at\nthe beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram\nfrom Himmler ordering silence about these experiments. A specific\nobligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since\nI had reported the matter to Ruff against the secrecy obligation, I also\nhad to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could\nnot give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau,\naside from the fact it would not have met with success.\n\nTherefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility\nwas for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber\nremoved, giving the excuse that it was needed at the front. On the other\nhand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be\ntold that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so\nthat we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau.\nOtherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered the experiments to be\ncontinued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the\nclarification of the question of rescue from high altitudes, and he\nwould doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and arranged to keep\nthe chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at\nthe front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the\nexperiments, and he would not have released the chamber.\n\nIf I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried\nout the experiments on rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would\ndoubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason\nwhy I reluctantly went back to Dachau.\n\nQ. Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin?\n\nA. The purpose was this report to Ruff.\n\nQ. Was that the only purpose?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. How did you explain this trip to Rascher?\n\nA. I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife\u2019s condition. My\nwife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going\nto Berlin.\n\nQ. How long were you in Berlin?\n\nA. Only 1 or 2 days; then I went back to Dachau.\n\nQ. Now, before you left did you make sure whether Ruff had done anything\nin response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the\nchamber out of Dachau?\n\nA. Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so\nthat I really did not know what was going on and what would be\naccomplished.\n\nQ. Did you notice anything special about the chamber when you came back\nto Dachau?\n\nA. Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already\nsaid; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer\nrepaired.\n\nQ. How long did you stay in Berlin this time?\n\nA. As long as the repair required; about 2 weeks.\n\nQ. Then during this time there were no experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. When did the experiments begin again?\n\nA. The beginning of May or the middle of May I went back with the\nrepaired apparatus; then we concluded the experiments as quickly as\npossible.\n\nQ. Did you abbreviate the program which you had planned, or did you\nchange it in any way, or did you keep it the way it was?\n\nA. No. We shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various\naltitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly as possible\nbut in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results.\n\nQ. When was the second death at which you were present?\n\nA. That was a few days after my return to Dachau.\n\nQ. Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a manner similar\nto the first case?\n\nA. In general, yes. I don\u2019t know exactly what happened. As far as I\nrecall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death\noccurred quicker, more suddenly.\n\nQ. And when was the third death at which you were present?\n\nA. That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day.\n\nQ. After these deaths, did you ever have any arguments with Rascher\nabout his experiments and the way in which he performed them?\n\nA. Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which\nhe always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to\nobject again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn\u2019t to\ninterfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his\npatience, and we got rather excited. I asked him why he was carrying out\nthese experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he wanted to\nclarify the problem of caisson diseases, that is bends or aero-embolism,\nbecause Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man to prove these air\nbubbles in the blood during an autopsy under water. Also the question of\nthe electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified\nas Himmler had given him a special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was\nto do this work together with him. In addition he wanted to qualify as a\nprofessor with Schittenhelm through this work.\n\nThen he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to\nbe continued; that Professor Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that\npeople condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course,\nbe pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I\ncould read Himmler\u2019s signature and whether I wasn\u2019t satisfied with that.\n\nQ. Was this the letter 1971-B-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 51?\n\nA. Yes, 1971-B-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 51.\n\nQ. And what does this letter indicate?\n\nA. Well, it showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments\nand that he, therefore, had complete official coverage, that the\nsubjects were to be pardoned. It says in the letter: \u201cOf course the\nperson condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for\nlife.\u201d Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page\nit says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security\nPolice and the SD and to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for\ntheir information.\n\nQ. Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter?\n\nA. Since this letter prevented me from doing anything, I calmly asked\nhim what idea he had of these experiments, what he wanted to do, what he\nwanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that\nhe would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various\nreasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of\ndeath at high altitudes with the change in severe altitude sickness and\nwith later recovery. In addition, in the hospital in Munich he had taken\nelectrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau, he said, he had\nalso registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by\nshooting. If he really had evaluated all this material together with a\nheart specialist, then it would, of course, have been quite valuable.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop\nRascher\u2019s experiments and did you incur any danger and, if so, what?\n\nA. What I did against Himmler\u2019s orders and against my signed promise to\nkeep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who\npassed the information on\u2014all this was dangerous. One probably\nunderstands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The\nwitness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher\u2019s experiments. He\nconfirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he\nknows nothing about my other objections. In general, the discussions\nbetween Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the\nprisoners. The low-pressure chamber was removed from Dachau earlier than\nintended at our instigation. Against Rascher\u2019s and Himmler\u2019s wishes, it\nwas never returned to Dachau. The extent of the accusations made by the\nSS in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with\nWolff\u2019s telegram to Milch on 12 May, which is answered in the negative\nin Milch\u2019s letter of 20 May. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) In answer to\nfurther efforts from Himmler, Milch ordered that the chamber was to\nremain 2 months longer in Dachau. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) At this\ntime, we had already removed the chamber. On 5 June, Rascher again\nwrites to Himmler about the low-pressure chamber. Document NO-284,\nProsecution Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of 5 June. The\nletter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt,\nsays that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the\nprosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. Then\nthere is a certain pause in Rascher\u2019s and Himmler\u2019s efforts, because\nRascher is busy with the cold experiments. When the film is shown in\nBerlin in the Air Ministry, Rascher does not forget to tell Milch again\nof his wishes in regard to the low-pressure chamber. But hardly has the\nfirst phase of the cold experiments\u2014the series with Holzloehner\u2014been\nfinished, when he writes to Himmler again on 9 October. (_1610-PS, Pros.\nEx. 73._) He asks Himmler to get him the low-pressure chamber so that he\ncan continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. In the letter\nof 21 October 1942 (_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_), Sievers writes to Brandt\nabout the continuation of the high-altitude experiments which Himmler\nwants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons,\nhe adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in\norder actually to get the chamber. This happens on 27 November 1942\n(_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_)\u2014a letter from Wolff to Milch, on behalf of\nHimmler. The definite request for the low-pressure chamber, which is\nexpressed in this letter, is given definite emphasis by mention of the\nopposition of the Luftwaffe doctors. I learned from a telephone call\nfrom Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a\nlow-pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly\nastonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well\nthat Rascher certainly didn\u2019t want to have this made public in any way.\nNow, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of\nthis call and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here\nyesterday. In an official letter to various SS agencies, dated 13\nDecember 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_), Rascher is given the assignment\nby Himmler personally to carry out high-altitude experiments. On 14\nMarch 1943 (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110_), Rascher tells of his discussions\nwith Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low-pressure\nchamber experiments, together with me; and finally, on 18 November 1943\n(_NO-1057, Pros. Ex. 463_), he tries again, through the Reich Research\nCouncil in agreement with Himmler, to get a mobile low-pressure chamber\nin order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher\u2019s and Himmler\u2019s\nefforts but, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low-pressure\nchamber at his disposal for experiments.\n\nQ. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements?\n\nA. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher\u2019s and Himmler\u2019s\nefforts were and that my conduct under these circumstances was not only\nnot cowardly, but that it was much more clever and much more successful.\nEven if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I\nhad had any obligations to attack Rascher and if I had tried and been\nunsuccessful, then I would have been locked up or killed and Rascher\nwould have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without\nany restriction.\n\nQ. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in\nwhat did you see such possibility?\n\nA. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all,\nemigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which\nmeant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge,\nnever met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent\nyielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one\u2019s friends,\nin short, what writers today call \u201cinternal emigration.\u201d But that really\ndoesn\u2019t have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question\nof prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take\na comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot\nimagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker\nwho is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy,\non a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from\ncarrying out this infection by force\u2014perhaps by knocking the hypodermic\nsyringe out of his hand and crying \u201cYou mustn\u2019t do that, the man might\ndie!\u201d I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons,\nrefuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if\nthere were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that\nthe assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner.\n\nQ. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or\nwith the public prosecutor, against Rascher?\n\nA. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said,\n\u201cRascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler\u2014by the Chief of\nthe German Police and whatever else he was\u2014the Reich Leader SS, the\nState Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior,\u201d they would probably\nhave said: \u201cWell, we can\u2019t do anything about it. If he has orders, then\nwe can\u2019t do anything about it.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[18] Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with their\nconsent.\n\n[19] Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant\nRomberg.\n\n[20] The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and\nnot as a prosecution witness.\n\n[21] See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States _vs._ Erhard Milch.\n\n[22] Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German\nshorthand.\n\n[23] Translator\u2019s Note: \u201cTerminal\u201d as used here means \u201cresulting in\ndeath\u201d.\n\n[24] These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research and\neducational society \u201cAhnenerbe.\u201d\n\n[25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, December\n17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695.\n\n[26] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, March\n24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994.\n\n[27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May 1,\n2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032.\n\n 2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf\nBrandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were\ncharged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal\nconduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment).\nOn this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and\nSievers were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky,\nPoppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the freezing experiments\nis contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An\nextract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants\nSievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This\nargumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219\nto 278.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n _Freezing Experiments_\n\nBefore the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the\nfreezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz\nand his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May\n1942 from Milch to Karl Wolff. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) A short time\nlater, Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team\nwas changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher\nreported these orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke\u2019s\nrequest to have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: \u201cIt was\nalso decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all\ntimes during the experiments.\u201d (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) The research\nassignment was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B)\nunder Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy.\n(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88._)\n\nThe cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and\ncontinued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by\nHolzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated\nwith Rascher until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his\nmedical training: \u201cBy order of the Reich Leader SS and\nGeneraloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke, I conducted \u2018Experiments for\nthe Rescue of Frozen Persons\u2019 (started on 15 August 1942), in\ncooperation\u2014for 4 months\u2014with the Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr.\nFinke both of Kiel University.\u201d (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) Rascher also\nsaid that: \u201cSince May 1939 till today I have been in military service\nwith the Air Force.\u201d The memorandum was dated 17 May 1943. It should\ntherefore be borne in mind that during all of the high-altitude and\nsubstantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was on _active\nduty_ with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May 1943\nthat he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course\nsupported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments.\n\nThe witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments,\ntestified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau\nstarted at the end of July or in August 1942. They were conducted by\nRascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. In October, Holzloehner and Finke left\nand Rascher proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments until May\n1943. Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke used ice-cold water for their\nfreezing experiments. The experimental basin had been built 2 meters\nlong and 2 meters high in Rascher\u2019s experimental station, Block 5. (_Tr.\npp. 626-8._) The experiments were carried out in the following manner:\nThe basin was filled with water and ice was added until the water\nmeasured 3\u00b0 C. The experimental subjects, either dressed in a flying\nsuit or naked, were placed into the ice water. Narcotics were frequently\nnot used. It always took a certain time until so-called \u201cfreezing\nnarcosis\u201d made the experimental subjects unconscious, and the subjects\nsuffered terribly. The temperature of the victims was measured rectally\nand through the stomach by galvanometer. They lost consciousness at a\nbody temperature of approximately 33\u00b0 C. The experiments actually\nprogressed until the experimental persons were chilled down to 25\u00b0 C.\nbody temperature. An experiment on two Russian officers who were exposed\nnaked to the ice-cold water in the basin was particularly brutal. These\ntwo Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. Rascher refused to\nadminister an injection. When one of the inmates who attended the\nexperiment tried to administer an anaesthetic to these two victims,\nRascher threatened him with a pistol. Both experimental subjects died\nafter having been exposed at least 5 hours to the terrible cold. (_Tr.\npp. 629-631._) Approximately 280 to 300 experimental subjects were used\nfor this type of freezing experiment, but in reality, 360 to 400\nexperiments were conducted since many experimental subjects were used\ntwo or three times for experiments. Approximately 80 to 90 experimental\nsubjects died. About 50 to 60 inmates were used in the\nHolzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments and approximately 15 to 18 of them\ndied. Political prisoners, non-German nationals, and prisoners of war\nwere used for these experiments. Many of the inmates used had not been\n\u201ccondemned to death.\u201d The subjects did not volunteer for the\nexperiments. (_Tr. pp. 627-8._)\n\nEven though one assumes that prisoners condemned to death were used in\nall of the experiments, which is not true, the \u201cdefense\u201d that they\nvolunteered on the agreement that their sentences would be commuted to\nlife imprisonment is invalid. During the high-altitude experiments,\nHimmler had directed that in further experiments where the long\ncontinued heart activity of subjects who were killed was observed,\ncriminals condemned to death should be used and, if they were revived,\nthey should be \u201cpardoned\u201d to concentration camp for life. (_1971-B-PS,\nPros. Ex. 51._) Rascher apparently construed this order to apply to the\nfreezing experiments also. On 20 October 1942, Rascher advised Rudolf\nBrandt that until then only Poles and Russians had been used for such\nexperiments and that only some of these persons had been condemned to\ndeath. He inquired whether Himmler\u2019s \u201camnesty\u201d applied to Russians and\nPoles. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) Brandt told him that it did not\napply. (_1971-E-PS, Pros. Ex. 53._)\n\nDry-freezing experiments were carried out by Rascher in January,\nFebruary, and March 1943. One experimental subject was placed on a\nstretcher at night and exposed to the cold outdoors. He was covered with\na linen sheet, but a bucket of cold water was poured over him every\nhour. He remained outdoors until the morning and then his temperature\nwas taken with a thermometer. In the next series the experimental plan\nwas changed, and experimental persons had to remain naked outdoors for\nlong hours without being covered up at all. One series was carried out\non 10 prisoners who had to remain outdoors overnight. Rascher himself\nwas present during approximately 18 to 20 experiments of that type.\nApproximately three experimental subjects died as a result of the\ndry-freezing experiments. (_Tr. pp. 636-7._)\n\nOn the order of Grawitz and Rascher, a mass experiment on 100\nexperimental subjects was to be carried out. As Rascher was not present,\nNeff was in the position to frustrate the experiment by taking the\nexperimental subjects indoors, and therefore no deaths occurred during\nthis experimental series. The longest period that experimental subjects\nwere kept outdoors in the cold was from 6 p. m. of one day to 9 a. m. of\nthe following morning. The lowest temperature Neff can recollect during\nthe dry-freezing experiments was 25\u00b0 body temperature. As Rascher had\nprohibited that experiments were to be carried out under anaesthetics,\nthe experimental subjects suffered great pain and screamed to such an\nextent that it was impossible to carry out further experiments. Rascher\ntherefore requested Himmler\u2019s permission to carry out such experiments\nin the future in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Non-German nationals\nand political prisoners were among the experimental subjects. None of\nthem was sentenced to death. They had not volunteered for the\nexperiments. (_Tr. pp. 637-9._)\n\nIn connection with the freezing experiments, Neff further testified that\nin September 1942 he received orders from Sievers to take the hearts and\nlungs of five experimental subjects who had been killed in the\nexperiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific\nstudy. The travel warrant for Neff had been made out by Sievers, and the\nAhnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One\nof the five experimental subjects killed had been a Dutch citizen. (_Tr.\np. 633._) Sievers visited the experimental station quite frequently\nduring the freezing experiments. (_Tr. p. 635._)\n\nNeff\u2019s testimony is corroborated by the affidavits of the defendants\nRudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng (_NO-242, Pros. Ex. 80_; _NO-448,\nPros. Ex. 81_) and the testimony of the witness Lutz (_Tr. pp. 266-76_),\nVieweg (_Tr. p. 431_), and Michalowsky (_Tr. pp. 878-83_), and by the\ndocumentary evidence in the record.\n\nOn 15 June 1942, Rascher informed Himmler that the Inspector of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, sought permission for cold\nexperiments to be conducted by Rascher and Holzloehner in the Dachau\nconcentration camp. (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) On 10 September 1942,\nRascher submitted his first intermediary report on the freezing\nexperiments to Himmler. In the covering letter Rascher stated that\nHolzloehner, who participated in the execution of the experiments on\nbehalf of the Luftwaffe, intended to lecture on the subject of freezing\nin the \u201ccold conference\u201d of the Luftwaffe on 26-27 October in Nuernberg.\nRascher informed Himmler that \u201cSievers, who surveyed the experiments in\nDachau last week, believed that if any report was to be made at a\nmeeting, I should be called upon to submit the report.\u201d (_NO-234, Pros.\nEx. 83._) The intermediary report itself shows on its face that\nfatalities occurred as a result of the Rascher-Holzloehner-Finke\nexperiments and advocated rapid rewarming of severely chilled persons.\nRascher considered that rewarming with animal heat would be too slow,\nand that experiments in this respect would be unnecessary. He voiced a\nsimilar opinion as to the use of drugs for the purpose of rewarming.\n(_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 34._) Himmler, when acknowledging the receipt of\nRascher\u2019s report on 22 September, directed nevertheless that the\nexperiment with rewarming by means of drugs and body heat should be\nmade. A copy of this order of Himmler\u2019s was forwarded to Sievers on 25\nSeptember. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._)\n\nOn the basis of this order Rascher approached Sievers to make\narrangements for four female gypsies to be procured at once for the\npurpose of rewarming experimental subjects. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) It\nwas apparently Sievers\u2019 effort in this regard which resulted in a series\nof telegrams to transfer these women from the Ravensbrueck concentration\ncamp to Dachau. Rudolf Brandt actually directed the transfer. (_1619-PS,\nPros. Ex. 87._) The four women arrived in November 1942 in Dachau. Three\nof them were used for rewarming of frozen experimental subjects, one\nbeing excluded because she was a \u201cNordic\u201d type. That the experimental\nsubjects were not volunteers is plain from a remark of one of these\nwomen. \u201cRather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the\nconcentration camp.\u201d (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) This series of\nexperiments, which was not only murderous but obscene, was carried out\nby Rascher between November 1942 and February 1943. His report to\nHimmler reveals that one of the experimental subjects died as a result\nof this series of experiments. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._)\n\nOn 8 October 1942, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony of the Medical\nInspectorate of the Luftwaffe approached Himmler with the information\nthat the results of the wet-freezing experiments carried out by Rascher\nin cooperation with Holzloehner and Finke were to be lectured upon by\nHolzloehner during the \u201ccold conference\u201d on 26-27 October in Nuernberg.\n(_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88, compare NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) On 16 October\nRascher also asked Himmler\u2019s permission to release the results of the\nfreezing experiments during these \u201ccold conferences.\u201d (_NO-225, Pros.\nEx. 89._) On the same day Rascher submitted to Himmler his final report\non the freezing experiments as far as they had been carried out in\ncollaboration with Holzloehner and Finke. This report did not include\nexperiments for rewarming by means of drugs and of animal body heat,\nwhich at that time were still in progress. (_1613-PS, Pros. Ex. 90._)\n\nThis report on \u201cCooling Experiments on Human Beings\u201d by Holzloehner,\nRascher, and Finke, corroborates fully the testimony of Neff concerning\nthis series of the wet-freezing experiments and proves that many\nfatalities occurred. It shows that some of the experimental subjects\nwere exposed to this terrible type of experimentation without receiving\nanesthetics, which would have alleviated their pain considerably. The\nsufferings of the experimental subjects were vividly described. Foam\nappeared round the mouths of the experimental subjects, and breathing\ndifficulties and lung oedema resulted. The cooling of the neck and back\nof the head of the experimental subjects caused especially painful\nsensations. Progressive rigor, which developed very strongly in the arm\nmuscles, cyanosis, and total irregularity of the heart activity were the\nsymptoms observed by the experimenters. Hot baths were advocated as the\nbest treatment for severely chilled persons. Fatalities resulted from\nheart failure and brain oedema, and measures for protection against such\nresults were discussed at great length. (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._)\n\nSievers denied that Rascher reported to him on the freezing experiments\nbut admitted that he received occasionally Rascher\u2019s reports from\nHimmler. (_Tr. pp. 5684-5._) But by the testimony of the witness Neff it\nis not only proved that Rascher submitted to the Ahnenerbe monthly,\nquarterly, and semi-annual reports, describing in detail the nature and\nstatus of his experimental research (_Tr. p. 635_), but also that the\nfinal report of Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex.\n91_) was forwarded to him. (_Tr. p. 681._)\n\nOn 24 October Himmler acknowledged the receipt of this report which he\nhad read \u201cwith great interest\u201d and charged Sievers with arrangements for\n\u201cthe possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with\nus.\u201d (_1609-PS, Pros. Ex. 92._)\n\nOn 26 and 27 October 1942, the conference on \u201cMedical Problems Arising\nfrom Distress at Sea and Winter Hardships,\u201d sponsored by the Inspector\nof the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, under the chairmanship\nof Anthony and with the assistance of Becker-Freyseng, took place in\nNuernberg. At this conference Holzloehner delivered his lecture on the\nfreezing experiments under the title \u201cProphylaxis and Treatment of\nFreezing in Water.\u201d The very detailed clinical observations described by\nhim excluded the possibility that only observations on human beings _who\nwere rescued_ had been made, and made it clear that experiments on human\nbeings had been conducted. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Moreover, Rascher\nmade a statement following Holzloehner\u2019s lecture, which clearly revealed\nthat the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates.\nThis report caused a sensation among the officials present at the\nlecture. It was made clear that deaths had occurred. (_Tr. p. 272._)\nSievers has denied having received a report on this conference (_Tr. p.\n5689_), but the entry of 12 January in his diary for the year 1943 shows\nthat he discussed with Rascher the \u201cprocurement of memoranda on the\nconference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.\u201d (_NO-538, Pros.\nEx. 122._)\n\nOn 6 November 1942, Rascher forwarded a memorandum to Himmler\u2019s personal\nstaff, the office of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, regarding cooperation\nwith Dr. Craemer of the Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical\nTroops at St. Johann. This was a school subordinated to Handloser as\nArmy Medical Inspector. In this memorandum Rascher advocated\ndry-freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates in the mountain\nregion of Bayrischzell. The purpose was to investigate whether injuries\nof the extremities due to freezing would have a better prognosis on\npersons accustomed to cold than on persons unaccustomed to it. Rascher\nsaid that Craemer had heard the report in Nuernberg and was very\nenthusiastic about the experiments. He requested to see some in\nprogress. (_NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96_; _1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97_.) Himmler\ngave his permission for this type of dry-freezing experiment in an order\ndated 13 December 1942, in which he lists Rascher\u2019s assignment for the\nexecution of high-altitude and three different types of freezing\nexperiments. Copies of this order were submitted to various SS agencies\nand to the Ahnenerbe Society. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79._) Himmler\u2019s\nletter contained the following directive:\n\n \u201c5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the\n experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of\n the Reichsarzt SS, of the Main Office for Economic\n Administration, and with the Ahnenerbe. * * *\u201d\n\nThe evidence proves that prior to 21 October 1943, Rascher received an\nassignment from Blome of the Reich Research Council to conduct open-air\nfreezing experiments. (_NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119._) Sievers aided Rascher\nin the matter of obtaining the location and personnel for these\nexperiments. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)\n\nOn 13 January 1943, Rascher had a conference with Grawitz and the\ndefendant Poppendick concerning the freezing experiments. In this\nconference Rascher\u2019s freezing experiments were discussed in detail. He\nstressed the point that he was working with the Ahnenerbe and that he\nreported to the Ahnenerbe. The documentary note of Rascher\u2019s on this\nconference shows on its face that wet-freezing experiments had been\nconducted by him and that Grawitz requested him to carry out further\nfreezing experiments with dry cold until he would \u201chave a few hundred\ncases.\u201d This documentary note was forwarded by Sievers to the defendant\nRudolf Brandt on 28 January. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) In his covering\nletter Sievers requested Brandt\u2019s opinion as to what attitude he and\nRascher were to take in respect of their position to Grawitz, with the\nimplied request that Brandt should strengthen his position with Grawitz,\nwho considered it \u201can unbearable situation to have a non-physician give\ninformation on medical matters.\u201d What Sievers wanted to achieve was an\nintervention of Brandt with Himmler on his behalf and, therefore, he\nstressed his personal importance by saying:\n\n \u201cMy duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research\n men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader SS are\n carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I\n certainly can form an opinion\u2014that is, on who is doing the\n quickest job.\n\n \u201cIf things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer\n Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher\u2019s work will not\n continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.\u201d\n (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._)\n\nOn 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the\nexperiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely\nchilled persons. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) In his accompanying letter\nto Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments\nin Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and\nhad been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing\ntheir body temperature to 27\u00b0-29\u00b0 C. The extremities of the experimental\nsubjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of\nexperiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be\nsuitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the\nspacious open country within the camp \u201cwould make the experiments less\nconspicuous, as the experimental subjects _yell_ when they freeze\nseverely.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Himmler gave\nRascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the\nconcentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (_1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109._)\n\nRascher\u2019s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943,\nreveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried\nout on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy\nfrost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold\nof -6\u00b0 C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal\ntemperature of 25\u00b0 C. (_NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111._) The three fatalities\nwhich, according to Neff\u2019s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing\nexperiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments.\n(_Tr. pp. 637-8._)\n\nOn 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning\n\u201cfreezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.\u201d\n(_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) The report itself is not available, but the\nletter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that\nthe defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (_NO-241,\nPros. Ex. 113._) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt\ntook place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant\nFischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and\nother experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and\ninvited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his\nindependence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful\nway as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher,\ntherefore, feared his eventual enmity. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._)\nSievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and\nrequested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive\nto Gebhardt in regard to Rascher\u2019s sphere of action and work. He further\nasked Brandt\u2019s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying:\n\n \u201cI entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use\n it only for your strict personal information so that Dr. Rascher\n does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer\n Professor Dr. Gebhardt.\u201d (_NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117._)\n\nWhen Rascher visited Gebhardt in Hohenlychen, the latter encouraged him\nto embark upon a career of university lecturer. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex.\n116._) Rascher followed this suggestion and Sievers supported him\nwholeheartedly and collaborated with the defendants Brandt and Blome to\nhave Rascher appointed university lecturer. (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118_;\n_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121_.) That Rascher\u2019s thesis for habilitation was\nbased on the freezing and high-altitude experiments is proved by\nRascher\u2019s memorandum on his medical training which he wrote for the\npurpose of his habilitation (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_) and other evidence\nin the record. (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._)\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n _The Freezing Experiments_\n\nFreezing experiments on human beings were carried out in Dachau\nconcentration camp from the end of 1942 on.\n\nIt cannot be denied that a ruthless carrying-out of these experiments\nwas liable to inflict torture and death upon the persons experimented\non. Here, too, it seems necessary to distinguish between two groups of\nexperiments. One group comprises the experiments carried out by\nProfessor Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke, and the other one,\nthose carried out by Rascher alone. The first group of experiments\neasily permits the assumption that the possible effects of the\nexperiments on the persons subjected to them were taken into\nconsideration. After all that has become known about Rascher by now, the\nassumption is justified that, during the experiments carried out by\nRascher alone, considerations of the effect on life and health of the\npersons used were not of primary importance. The only exceptions were\nprobably the experiments Rascher carried out in the presence of third\npersons who were not involved.\n\nOn the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in\nDachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who\nhad just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was\nplaced under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of\nthis experiment. (_German Tr. p. 5684._)\n\nThen Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had\ninstructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher\u2019s work\non freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion\nthat Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these\nscientifically extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a\nprofessional criminal was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced\nto death for robbery and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about\nthis by examining the files of the criminal police department of the\nDachau concentration camp. Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be\nexperimented on whether he realized that the experiment might prove\nfatal to him. The person to be experimented on answered in the\naffirmative.\n\nBy personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers then\nmade sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question\nanswered in the affirmative and added: \u201cIf it does not hurt.\u201d This\nassurance could be given since the experiment was carried out under full\nnarcosis. Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw\nthat it was carried out under full narcosis. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._)\n\nThe witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau\nconcentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher\u2019s station\nas a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to death.\n\nThe same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other\nfreezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his\nlaboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out\nhis experiments. (_Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947._)\n\nA further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred\nand has not been claimed from any side.\n\nIn order to prove Sievers\u2019 participation in the freezing experiments,\nthe prosecution pointed out the following documents:\n\n Rascher\u2019s letter of 10 September 1942 to Himmler. \u201cSS\n Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who observed the experiments in\n Dachau last week, is of the opinion that if during a convention\n there would be a report at all, I, too, would have to be called\n in for reporting.\u201d (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._)\n\n Himmler\u2019s letter of 22 September 1942 to Rascher in which the\n former instructs Rascher to carry out experiments in quick\n increase of body temperature and increase of body temperature\n through medicaments and animal heat [medikamentanimalische\n Erwaermung], Sievers received a copy of this letter for\n information on 25 September 1942. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._)\n\n Rascher\u2019s letter of 3 October 1942 to Dr. R. Brandt which\n contains the information that he (Rascher) had asked Sievers to\n transmit at once a teletype communication to the camp commander\n stating that four female gypsies from another camp must be\n procured immediately; that furthermore he had asked Sievers to\n take steps to have the low-pressure chamber put at his disposal;\n he finally mentioned that he informed Sievers about the failure\n of the planned report to Field Marshal Milch. (_NO-285, Pros.\n Ex. 86._)\n\n Sievers\u2019 note of 6 November 1942 concerning Rascher\u2019s transfer\n to the SS. (_NO-288, Pros. Ex. 95._)\n\n Letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reich Chief Manager\n [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer\n Wolff, concerning Rascher\u2019s transfer to the Waffen SS. (_NO-236,\n Pros. Ex. 101._)\n\n Letter, dated 28 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer\n of Ahnenerbe to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS\n concerning the taking of Dr. Rascher\u2019s work under the protection\n of Ahnenerbe in pursuance of Dr. Rascher\u2019s conversation on 13\n January 1943 with the Chief Reich Physician [Reichsarzt] of the\n SS, Dr. Grawitz. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._)\n\n Note, dated 4 February 1943, of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of\n Ahnenerbe concerning Dr. Rascher\u2019s report to the medical\n inspection [Sanitaetsinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe on his\n activities since he was declared unassigned [zur Disposition].\n Furthermore Rascher should go to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel on 7 February 1943. (_NO-238, Pros.\n Ex. 104._)\n\n Letter, dated 17 May 1943, from Dr. Rascher to the\n Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe concerning Rascher\u2019s\n statement on his report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr.\n Gebhardt on 14 May 1943. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._)\n\n Letter, dated 22 May 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of\n Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning Rascher\u2019s statement on his\n report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. (_NO-267,\n Pros. Ex. 117._)\n\n Letter, dated 27 September 1943, from the\n Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt concerning\n Dr. Rascher\u2019s establishment as a college professor\n (Habilitation). (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118._)\n\n Letter, dated 21 March 1944, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of\n Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning the establishment of Dr.\n Rascher as a college professor. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._)\n\nThe prosecution furthermore refers to the testimony given on 17 and 18\nDecember 1946 by witness Neff. Neff testified that Sievers frequently\nwas at the experimental station; that during experiments he was present\nseveral times; that, however, he could not remember whether Sievers had\nbeen present during experiments which ended fatally.\n\nThe prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of having procured female\nconcentration camp inmates to be used in the rewarming experiments\n[Wiedererwaermungsversuche]. In this connection the following was\nsubmitted:\n\n Letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt:\n \u201c* * * Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to pass on\n immediately a teletype communication to the camp commander in\n which is stated that four female gypsies must be procured from\n another camp at once.\u201d (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._)\n\n Telephone call [Fernspruch] of 7 October 1942 from camp\n commander Weiss to Dr. Brandt, concerning the putting at the\n disposal of staff physician [Stabsarzt] Dr. Rascher \u201cof the four\n women for experimental purposes as ordered by the Reich Leader\n SS\u201d. (_1619-PS, Pros. Ex. 87._)\n\n Teletype communication, dated 8 October 1942, to SS\n Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, concerning the departure from their\n original station of \u201cthe four women ordered by the Reich Leader\n SS\u201d.\n\n Dr. Rascher\u2019s report of 5 November 1942 on concentration camp\n prostitutes [KL-Dirnen]. Refusal, on account of her Nordic\n racial characteristics, to use one of those women, and\n corresponding report to the camp commander and to the adjutant\n of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._)\n\n Witness Neff estimates that 10 women from the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp were put at disposal for experiments with\n body heat [animalische Waerme]. (_German Tr. p. 632._)\n\nThe following is to be said to the prosecution\u2019s accusation that Sievers\nplayed an important part in procuring female concentration camp inmates\nto be used for the rewarming of persons used in experiments:\n\nNowhere, except in the letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to\nDr. Brandt does there exist any indication that such an assumption might\nbe justified. But this letter only states that Dr. Rascher had asked\nObersturmbannfuehrer Sievers immediately to pass on to the camp\ncommander a teletype communication reporting that four female gypsies\nmust be procured from another camp at once. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._)\n\nThe fact that the order to carry out experiments concerning the increase\nof temperature through medicaments and body heat [medikamentanimalische\nErwaermung] was given by Himmler is proved beyond doubt by 1611-PS,\nProsecution Exhibit 85.\n\nFurthermore, I point to the interrogation of Dr. Romberg. (_German Tr.\npp. 6864-65._)\n\nSievers claims not to have done anything in this connection since the\norders originated with Himmler himself. Consequently there was nothing\ncaused by his own initiative. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._)\n\nAt that time Rascher was at Dachau concentration camp most of the time,\nwhile Sievers came there very rarely. Therefore it was much easier for\nRascher than for Sievers to inform the camp commander of his wishes.\n\nRascher refused to use one of the four women for experiments in\nrewarming through body heat because this woman possessed beyond doubt\nthe characteristics of the Nordic race. Rascher reported this to the\ncamp commander and to the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323,\nPros. Ex. 94._) In this connection, too, Sievers did not play any part.\n\nThe prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of taking part in Dr.\nRascher\u2019s dry-freezing experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche].\n\nSievers is not mentioned in the following documents submitted in this\nconnection: NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96; 1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97; NO-431, Pros.\nEx. 99; 1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107; 1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109; NO-292, Pros.\nEx. 111; NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112; NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113; NO-432, Pros. Ex.\n119.\n\nThese letters are neither addressed to him nor signed by him. Neither\nhave copies of them reached him nor have they passed through his hands.\n\nThe letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of\nAhnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, contains the following\npassage: \u201cSince the freezing experiments depend on the season, valuable\ntime is lost as long as Dr. Rascher is not available.\u201d (_NO-236, Pros.\nEx. 101._)\n\nThe witness Neff did not testify that Sievers knew of the dry-freezing\nexperiments [Trockenkaelteversuche].\n\nSievers knew through Himmler\u2019s order of 13 December 1942, that Rascher\nwas supposed to carry out dry-freezing experiments. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex.\n79._) Only during this trial did Sievers come to know that Rascher\ncarried out such experiments in Dachau. Himmler had ordered these\nexperiments to be carried out on the terrain of Berghaus Sudelfeld. They\nwere planned for the winter of 1943-44. Sievers faked inquiries as a\nresult of which the terrain at Sudelfeld was supposed to be unsuited and\nby this he succeeded in not having the dry-freezing experiments carried\nout during the winter of 1943-44. The experiments, which Himmler then\nordered for the winter of 1944-45, did not take place because Rascher\nwas arrested in the spring of 1944. (_German Tr. pp. 5689-90._)\n\nSince the dry-freezing experiments in the mountains, ordered by Himmler,\ndid not take place at all, Sievers can rightfully claim to have helped\nto prevent them.\n\nThe freezing experiments which, beginning at the end of August 1942,\nwere carried out in Dachau concentration camp, originated from a\nscientific research order the medical inspector [Inspekteur des\nSanitaetswesens] of the Luftwaffe had given Stabsarzt Professor Dr.\nHolzloehner on 24 February 1942. At Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher\u2019s suggestion,\ncorresponding experiments were carried out on human beings. For this\nresearch work an experimental group \u201cSeenot\u201d (\u201cHardships at sea\u201d),\nconsisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as chief, and Stabsarzt Dr.\nRascher and Dr. Finke, was organized. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88_; _NO-268,\nPros. Ex. 106_; _NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_.) The freezing experiments were\ncarried out in agreement with the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex.\n88._) In his letter, dated 19 February 1943, the medical inspector of\nthe Luftwaffe thanks the Reich Leader SS for the great help which the\ncooperation with the SS afforded in carrying out the research work.\n(_NO-268, Pros. Ex. 106._) On 6 March 1943 the medical inspector of the\nLuftwaffe confirmed in a letter to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff that he had\nat once agreed to freezing experiments on human beings. (_NO-262, Pros.\nEx. 108._)\n\nThe prosecution argues that Sievers gave special support to Rascher as a\nperson and thus he revealed that he also wanted to support Rascher\u2019s\nexperiments. Therefore reason exists for comment on Rascher\u2019s\npersonality and Sievers\u2019 attitude toward him.\n\nDr. Rascher was staff physician (Stabsarzt [Captain, M. C.]) of the\nLuftwaffe reserve and at the same time a member of the general SS,\nholding the rank of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. In a well-planned scheme he\nalways put this last mentioned position and his direct connection with\nHimmler in the foreground. Orally or in writing he submitted all his\nwishes to Himmler; to him directly did he send the reports on his work.\nHe referred to Himmler whenever he wanted to assert himself and his work\nbefore other official agencies such as, for example, the Luftwaffe. He\nappealed to Himmler when the chief physician of the SS [Reichsarzt SS]\nDr. Grawitz, and Professor Dr. Gebhardt, did not give him the\nrecognition and the support he believed were due him. Through Himmler he\ntried to effect his establishment as a university lecturer. (_NO-283,\nPros. Ex. 82_; _NO-234., Pros. Ex. 83_; _NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103_;\n_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105_; _1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107_; _NO-270, Pros. Ex.\n110_; _NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112_.)\n\nThere can be no doubt that on account of his protection by Himmler he\nshowed an autocratic mind toward his surroundings and also toward his\nmilitary superiors, brutality toward his inferiors, and disgusting\nservility toward his protector, Himmler. (_German Tr. p. 674._)\n\nIn the Dachau concentration camp he was able to move without\nrestrictions and without control by accompanying guards. This was\nimpossible for occasional visitors like Sievers. (_German Tr. p. 5672_;\n_German Tr. p. 5320_; _German Tr. pp. 6542-43_; _German Tr. p. 8620_;\n_German Tr. pp. 8697 and 8887-88_; _Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12_.)\n\nHolding the rank of a commanding general, the medical inspector of the\nLuftwaffe deemed it advisable to assure SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff in\nhis letter of 6 March 1943 that he \u201cwould discuss the entire problem in\n_old comradeship_ with Rascher personally.\u201d (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._)\n\nA commanding general deemed it advisable to adopt this attitude,\ncontrary to all military customs, toward a staff physician because by\nthis conciliatory attitude, inconceivable under other circumstances, he\nwanted to avoid a controversy with the latter on account of the latter\u2019s\nconnections with Himmler.\n\nWhat Rascher thought of Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke\u2019s attitude is\nrevealed in the letter of 14 March 1943 to Dr. Rudolf Brandt in which he\nstates:\n\n \u201cI would like to point out the extraordinary amiability of the\n inspector and his carefulness in all remarks relating to the\n SS.\u201d (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110._)\n\nTo make sure that Himmler would under all circumstances be informed\nabout Rascher\u2019s conference with Medical Inspector Hippke, he continues:\n\n \u201cMay I respectfully ask to inform, wherever that seems necessary\n to you, the Reich Leader SS of my report.\u201d (_NO-270, Pros. Ex.\n 110._)\n\nThe statement that Witness Dr. Punzengruber made about Rascher is very\ncharacteristic:\n\n \u201cHis (Rascher\u2019s) connections were so strong that practically\n every important superior trembled in fear of the intriguing\n Rascher, who consequently held a position of enormous power.\u201d\n (_Sievers 44, Sievers Ex. 45._)\n\nRascher\u2019s servility toward Himmler is already revealed by the bombastic\nphrases with which he closes his letters to Himmler. To give a few\nexamples only:\n\n Letter dated 17 February 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: \u201cWith\n most obedient regards I remain in honest gratitude with Heil\n Hitler your very devoted S. Rascher.\u201d (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex.\n 105._)\n\n Letter, dated 11 April 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: \u201cWith most\n obedient regards and Heil Hitler I remain always, devoted to you\n in gratitude, your S. Rascher.\u201d (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._)\n\n Letter, dated 10 September 1942, from Rascher to Himmler: \u201cIn\n grateful admiration with Heil Hitler your very devoted S.\n Rascher.\u201d (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._)\n\nThe picture of Rascher is completed by the testimony that personally he\nwent to the highest authorities only. (_German Tr. p. 7966._)\n\nSievers is also brought into connection with Dr. Rascher\u2019s attempt to\nestablish himself as a university lecturer.\n\nIn his \u201ceducational history\u201d [\u201cAusbildungsverlauf\u201d] Rascher mentions\nthat the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) ordered him to establish himself as a\nuniversity lecturer with one of his two papers: \u201cAttempts at Rescue from\nHigh Altitude\u201d [\u201cVersuche zur Rettung aus grossen Hoehen\u201d] and \u201cAttempts\nat the Saving of Frozen Humans\u201d [\u201cVersuche zur Rettung ausgekuehlter\nMenschen\u201d]. (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._)\n\nBy a letter, dated 12 August 1943, from Dr. Rudolf Brandt of the\npersonal staff of the Reich Leader SS, Sievers is entrusted with this\naffair. This letter is not at our disposal. On 27 September 1943, that\nis after more than 6 weeks, Sievers answers that he introduced Rascher\nto Professor Dr. Blome and SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel. The former had\ntalked to Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg. On 21 March 1944, that\nis almost 6 months after the letter just mentioned, Sievers reports to\nDr. Brandt on the further development of the case of Dr. Rascher\u2019s\nestablishment as a university lecturer. The attempt in Marburg had\nfailed and consequently they would have to try to establish Rascher as a\nlecturer at Strasbourg University. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._)\n\nRascher\u2019s arrest freed Sievers from the necessity of taking any further\naction. The fact that Sievers was involved, as far as the establishment\nas a university lecturer is concerned, not only in Rascher\u2019s case, is\nrevealed, for example, by Sievers\u2019 1943 diary, entry of 9 February 1943\nconcerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schuetrumpf (_NO-538,\nPros. Ex. 122_); furthermore, entry of 22 February 1943 concerning the\nestablishment as a lecturer of Dr. Rudolph; furthermore, Sievers\u2019 1944\ndiary, entry of 22 February 1944, concerning the establishment as a\nlecturer of Dr. Schmidt-Rohr. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)\n\nIf, in case of Rascher\u2019s establishment as a lecturer, Sievers was acting\nonly as in other similar cases of members of Ahnenerbe, then this was\none of his tasks as Reich manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe\nand he cannot be charged with special activity on Rascher\u2019s behalf.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThere is no indication that Sievers had known, before the experiments\nstarted, that they could become immoderate or inhuman. Neither as far as\nplanning nor as far as the direction was concerned nor in any other way\nhad Sievers anything to do with the carrying out of the experiments.\n\nFurthermore the question must be answered whether Sievers did not gain\nknowledge through Rascher\u2019s reports, which he received while the\nexperiments were carried out, of the criminal character of Rascher\u2019s\nexperiments.\n\nThe prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final\nreport, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke,\nDr. Rascher (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Interim report, dated 15 August\n1942, of Dr. Rascher. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84._) Report, dated 17\nFebruary 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) These reports\nwere sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the\ndocuments themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the\ndocuments indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or\nthat they came to Sievers\u2019 knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies\nthat he obtained knowledge of these reports.\n\nSievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as\ncan be clearly seen from the list of those present. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex.\n93._) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference.\nAlso the secretary of many years\u2019 standing of the Ahnenerbe, the\nwitness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about\nexperiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first\nto her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (_Sievers 45,\nSievers Ex. 46._) Even if Sievers\u2014as he did not\u2014should have obtained\nknowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to\nhave formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human\nexperiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics.\n\nSievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the\nsub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It\nmust be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for\nadministrative affairs.\n\nEverything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments\nwas done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers\u2019 influence\nwas nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental\nactivity on Rascher\u2019s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments\n[Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the\nmountains.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ_\n\nDocument 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document\nsubmitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the\nname of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20\nMay 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff,\nReich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the\nhigh-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real\nreason for their continuation. The letter continues: \u201cThe carrying out\nof experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other\nhand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the\nauthorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and\nStabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.\u201d\n\nObviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the\nassertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the\ncarrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (_Tr. p.\n7237_) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion\ntherefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had\nobtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still\nbelonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was\nentrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this\nreason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the\nactual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that\nProfessor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no\nlonger belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from\nNO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical\nInspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal\nStaff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff\u2019s application to\nHippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of\nStabsarzt Rascher\u2019s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for\nAviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May\n1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz\u2019\noffice. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned\nin this document was established by Professor Hippke\u2019s testimony as\nwitness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (_Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7._)\nProfessor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at\nthe beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter\nhad received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out\nfreezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in\nNO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher\u2019s\nreport on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified\nthat he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor\nWeltz\u2014in his institute in Munich\u2014had been working on problems of\nfreezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to\nask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these\nexperiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work\nwas not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and\nthat not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater\npractical experience.\n\nHowever, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received\nsuch an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way\nwith the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the\ntestimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (_Tr. 7108-09_), and\nby the affidavit of Professor Weltz\u2019 co-worker Dr. Wendt. (_Weltz 23,\nWeltz Ex. 21._)\n\nFor the rest, Weltz\u2019 name does not appear in any connection in any of\nthe numerous documents relating to the problem of freezing experiments\nsubmitted by the prosecution. On the contrary, these documents show\nclearly who from the Luftwaffe was actually ordered to carry out these\nexperiments and who carried them out in Dachau.\n\nThe fact that Professor Weltz was not even requested to participate in\nthe planning of the freezing experiments, appears clearly from Document\nNO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82, already discussed, and above all without\nobjection.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThat Professor Weltz refused to participate in the experiments after he\nlearned about them was firmly established on the other hand by the\nevidence submitted by the defense which in turn is supported by the\ndocuments submitted by the prosecution. Document 1610-PS, Prosecution\nExhibit 73, submitted by the prosecution appears to have special weight\nas evidence in this connection. It is Rascher\u2019s letter to Himmler of 9\nOctober 1942. In this letter Rascher asks Himmler to see to it that the\napparatus necessary for chemical analysis be put at his disposal by\nlaboratories not working to full capacity. He points to the fact that\nthe Weltz Institute does not make apparatus available to him, as it was\nallegedly used there for freezing experiments with shaved cats, and the\ninstitute needed these apparatus for its own use. Moreover, the\naffidavit of the witness Dr. v. Werz (_Weltz 4, Weltz Ex. 11_) according\nto which Professor Weltz refused to furnish apparatus for freezing\nexperiments at Dachau, further proves this disapproval on the part of\nProfessor Weltz of the freezing experiments carried out at Dachau.\nMoreover, it appears also from NO-3674, Prosecution Exhibit 549. Here,\nan attempt is made to procure the apparatus (colorimeter) which was not\ndelivered by Weltz from somewhere else. From 1609-PS, Prosecution\nExhibit 92, it becomes apparent to what danger Professor Weltz exposed\nhimself by his attitude against Rascher. It is a letter of the Reich\nLeader SS of 24 October 1942 to Rascher. In it Himmler acknowledges the\nreceipt of Rascher\u2019s letter, dated 9 October 1942, (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex.\n73_) mentioned above in which Rascher complains about Professor Weltz\u2019\nattitude. In reply to this complaint Himmler writes:\n\n \u201cPeople who today still disapprove of human experiments and\n would rather have German soldiers die of the consequences of\n freezing I consider to be guilty of treason and high treason,\n and I shall have no compunction to report the names of these\n gentlemen to the authorities concerned. You are authorized by me\n to inform the offices concerned of this of my opinion.\u201d\n\nFrom Sievers\u2019 testimony in direct interrogation it appears,\nunequivocally, that this referred to Professor Weltz. In this regard\nSievers declared the following: \u201cI can only say this in respect to Weltz\nhimself, for Herr Rascher, as I already stated in reply to your\nquestion, mentioned in this connection Weltz as a participant.\u201d\n\nThe defendant Sievers also declared that in view of Rascher\u2019s character,\nas known to him, it could be expected that Rascher would make use of the\npowers given him with respect to \u201cthose guilty of treason and high\ntreason,\u201d among others also against Professor Weltz.\n\nIn the course of the cross-examination of Weltz the prosecution\nintimated in a veiled manner that Professor Weltz might have moved\nobjects and files or might have put apparatus at the disposal of the\nDachau experiments.\n\nSince the prosecution could not submit evidence of any weight in this\nrespect it is unnecessary to go into this. In the cross-examination\nitself it became apparent that all the files and apparatus were in\nexistence at the end of the war and that Weltz himself had made\nsuggestions to hand over his institute in an orderly manner to the\nAmericans. (_Tr. pp. 7241-7242._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Pros.\nDoc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-234 83 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 10 September 219\n 1942, transmitting intermediate report on\n freezing experiments (1618-PS).\n1618-PS 84 Intermediate report, 10 September 1942, on 220\n intense chilling experiments in Dachau\n concentration camp.\n1611-PS 85 Letter from Himmler to Rascher and Sievers, 22 221\n September 1942, ordering rewarming in\n freezing experiments through physical\n warmth.\nNO-285 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 3 221\n October 1942, stating that Sievers would\n obtain four gypsy women for rewarming\n through body warmth.\n1619-PS 87 Teletype from commandant of Dachau 223\n concentration camp to Rudolf Brandt, 7\n October 1942, stating that four women would\n be available from Ravensbrueck concentration\n camp for Rascher\u2019s experiments.\nNO-286 88 Letter from Goering\u2019s office to Himmler, 8 223\n October 1942, with attached invitation to\n the conference on \u201cMedical Problems Arising\n from Hardships of Sea and Winter.\u201d\n1613-PS 90 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 October 225\n 1942, transmitting report on cooling\n experiments on human beings (NO-428).\nNO-428 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on cooling 226\n experiments on human beings.\n1609-PS 92 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 24 October 244\n 1942, and note by Rudolf Brandt.\nNO-323 94 Memorandum of Rascher on women used for 245\n rewarming warming in freezing experiments, 5\n November, 1942.\nNO-320 103 Letter from Sievers to Brandt, 28 January 246\n 1943, and Rascher\u2019s report on his\n discussions with Grawitz and Poppendick.\n1616-PS 105 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 17 February 249\n 1943, and summary of experiments for\n rewarming of chilled human beings by animal\n warmth, 12 February 1943.\nNO-268 106 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 19 February 252\n 1943, on freezing experiments in Dachau.\n1580-PS 107 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 26 February 253\n 1943, on freezing experiments in the\n concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin.\nNO-292 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 4 April 253\n 1943, reporting on dry-freezing experiments\n in Dachau.\nNO-322 114 Letter from Rascher to Keindl, 28 April 1943, 254\n about previous freezing experiments\n conducted at Sachsenhausen.\nNO-231 116 Letter from Rascher to Sievers, 17 May 1943, 255\n concerning a conference with Gebhardt on\n freezing experiments.\nNO-432 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, 21 October 1943, 258\n concerning dry-freezing experiments.\nNO-690 120 List of research projects from the files of 259\n the Reich Research Council.\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of Tribunal witness Walter Neff 260\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Handloser 265\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Schroeder 269\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 274\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-234\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, TRANSMITTING\n INTERMEDIATE REPORT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS (1618-PS)\n\nDr. med. Sigmund Rascher Munich, Trogerstr. 56\n at present Berlin, 10 Sep 1942\nMy dear Reich Leader,\n\nMay I submit in the enclosure the first intermediary report about the\nfreezing experiments?\n\nIn the beginning of October, a meeting on the subject of freezing\nexperiments is to take place. Professor Dr. Holzloehner, participating\nin our Dachau experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, wants to give on\nthis occasion an account of the results of our experiments. SS\nObersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau\nlast week, believes that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I\nshould be called upon to submit the report. A discussion with other\nexperts on freezing experiments would surely be very valuable. I\ntherefore request your decision.\n\n1. Can a report be made elsewhere before the oral report has been\nsubmitted to you, my Reich Leader?\n\n2. Is my participation in the conference on the subject of the freezing\nexperiments of the Luftwaffe ordered by you, my Reich Leader?\n\nI will take care that the report is submitted in the manner appropriate\nfor top secret matter.\n\n Yours gratefully and respectfully\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] Yours very devotedly, S. RASCHER\n1 enclosure\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1618-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 84\n\nINTERMEDIATE REPORT, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, ON INTENSE CHILLING EXPERIMENTS\n IN DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP\n\nS. Rascher\nIntermediate report on intense chilling experiments in the Dachau Camp,\n started on 15 August 1942\n_Experimental procedure_\n\nThe experimental subjects (VP) were placed in the water, dressed in\ncomplete flying uniform, winter or summer combination, and with an\naviator\u2019s helmet. A life jacket made of rubber or kapok was to prevent\nsubmerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures\nvarying from 2.5\u00b0 to 12\u00b0. In one experimental series, the occiput (brain\nstem) protruded above the water, while in another series of experiments\nthe occiput (brain stem) and back of the head were submerged in water.\n\nElectrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4\u00b0 in the\nstomach and 26.5\u00b0 in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only when the brain\nstem and the back of the head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal\ncases always revealed large amounts of free blood, up to one-half liter,\nin the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation of\nthe right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these experiments\nreached 28\u00b0, the experimental subjects died invariably, despite all\nattempts at resuscitation. The above discussed autopsy finding\nconclusively proved the importance of a warming protective device for\nhead and occiput when designing the planned protective clothing of the\nfoam type.\n\nOther important findings, common in all experiments, should be\nmentioned, marked increase of the viscosity of the blood, marked\nincrease of hemoglobin, an approximate five-fold increase of the\nleukocytes, invariable rise of blood sugar to twice its normal value.\nAuricular fibrillation made its appearance regularly at 30\u00b0.\n\nDuring attempts to save severely chilled persons [Unterkuehlte], it was\nshown that rapid rewarming was in all cases preferable to slow\nrewarming, because after removal from the cold water, the body\ntemperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for this reason we\ncan dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by\nmeans of animal heat.\n\nRewarming by animal warmth\u2014animal bodies or women\u2019s bodies\u2014would be\ntoo slow. As auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling,\nimprovements in the clothing of aviators come alone into consideration.\nThe foam suit with suitable neck protector which is being prepared by\nthe German Institute for the Textile Research, Munich-Gladbach, deserves\nfirst priority in this connection. The experiments have shown that\npharmaceutical measures are probably unnecessary if the flier is still\nalive at the time of rescue.\n\n [Signed] DR. S. RASCHER\nMunich\u2014Dachau, 10 September 1942.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1611-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 85\n\nLETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER AND SIEVERS, 22 SEPTEMBER 1942, ORDERING\n REWARMING IN FREEZING EXPERIMENTS THROUGH PHYSICAL WARMTH\n\n Secret\nReich Leader SS\nRf/Dr. AR/19/30/42\n Personal Headquarters\n Reich Leader SS\n 22 September 1942\n1. Dr. Rascher\n Munich\u2014Dachau\n\nI have received the intermediate report on the chilling experiments in\nCamp Dachau.\n\nDespite everything, I would so arrange the experiments that all\npossibilities, prompt warming, medicine, body warming, will be executed\nin positive experiment orders.\n\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n2. SS\u2014Lt. Col. Sievers\nBerlin\nA carbon copy with the request for acknowledgment.\n SS Lt. Col.\n 25 Sep 42\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-285\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 86\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT\nSIEVERS WOULD OBTAIN FOUR GYPSY WOMEN FOR REWARMING THROUGH BODY WARMTH\n\nDr. med. Sigmund Rascher; Munich, Trogerstr. 56, 3 October 42\n\nMost honored Obersturmbannfuehrer!\n\nFirst of all I want to thank you very much for \u201cDas glaeserne Meer\u201d\n(\u201cThe Glass Ocean\u201d). My wife and myself are very happy to possess now a\ncomplete set of these books. I have already read the book with great\ninterest.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS wants to be informed of the state of the\nexperiments. I can announce that the experiments have been concluded,\nwith the exception of those on warming with body heat. The final report\nwill be ready in about 5 days. Professor Holzloehner, for reasons that I\ncannot fathom, does not himself want to make the report to the Reich\nLeader Himmler and has asked me to attend to it. This report must be\nmade before 20 October, because the great Luftwaffe conference on\nfreezing takes place in Nuernberg on 25 October. The report on the\nresults of our research _must_ be made there, to assure that they be\nused in time for the troops. May I ask you to arrange for a decision\nfrom the Reich Leader regarding the final report to him, and the\nsubmission to him of the relevant material?\n\nToday I received your letter of 22 September 1942, in which the Reich\nLeader orders that the experiments on warming through body heat must\nabsolutely be conducted. Because of incomplete address it was delayed.\nToday I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to send a telegram to the\ncamp commander immediately, to the effect that four gypsy women be\nprocured at once from another camp. Moreover, I asked SS\nObersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to take steps to have the low-pressure\nchamber made ready for use.\n\nThe report to Field Marshal Milch planned for 11 September could not be\nmade, as you have discovered, because he was prevented from attending,\nand no representative was commissioned to receive it. As the Reich\nLeader had not empowered me to report to anyone in the Reich Air\nMinistry (RLM), I abstained from making the report, which rather nettled\nthe gentlemen of the Medical Inspectorate [Sanitaetsinspektion]. I\nimmediately informed Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. For the time being\nthe report is being held as a military secret at the German Aviation\nResearch Institute (DVL) together with a distribution list prepared by\nthe Reich Air Ministry. The distribution of the copies, however, has not\nyet taken place, because, as I said, the report has not yet been made to\nMilch. I assume that you were informed of this whole business long ago.\nWhat shall we do now?\n\nI wish to enclose a letter of thanks to the Reich Leader from the former\nprisoner Neff. At the same time I should like to thank you very much for\nyour efforts; and let me beg you, should opportunity offer, to convey to\nthe Reich Leader my most sincere thanks for his granting of this\nrequest. I did not write to the Reich Leader in person, in order not to\nmake any further demands on his valuable time.\n\n With best wishes and\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours most sincerely\n [Signed] S. RASCHER.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1619-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 87\n\nTELETYPE FROM COMMANDANT OF DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP TO RUDOLF BRANDT,\n 7 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT FOUR WOMEN WOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM\n RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP FOR RASCHER\u2019S EXPERIMENTS\n\n Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) Message Center\n\n * * * * *\n\nCONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU 9793 7 OCTOBER 1942 1630-FR-\n\nTO SS OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER DR. BRANDT BERLIN PRINZ ALBRECHT STR. 8. THE\nHEADQUARTERS CONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU REQUESTS CHIEF OF THE AMTSGRUPPE\nSS BRIGADEFUEHRER GLUECKS TO HAVE THE FOUR WOMEN ORDERED BY THE REICH\nLEADER SS FOR STABSARZT DR. RASCHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENTS SENT\nIMMEDIATELY FROM RAVENSBRUECK TO DACHAU.\n\nSIGNED WEISS, SS STURMBANNFUEHRER AND COMMANDANT OF THE CAMP.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-286\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 88\n\n LETTER FROM GOERING\u2019S OFFICE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, WITH ATTACHED\nINVITATION TO THE CONFERENCE ON \u201cMEDICAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM HARDSHIPS\n OF SEA AND WINTER\u201d\n\nThe Reich Air Minister\nand Commander in chief\n of the Luftwaffe\nAz: 55 No. 5 340/secret/42 (L. I. 14, 2IIB)\n\n Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942\n Leipziger Strasse 7\n By Messenger!\nSubject: Research order on Freezing [Abkuehlung].\n\nReference: 1. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 55\n No. 20058/41 (2II B) dated: 24/2/42\n\n 2. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 21\n o-r No. 10909/42 (1 II A) dated: 6/8/42\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS\n\nThe Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given an\norder for research to the Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference\nabove, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem:\n\n \u201cThe effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects.\u201d\n\nAt the proposal of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were\nmade of human beings, and in agreement with the Reich Leader SS suitable\nSS facilities were used for the examinations.\n\nIn order to carry out these examinations a research group \u201cHardships at\nSea\u201d (\u201cSeenot\u201d) was set up, consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as\nleader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke.\n\nThe leader of this research group reported that the examinations have\nbeen concluded.\n\nIt is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 15\nOctober 1942.\n\nThe research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the\nReich Leader SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the\noriginals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the\ndisposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.\n\nIt is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract,\naccessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nuernberg\non 26 and 27 October 1942. The agenda schedule of the conference is\nclosed.\n\nThe SS Central Office, Medical Department [SS Hauptamt, Sanitaetsamt]\nhas been invited to this discussion by letter, dated 30 September 1942.\n\nIt is further requested to abstain from forwarding the documents and the\nreport to other nonmedical offices.\n\n Draft signed [Im Entwurf gez.]\n By order\n WULLEN\n True Copy\n [Signature] ANTHONY\n1 enclosure\n[Enclosure]\nThe Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\n\nConference on \u201cMedical Problems Arising from Hardships of Sea and\nWinter\u201d on 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nuernberg, Hotel \u201cDer Deutsche\nHof,\u201d 29-35 Frauentorgraben. Chairman of the conference: Stabsarzt\nProfessor Dr. Anthony, L. In. 14.\n\n_Tentative schedule_:\n\n26 October 1942.\n\n * * * * *\n\n15.35 o\u2019clock\u2014Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz:\n \u201cWarming Up after Freezing to the Danger Point\u201d.\n15.55 o\u2019clock\u2014Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner:\n \u201cPrevention and Treatment of Freezing.\u201d\n16.40 o\u2019clock\u2014Discussion.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1613-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 90\n\nLETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 OCTOBER 1942, TRANSMITTING REPORT ON\n COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS (NO-428)\n\nDr. Sigmund Rascher\n Munich 16 October 42\n Troger Str. 56\nHighly esteemed Reich Leader!\n\nPermit me to submit the attached final report on the super-cooling\nexperiments performed at Dachau. This report does not contain the course\nand results of a series of experiments with drugs as well as experiments\nwith animal body heat [animalische Waerme] which are now being\nconducted. Likewise this report does not contain the microscopic\npathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. I was\nsurprised at the extraordinary microscopic findings in this field. I\nwill carry out experiments before the start of the conference in which\nthe effect of cooling will be discussed and I hope to be able to present\nfurther results by that time. My two coworkers left Dachau about 8 days\nago.\n\nIn the hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, will be able to\nspare a quarter of an hour to listen to an oral report, I remain, with\nthe most obedient regards and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours respectfully.\n [Signed] S. RASCHER.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-428\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 91\n\n REPORT OF 10 OCTOBER 1942, ON COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS\n\n STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HOLZLOEHNER\n STABSARZT DR. S. RASCHER\n STABSARZT DR. E. FINKE\n\n _I. Problem of the Experiment_\n\nUp to the present time there has been no basis for the treatment of\nshipwrecked persons who have been exposed for long periods of time to\nlow-water temperatures. These uncertainties extended to the possible\nphysical and pharmacological methods of attack. It was not clear, for\nexample, whether those who had been rescued should be warmed quickly or\nslowly. According to the current instructions for treating frozen\npeople, a slow warming up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical\nconsiderations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded\nsuggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy.\n\nAll these uncertainties rested in the last analysis upon the absence of\nwell-founded concepts concerning the cause of death by cold in human\nbeings. In the meantime, in order to clarify this question, a series of\nanimal experiments were started. And, indeed, these officials who wished\nto make definite suggestions to the doctors in the sea-rescue service\nhad to assume a great deal of responsibility if it came to a question of\nconvincing and consistent results in these animal experiments. At this\nparticular point it is especially difficult to carry the findings in\nanimals over into the human field. In the warm-blooded, one finds a\nvaried degree of development in the heat-regulating mechanism. Besides\nthis, the processes in the skin of the pelted animals cannot be carried\nover to man.\n\n _II. General Procedure of the Experiment_\n\nThe effect of _water temperatures_ of 2\u00b0, 3\u00b0, to 12\u00b0 C. [34\u00b0, 37\u00b0, to\n54\u00b0 F.] were investigated. A tank 2\u00d72\u00d72 m. [6-2/3\u00d76-2/3\u00d76-2/3 ft.]\nserved as an _experimental basin_. The water temperature was attained by\naddition of ice, and remained constant during the experiment. The\nexperimental subjects were generally dressed in _equipment_ such as the\nflier wears, consisting of underclothing, uniform, a one piece summer or\nwinter protective suit, helmet, and aviators fur-lined boots. In\naddition they wore a life preserver of rubber or kapok. The effect of\n_additional protective clothing_ against water-cold was tested in a\nspecial series of experiments, and in another series the _cooling of the\nunclothed person_ was studied.\n\nThe _bodily warmth_ was measured _thermoelectrically_. Following\npreliminary experiments in which gastric temperatures were measured by a\nthermic sound, we adopted the procedure of continuously registering\n_rectally_ the body temperature [Kerntemperatur]. Parallel with this,\nthe recording of the _skin temperature_ was undertaken. The point of\nmeasurement was the skin of the back at the level of the fifth thoracic\ncertebral process. The thermoelectrical measurements were controlled\nbefore, during, and after the experiments by thermometric tests of the\ncheek and rectal temperature.\n\nIn severe cooling, _checking of the pulse_ is difficult. The pulse\nbecomes weaker, the musculature become stiff, and shivering sets in.\nAuscultation during the experiment by means of a tube stethoscope\nfastened over the tip of the heart proved effective. The tubes were led\nout of the uniform and made possible the continuous _listening to the\nheart during the stay in the water_.\n\n_Electrocardiographic controls_ were not possible in the water. After\nremoval from the water they were possible only in those cases in which,\na too severe muscle shivering did not disturb the electrocardiograph\nrecords.\n\nThe following _chemical studies_ were carried out: following up of the\n_blood sugar picture_ (continuous); the _sodium chloride picture_ in the\nserum; the _nonprotein nitrogen_ (_Rest-N_); the _alkali reserve_; the\nalkali reserve of the venous and arterial blood and _sedimentation rate_\n(before and after the experiment). Besides this the general _blood\ncondition_ and _viscosity_ were followed during the experiment, and\nbefore and after the experiment the _resistance_ of the red blood cells\nand the protein content of the blood plasma (this refractometrically)\nwere measured.\n\nThe following _urinalyses_ were made regularly: _sediment_, _albumen_,\n_sugar_, _sodium chloride_, _acetone_, _acetic acid_, as well as a\nqualitative _albumen_ determination.\n\nIn part of the experiment lumbar and suboccipital punctures were made as\nwell as corresponding spinal fluid studies.\n\nAmong _physical_ and _therapeutic measures_ the following were tested:\n\n _a._ Rapid warming by means of a _hot_ bath.\n\n _b._ Warming by means of a _light cradle_.\n\n _c._ Warming in a heated _sleeping bag_.\n\n _d._ Vigorous _massage_ of the whole body.\n\n _e._ _Wrapping in covers._\n\n _f._ _Diathermy of the heart._\n\nIn addition the following drugs were given: _Strophanthin_ i. v.;\n_Cardiaz_ 1 i. v. and i. c.; _Lobelin and Coramin_ i. v. and i. c. In\nother experiments alcohol or grape sugar was given.\n\nA part of the experiments was begun under _narcosis_ (8 cc. _Evipan_ i.\nv.).\n\n _III. The Clinical Picture of Cooling_\n\nThe clinical picture as well as the behavior of the body temperature\nshowed certain regularities in the general course; the time of\nappearance of certain phenomena was, however, subject to very great\n_individual variations_. As one might expect, a _good general physical\ncondition_ delayed the cooling and the concomitant phenomena. Further\ndifferences were conditioned by the _position of the subject in the\nwater_ and the _manner of clothing_. Furthermore, differences showed up\nbetween experiments in which the subject lay horizontally in the water\nso that the nape of the neck and the back of the head were splashed with\nwater, and others in which neck and head protruded freely out of the\nwater.\n\nPeculiarly, the _actual water temperatures_ between 2\u00b0 C. and 12\u00b0 C.\n[35\u00b0 and 54\u00b0 F.] had no demonstrable effect upon the rate of the\ncooling. Naturally such an effect must exist. But since besides the\nalready mentioned individual differences and those due to experimental\nconditions, the various subjects cooled on different days at different\nrates of speed, the effect of the actual water temperatures between 2\u00b0\nand 12\u00b0 disappears behind such variations.\n\nIf the experimental subject was placed in the water under narcosis, one\nobserved a certain arousing effect. The subject began to groan and made\nsome defensive movements. In a few cases a state of excitation\ndeveloped. This was especially severe in the cooling of head and neck.\nBut never was a complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The\ndefensive movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a\nprogressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the arm\nmusculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to the body. The\nrigor increased with the continuation of the cooling, now and then\ninterrupted by tonic-clonic twitchings. With still more marked sinking\nof the body temperature it suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally,\nwithout any successful results from resuscitation efforts.\n\nIn the course of the narcosis experiments the evipan effects in a few\ncases went directly over into a cold narcosis; in other cases one could\ndetermine a transitory return of consciousness, immediately following\nthe awakening effect already described; at any rate, the experimental\nsubjects were dizzy. Cold pain was not expressed.\n\nExperiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in the\ncourse of cooling. Upon entry into the water a severe cold shuddering\nappeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the head was felt as\nespecially painful, but already after 5 to 10 minutes a significant\nweakening of the pain sensation was observable. Rigor developed after\nthis time in the same manner as under narcosis, likewise the\ntonic-clonic twitchings. At this point speech became difficult because\nthe rigor also affected the speech musculature.\n\nSimultaneously with the rigor a severe _difficulty in breathing_ set in\nwith or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to speak, an iron\nring was placed about the chest. Objectively, already at the beginning\nof this breathing difficulty, a marked _dilatation of the nostrils_\noccurred. The _expiration was prolonged and visibly difficult_. This\ndifficulty passed over into a rattling and snoring breathing. However,\nthe breathing at this point was not especially deep as in Kussmaul\u2019s\nbreathing nor were any Cheyne-Stokes breathing or Biot\u2019s breathing to be\nobserved. Not in all subjects, but in a great number, a simultaneous\nhindering during this breathing through very profuse _secretion of\nmucous_ could be established. Under these conditions sometimes a white,\n_fine-bubbled foam_ appeared at the mouth which reminded one of an\nincipient _lung oedema_, though it was not possible to determine this\nsymptom with certainty by clinical auscultation; only a sharpened\nunclean breath sound was audible. This foam might occur early, that is,\nat rectal temperatures of 32\u00b0 C. to 35\u00b0 C.; [90\u00b0-95\u00b0 F.]. No special\nsignificance was to be attributed to this regarding the outcome of the\nexperiment which is the opposite of the described relaxation of rigor.\nThe _rate of breathing increased_ at the beginning of the experiment,\nbut after about 20 minutes it decreased to something like 24 per minute\nwith slight variations.\n\nIn general a definite _dulling of consciousness_ occurred at the\ndropping of the body temperature of 31\u00b0 C. [88\u00b0 F.] rectal temperature.\nNext, the subjects still responded to speech but finally answered very\nsleepily. The _pupils_ dilated markedly. The contraction under light\nbecame increasingly weaker. The gaze was directed overhead with a\ncompulsive fixation. After withdrawal from the water _an increase in the\nreflexes_ was evident in spite of the rigor, and regularly a very marked\ndrawing up of the testicles occurred which practically disappeared into\nthe abdomen. Early in the experiment the _face_ was pale. After 40 to 50\nminutes _cyanosis_ appeared. With this the face appeared redder, the\nmucous membrane bluish-red. The skin veins were not maximally collapsed\nand were virtually always penetrable.\n\nThe _heart activity_ showed a constant change independent of all other\nindividual variations, which was noticeable in all subjects. Upon\nintroduction into the water with narcotized subjects as well as\nnonnarcotized subjects, the heart rate went suddenly to about 120 per\nminute. At a rectal body temperature of about 34\u00b0 C. [93\u00b0 F.] it then\nbegan to become increasingly slower and to sink continuously to about 50\nper minute.\n\nThe bradycardia at a body temperature of about 29\u00b0 to 30\u00b0 C. [84\u00b0 to 86\u00b0\nF.] changed suddenly to an _arrythmia perpetua_ or, as the case may be,\nto a _total irregularity_ and this began with a slow form of about 50\nbeats per minute; this slow form of irregularity could be transformed\ninto a faster one. The transformation to the faster form was not an\nunfavorable sign regarding life.\n\nWhen an electrocardiographic control after the experiment was possible,\nit regularly showed a Vorhof flutter. Let it be anticipated _that this\nirregularity could continue to exist after the cessation of the cooling\nand a recovery of the body temperature to 33\u00b0 or 34\u00b0 C. [91\u00b0 or 93\u00b0 F.]\n1\u00bd to 2 hours after removal from the water_, but then customarily\nchanged of itself and without therapeutic aids into a coordinated heart\nactivity. In the same way let it be anticipated that in all cases with a\nlethal termination, a sudden cessation of the heartbeat ensued upon an\nirregularity of the slow type.\n\nA check of the _blood pressure_ was attempted, but was in no case\nsatisfactory since an exact measurement was not possible in the decisive\nstage of the experiment because of the severe rigor and muscle\nfibrillation.\n\nReference has already been made to _individual differences in the\nbehavior of the rectal temperatures_. Figure 4 gives an example which\nincludes four experiments, in which four different experimental subjects\nwere cooled at identical water temperatures and with identical clothing.\nIt was shown that in water at 4.5\u00b0 C. [40\u00b0 F.] temperature the time\nrequired for reaching a rectal temperature of about 29.5\u00b0 C. [85\u00b0 F.]\nvaries between 70 and 90 minutes. But nevertheless the diagram shows\nthat in spite of these individual differences, it is observable that the\nprogress of the rectal temperature proceeds according to rule. The body\ntemperature begins to sink rapidly from about 35\u00b0 C. [95\u00b0-97\u00b0 F.].\n\n_It is of very great practical significance at this point that the body\ntemperature continues to sink virtually lineally for a considerable time\nafter removal from the water._ This continued drop can last 20 minutes\nor more. During this drop an after-drop of 4\u00b0 C. [7\u00b0 F.] could be\nobserved, and indeed not only at temperatures under 30\u00b0 C. [86\u00b0 F.]. In\none case it was observed that an interruption of the experiment at 35\u00b0\nC. [95\u00b0 F.] after a further lapse of 20 minutes the rectal temperature\nhad fallen 4\u00b0 to 5\u00b0 C. [8\u00b0 F.] more. We will later discuss the\n\u201carresting\u201d of this after-drop by physical measures.\n\nIn our experimental series, the lowest rectal temperatures which could\nbe survived varied individually just as did the progress of the\ntemperature drop. In general (in six cases) death occurred with a drop\nin temperature to values between 24.2\u00b0 and 25.7\u00b0 C. [75.6\u00b0 and 77.6\u00b0\nF.]. In one case, however, a drop to 25.2\u00b0 C. was survived. This\nexperiment fell outside the typical picture insofar as after 90 minutes\nat 26.6\u00b0 C. [79.9\u00b0 F.] a virtually stationary condition of the rectal\ntemperature had become established for 85 minutes. We will come back\nagain to this special experiment.\n\nThe _skin temperature_ sinks or drops much more rapidly than the rectal\ntemperature. Within a minute there occurs a thorough saturation of the\narticles of clothing. Correspondingly the skin temperature falls already\nwithin 5 minutes to values between 24\u00b0 and 19\u00b0 C. [75\u00b0 and 66\u00b0 F.].\nAfter 10 minutes it may have already dropped to 12\u00b0 C. [54\u00b0 F.]. Within\n10 to 20 minutes more after the beginning of the experiment the\nsteepness of the drop changes considerably. The curve of the skin\ntemperature runs for some time, that is, for 15 to 30 minutes virtually\nhorizontal. After this time there follows a further but now slower drop\nto the lowest figures, which may lie below 15\u00b0 C. [59\u00b0 F.] at the close\nof the experiment.\n\nParallel experiments which compare the _course of the rectal\ntemperatures_ and the cooling of the body with and _without submersion\nof neck and back of head_ showed great difference in temperature drop.\nThe curves pertain to the same experimental subject. The one with the\ndeep fall to 26\u00b0 C. [79\u00b0 F.] in 70 minutes was obtained with a water\ntemperature of 12\u00b0 C. [54\u00b0 F.] the other with a drop to 32.5\u00b0 C. [90.4\u00b0\nF.] in the same time resulted from a water temperature of 5.5\u00b0 C. [41.9\u00b0\nF.]. The very marked difference cannot be explained by a variation in\nresistance of the particular person, but is to be attributed to the\nposition of the subject in the water and his head covering. In the\nexperiment with the water at 12\u00b0 C. [54\u00b0 F.] the subject, in a kapok\nlife preserver, lay flat in the water so that his neck and the back of\nhis head were well submerged; beyond this he did not wear a flier\u2019s\nhelmet. In the other experiment with water at 5.5\u00b0 C. [41.9\u00b0 F.] the\nhead was covered with an aviator\u2019s summer helmet without headphones. The\nsubject wore a rubber life preserver open at the back; with this, the\nhead is somewhat out of the water.\n\nIn order to follow up the effect of _isolated cooling of the neck and\nthe back of the head_ on consciousness, body temperature, and\ncirculation, this was undertaken in three special experiments. The\nexperimental subject lay horizontal; the back of the head and the neck\nwere dipped into a receptacle through which water of corresponding\ntemperature was continuously run. In an experiment of 3 hours duration\nthere occurred small temperature drops of not more than 0.8\u00b0 C. [1.4\u00b0\nF.]. The water temperature was 1\u00b0 to 2\u00b0 C. [34\u00b0 to 35\u00b0 F.]. In one case\nafter 50 minutes a marked sleepiness occurred which changed over into a\ndeep narcosis. The heart activity was variable, and obvious bradycardia\ncould not be observed. Irregularity never developed. Changes were not\nseen in the electrocardiograph. On the other hand in all three subjects\nthe spinal fluid pressure was markedly increased after the ending of the\nexperiment to maximal values of 300 mm. After the experiment, ataxia and\ndefinite Romberg phenomena were observed, as well as exaggeration of the\nnormal reflexes; pathological reflexes were absent.\n\n _IV. Blood, Spinal Fluid, and Urine During Freezing_\n\nThe _differential blood smears_ showed no special features during\ncooling. On the other hand the number of white and red blood corpuscles\nshows a regular change. The _number of leukocytes_ rapidly increases,\nroughly with the beginning of the steeper temperature drop at about 35\u00b0\nC. [95\u00b0 F.] rectal temperature to values of from 25,000 to 27,000 per\ncu. mm. After one hour a maximum may be reached and a falling-off begins\nin the number of leukocytes, while the body temperature falls still\nfurther. The number of red corpuscles undergoes an increase, though to a\nrelatively small degree, which in its course resembles the change in the\n_number of leukocytes_. We saw increases up to 20 percent. This increase\nis interrupted even earlier than the increase in the number of\nleukocytes, so that both curves give no reflection of the temperature\ncurve. The increase of the erythrocytes corresponded to the increase of\nthe hemoglobin of from 10 to 20 percent. A reduction of the fragility of\nthe red corpuscles could not be demonstrated with certainty, on the\nother hand, although in three experiments a definite hemolysis occurred.\n\nThe viscosity regularly increases with the beginning of the fall in\ntemperature. The rise can reach values up to 7.8. This rise occurs very\nearly, indeed, already at body temperatures of 35\u00b0 C. [95\u00b0 F.]. After\nthat the values remain relatively constant with further temperature\nfalls. The _albumen content of the plasma_ was likewise increased after\nthe experiment, on the average by 1 percent of the absolute value. Since\nthese measurements could not be made as often as those of viscosity for\ntechnical reasons, the connection with the progress of the viscosity\nremained unclear. Such a connection could not be recognized from the\nabsolute values obtained.\n\nWith the acceleration of the temperature drop, there always occurs a\nmore marked increase of the blood sugar to maximal values which may\nattain an average _increase of 80 percent_ and in a few cases may reach\nan _increase of over 100 percent_. According to that, the maximal value\nof about 27.5\u00b0 C. [81.5\u00b0 F.] is reached and is maintained for some time.\nIt is to be observed that _as long as the temperature drop continues, in\nno experiment was it possible to observe a decrease in these high blood\nsugar values_. It is usually to be observed that a relatively rapid drop\nof the blood sugar values sets in when, after removal from the water,\nthe temperature drop ceases and goes over into a temperature rise. We\nconsider these findings to be of theoretical significance. During the\nisolated cooling of the neck and back of the head which was described in\nsection III the blood sugar remained constant.\n\nIn striking contrast to the increase of the blood sugar, there was never\nestablished a _corresponding glycosuria_ in the urine collected\nimmediately after the experiment or withdrawn through a catheter,\nalthough considerable quantities of urine averaging 500 cc. were found\nin the bladder; in only two cases could traces of sugar (0.5 percent) be\ndemonstrated. This paradoxical behavior can, perhaps, be explained in\nthis manner: during the time of great blood sugar increase, a blocking\nof the kidneys had occurred, and that the associated urine quantities\nwere formed before or after this blocking under reflex polyuria. Acetone\nand acetic acid, likewise, could not be demonstrated in the urine.\n\nThe _alkali reserve_ in the arterial and venous blood was regularly very\nmuch reduced at the end of the experiments. Experiments concerning\n_oxygen saturation_ could not be carried out. According to the color of\nthe venous blood withdrawn from the arm veins, the saturation of this\nblood must have been very greatly reduced; the blood was virtually black\nas it came into the syringe. Noteworthy in this connection are the\nautopsy findings which were undertaken directly after death. In these,\nthe blood in the right heart appeared very dark, and in the left heart\nvery bright red. According to this, one must calculate upon an _increase\nin the saturation differential between the arteries and veins_.\n\n_Sodium chloride_ and _nonprotein nitrogen_ in the blood were not clear\nin the blood at the end of the experiments or increased within the limit\nof error. _Sodium chloride in the urine_ was generally less,\ncorresponding to a reduction of the specific gravity. On the other hand\nat the end of the experiments _traces of albumin_ could regularly be\ndemonstrated _in the urine_ and moderately increased leukocytes,\noccasional erythrocytes, and epithelial cells in the sediments. In\nparticular cases, _albumin casts_ were also observed. The reaction of\nthe urine remained identical before and after the experiments virtually\nwithout exception. The studies of the bile yielded no results.\n\n_Lumbar and suboccipital_ punctures immediately after the experiments\nshowed a considerable _increase in fluid pressure_. On the average it\namounted to between 50 and 60 mm. In one case, an _increase to 420 mm._\nwas seen. The protein values were always normal. Cell increases did not\nappear, likewise no abnormal deviation of the colloidal gold curve was\nobserved. The meaning of these findings for therapy is still to be\ndiscussed later.\n\n _V. Recovery After Cooling and Its Dependence Upon Physiotherapeutic\n Measures_\n\nThe important fact has already been referred to that after rescue from\nthe cold water, the body temperature sinks further and so a further\ntemperature reduction of 4\u00b0 C. [7\u00b0 F.] may take place. As was likewise\nemphasized, this may occur as a postphenomenon not only when low\ntemperatures have been obtained already during the experiments, but it\ncan be noted also at final temperatures of 35\u00b0 C. [95\u00b0 F.]. A dependence\nof this after-drop on the duration of the experiment could not be\nestablished; as a result it is difficult to calculate in advance. This\nfact becomes of great importance for practical measures; on the other\nhand it makes it difficult to gain an insight into the manner in which\nvarious physiotherapeutic measures affect the arresting of this\nafter-drop and the recovery of the body temperature. Only because of the\nlarge number of the experiments was it possible to obtain well-founded\nconcepts of this.\n\nThe _flattest rise of the body temperature_ was to be observed when the\nsubject was merely dried off, wrapped in warm cover, and left to himself\nafter removal from the water. The recovery is greatly accelerated if the\nsubject is placed in a hot bath as soon as possible after the removal of\nthe wet articles of clothing. Warming under a light cradle assisted the\ntemperature rise. Vigorous massage had a favorable effect, however, only\nif it was preceded by treatment in a hot bath or light cradle. _In no\ncase was it established that there was any indication of bad effects\nfrom the hot water or the light cradle, or that the subject had been\nharmed in any way._ On the other hand, it was observed in three cases\nthat a hot bath had doubtless a life saving effect. In two of these\ncases there had been complete cessation of heart and breathing action,\nand in one case the heart had stopped for several seconds after a\nmarkedly slackened irregularity before the subject was placed into water\nof not more than 50\u00b0 C. [122\u00b0 F.]. _As a result of this we can discard\nall traditional objections to a sudden rewarming._\n\nThe favorable effect of a hot bath is still clearer in the observation\nof the general condition of the subject than in the temperature curves,\nalthough it cannot be presented objectively. The breathing very often\nbecomes \u201cfreer\u201d immediately upon introduction into the hot water. The\nhot water releases a strong stimulus; the unconscious subject often\nreacts with an outcry. Soon thereafter there occurs a distinct lessening\nof the severe rigor. The return of consciousness occurs sooner, and\nindeed at temperatures at which it did not usually happen under other\nmethods of treatment.\n\nIn the first experiments with hot water treatment, this was continued\nonly for 10 minutes; after that the subjects were removed and vigorously\nmassaged. Under these circumstances it could be established that the\ntemperature rise continued during the rubbing, indeed in one experiment\nthe rise became steeper. As already indicated, this favorable effect of\ndry rubbing was not so pronounced without preliminary treatment by heat.\nIt is important, too, that the rubbing be done when the severe spasm of\nthe peripheral vessels has already passed.\n\n_In view of this, the hot hath is the best method of treatment of the\nseverely cooled person._ However, in the practice of sea rescue service\nit will not be possible to carry out this method, since the necessary\nmeans are not available in aircraft and boats. Under these circumstances\nwe must consider next only the rapid rewarming with light cradle or\nelectrically _heated sleeping bag_. Therefore a sleeping bag as now used\nin the sea rescue service was also tested. It was evident that the\ntemperatures which can be developed by this means are not sufficient for\nheat therapy. With those it was possible to reach a temperature of only\n32\u00b0 C. [90\u00b0 F.] over the skin, with the heat turned on fully. Besides\nthis, the wall of the foot-section of the sleeping bag is only partly\nheated; on the outer sides it remains completely cold. As long as no\nimprovement and strengthening of the heating equipment of the sack is\ncarried out, the sleeping bag can be considered only as a substitute for\nwrapping in warm covers.\n\nThe warming by means of the _light cradle_ is more uneven than with a\nhot bath. With warming by light one might expect severe local vessel\nexpansion with _danger of collapse_. Actually the subjects often\ncomplained of dizziness and nausea after reaching consciousness if the\ntreatment lasted longer than 15 minutes. Occasionally vomiting occurred.\nIn these cases it is indicated to switch off the light cradle and to\npack the subject with covers. Apart from this it must be remembered that\nduring unconsciousness the subject should be protected against direct\ncontact with the lamps by means of covers, otherwise burns could occur\nduring clonic-tonic convulsions.\n\nThis suggests that \u201c_short waves_\u201d be employed to supply heat, since it\nwas shown in animal experimentation that by this means it is possible to\nbring about a thorough warming of the whole animal, which leads to a\nrecovery of the animal with puzzling rapidity. We did not have the\nproper equipment for a thorough warming of a human being by this means.\nFor this reason the _short wave therapy of the heart_ was tried. This\ndid not have any demonstrable effect. Above all, it is necessary to\nadvise against a practical application of this method, since there\nexists the danger of prolonged burning even in full consciousness, as\nthe result of cold anaesthesia, even if the treating physician carefully\ntries to avoid this.\n\nThe severe difficulty in breathing as well as the formation of foam\nbefore the mouth, which reminded one of incipient lung oedema, seemed to\nindicate oxygen therapy. Therefore this therapy was tried in four\nexperiments. It showed no effect on either the breathing or the heart\naction. It has been pointed out that the arterial blood appears\nespecially light red.\n\n _VI. Death After Cooling in Water_\n _Practical and Theoretical Considerations_\n\nReports to the effect that those who have been rescued at sea are\nimperilled for a considerable time after rescue has aroused special\nattention. It has been reported especially that sudden cases of death\noccurred as much as 20 minutes to 90 minutes after rescue, and that in\nmass catastrophes these sudden deaths could amount to mass-dying (rescue\ncollapse). These observations have set off far-reaching discussions.\nBleeding in the rewarming periphery, break-downs of neural and humoral\ncorrelations and similar ideas have been brought up.\n\nIn contrast to this our experiments give a relatively simple explanation\nof cold-death under these conditions. With the exception of a single\ncase, a total irregularity of the heart chamber could be definitely\ndemonstrated in all cases of cooling under 30\u00b0 C. [86\u00b0 F.], (50\nexperiments), when the rectal temperature reached 29\u00b0 C. [84\u00b0 F.] and\nusually already at a cooling of 31\u00b0 C. [88\u00b0 F.]. The exception was an\nexperiment on an intoxicated subject, which is to be gone into more\nfully below (_see sec. VII_).\n\n_Furthermore heart-death was established clinically in all cases of\ndeath observed by us._ In two cases breathing ceased simultaneously with\nthe heart activity. These were cases in which it was specially noted\nthat the neck and the back of the head lay deep in the water. In all\nremaining cases breathing outlasted the clinical chamber cessation by as\nmuch as 20 minutes. In part this was \u201cnormal, much decelerated\nbreathing,\u201d in part an angonal form of gasping. As already referred to,\nan auricular flutter could be demonstrated cardiographically during the\nirregularity.\n\nIn cases in which a special _cooling of neck and back of head_ had\nexisted before death, the _autopsy_ showed _a marked brain oedema_, a\ntight filling of the general brain cavity [Hirngefaesse] blood in the\nspinal fluid as well as blood in the Michaelisrhomboid.\n\nThe heart findings warrant our taking a certain attitude toward _the\nquestion of rescue collapse_. Death occurred relatively quickly after\nremoval from the water, which may be compared with rescue. The longest\ninterval involved was 14 minutes. It is to be noted, however, in the\nfirst place, that almost certainly a much larger number of deaths would\nhave been observed if an active heat therapy had not almost regularly\nbeen coupled directly with the completion of the experiment; in the\nsecond place, that in such cases there would have been very much longer\nintervals. We have already called attention repeatedly to the\nafter-cooling following the experiment. In every case where this had\nproceeded to a certain point, countermeasures were taken, since the\nexperiments were never planned to end in death. One may well imagine,\nhowever, that in mass catastrophes, in which almost exclusively rescue\ncollapse has heretofore been described, the therapeutic measures were\nconfined to an undressing and drying off of the rescued together with a\nsubsequent wrapping in covers. Under these conditions after-drops of\ngreat magnitude and long duration were to be expected. In the course of\nthis delayed fall in temperature, a heart-death might occur as in our\nexperiments.\n\n_We should like to emphasize that the irregularity per se is not to be\nregarded in our experiments as a symptom of danger to life any more than\nin the clinic, but rather as a sign of direct heart damage, which\nincreases continuously with further falling off of temperature, until\nfinally the heart fails. If the temperature drop is arrested, the slow\nform of irregularity passes over into a rapid form._ This transition is\na favorable sign for survival; for this irregularity virtually always\npasses over of itself after a time averaging 90 minutes into normal\nheart activity. It continues therefore for a long time after the body\ntemperature has already risen markedly. A danger to the circulatory\nsystem could not be demonstrated at this stage. In three cases the\nreturn of the heart action to normal occurred in spite of simultaneous\nenergetic physical work.\n\nWith the demonstration that cold-death of man is primarily a\nheart-death, the essential points for therapy are also cleared up. The\n_cause of the severe heart_ damage is another question. Since our\nstudies were primarily aimed at the development of practical methods of\ntreatment, we will not go very far into the theoretical concepts which\nmay be developed in this connection. Still, several hints may be drawn\nfrom the blood studies:\n\n1. The great increase of the _viscosity_ causes an _increased loading_\nupon the heart.\n\n2. The _choking of peripheral vessel_ areas by the severe vessel\ncontraction leads to an over-filling of the central areas. This appears\nnot only from our autopsies. In all available records of autopsies which\npertain to cases of death from cold in the water after sea disaster, we\nfind uniformly a severe over-filling of the right heart.\n\n3. It is to be calculated that, under the effect of the low blood\ntemperature, the _heart_ itself becomes severely _hypodynamic_. It has\nbeen proved long ago in animal experimentation that a Vorhof flutter can\nbe developed by the overloading and cooling of the isolated heart.\n\nBesides a physical damaging of the heart musculature by the cold, we\nmust also keep in mind the _damaging by pathological products of\nmetabolism_. Next, the sharp increase in blood sugar may be connected\nwith the increased outpouring of adrenalin. The constancy of this\nincrease of blood sugar during the temperature drop is, however,\nremarkable. One may well assume that this flow of adrenalin exhausts\nitself with the continuance of the temperature drop. With this there\nwould have to be a rapid decrease in the blood sugar if the oxidation\nprocesses were to continue undisturbed. The decrease in the alkali\nreserve or the development of an acidosis argues strongly for an injury.\n\nAnimal experiments, with general cooling, give grounds for believing\nthat the intermediary metabolism is disturbed during drops in\ntemperature; but this change is also discussed in connection with local\nfreezing of the human being and has been proved to a certain extent.\nFurthermore, not only this disturbance shows a transition between\ngeneral and local damage by cold. In both cases there occurs an increase\nin viscosity, which points to a change in the capillary walls and\nindicates the conclusion that there is a change in the permeability of\nthose walls for protein and water.\n\nThe heart-death remains prominent, the regular increase of spinal fluid\npressure with severe cooling of the neck and back of the head leaves it\nunsettled whether, in addition, this has pathognomonic significance for\nthe outcome. With a fluid pressure of 420 mm. it must in fact be assumed\nthat this participates in the development of bradycardia.\n\nThe detection of an increase in fluid pressure is also not without\nsignificance for therapy. One may think of a lumbar or suboccipital\npuncture as a measure to be prescribed. After a lumbar puncture there\noccurs a transformation of the slow form of arrhythmia into the rapid\nform. It must remain undecided whether such measures, which delay a\nrapid, active rewarming, are to be recommended for practical application\nin the sea-rescue service.\n\nThe idea that cold-death in water depends upon failure of the heart,\naccompanied or unaccompanied by breathing, is subject to limitation. One\nexperiment among fifty-seven was typical. This involved survival of a\ncooling to 25.2\u00b0 C. [77.4\u00b0 F.] during a stay of 3 hours in water of 5.5\u00b0\nC. [41.4\u00b0 F.]. The rectal temperature under these conditions remained\nconstant within slight variations between 27\u00b0 and 25\u00b0 C. [81\u00b0 and 77\u00b0\nF.] for the last hour and a half. Likewise, quite irregularly, no\nincrease in blood sugar occurred. But most striking was the fact that\nuntil the end of the experiment and after its termination consciousness\nwas undisturbed. The course of the experiment reminded one of the\nbehavior of certain experimental animals which can withstand extremely\nlow body temperatures for long periods of time. Lower, warm-blooded\nanimals (for example, rats) can endure rectal temperatures of 20\u00b0 C.\n[68\u00b0 F.] for several hours. It is conceivable that this atypical\nexperiment, had it been continued, would have shown also an atypical\ncause of death. Against this we have the fact that an irregularity had\nalready set in but not before a temperature of 30.1\u00b0 C. [86.2\u00b0 F.] had\nbeen reached.\n\nAlso, aside from the fluid pressure increase, the part which the\n_central nervous system_ plays in the outcome of the experiment seems to\nus to be _secondary_. The experiments with simultaneous cooling of the\nneck of course showed how the cooling of the neck and back of the head\nspeeds up the lowering of temperature. This is to be explained by the\nfact that the counter-controls which are relayed from the temperature\ncenter to the periphery, either cannot exist further because of\nhypofunction of the centers (effect of oedema and cooling), or are no\nlonger transmitted because of cold-blocking of the pathways. But\nlikewise central counter-controls for the areas of the peripheral\ncapillaries may fall; thus delaying the overloading of the heart by\nextended periphera vasco friction.\n\n _VII. The Influence of Pharmacology and the Question of Alcohol_\n\nNow experiments by _Jarisch_ have shown that heart drugs like\n_strophanthin_ and stimulants like _cardiazol_ and _coramine_ in\ntherapeutic doses may react _toxically_ upon cooled animals. These\nfindings are a warning to be most careful in the medicinal treatment of\nseverely cooled persons, though strophanthin and cardiazol have\nheretofore been expressly recommended in such cases.\n\nIn experiments with fatal outcome, the stopping of the heart occurred\neither in the water or after an interval of not more than 14 minutes\nafter removal from the water. With such a rapid course of events it is\nunlikely that one can favorably influence the heart action by\nintravenous injections of strophanthin, especially because the\ncirculation is at a very low ebb before the heart-death. For this\nreason, in a case whose condition was already very dangerous,\n_strophanthin was given intracardially_ in a dose of 0.25 mg. Thereupon\nthe heart condition grew still worse and after 5 minutes the heart\nstopped. One had the impression that the heart action was made worse by\nthe intracardial injection of strophanthin. This is, however, the only\ncase which left the possibility of damage by strophanthin in doubt. No\nsuch damage could ever be established in the intravenous injection of\nstrophanthin. On the other hand no therapeutic effect, even with maximal\ndoses of 0.5 mg., could be detected. Figure 11 [not reproduced], last\nsection, shows the total duration in 10 cases of the irregularity\nobserved without strophanthin dosage. This varies between 25 and 200\nminutes. On the other hand in Figure 13 in the last section, first five\ncross-rows there are corresponding time values of 175 to 360 minutes. At\nvarious experimental time points during these experiments 0.25 to 0.5 of\nstrophanthin were given. Accordingly, a shortening of the duration of\nthe irregularity cannot be established. Furthermore no improvement of\nthe pulse or general condition was ever noted. Obviously these\nexperiments are too few to rule out a possible favorable effect in all\ncases. Several hundred experiments would be necessary to obtain\nstatistically reliable data on this point. And so, since contrary to\nanimal experimentation, we could not unquestionably establish damage\nfollowing intravenous strophanthin dosage, we may leave it to the\ntreating physician whether or not he may still want to make an\n_experiment with strophanthin_. To be sure, such an employment of it\nmust be advised against in case of a very much decelerated form of\nirregularity. This will be observed when there is the greatest danger;\nunder such circumstances time should never be lost by experimenting with\ndrugs, but every effort should be made in the direction of intensive\nheat therapy.\n\nAlso in the experiments with _cardiazol_, _coramin_ and _lobeline_ we\nrestricted ourselves primarily to determining whether injurious effects\noccurred in the case of relatively large doses. Four cc. of 10 percent\ncoramin as well as 2 cc. of 1 percent lobeline were injected\nintravenously at various stages of recovery without any marked objective\nand subjective deterioration of the state of the heart, the breathing,\nand the general condition. But just as with strophanthin, it is\nimpossible to rule out a possible therapeutically favorable effect\nbecause of the small number of experiments. We never observed such an\neffect. Especially the marked deepening of breathing and of the\nirritability of the trigeminal nerve which usually sets in very suddenly\nafter coramin (for example, sneezing immediately after the injection)\nwere always missing. Contrary to strophanthin, in the case of which we\ncannot advise against experimentation by intravenous injection under\ncertain conditions, we believe on theoretical grounds that such\nexperiments with _peripheral circulatory drugs_ which may heighten the\nvessel tonus are not indicated because of the following considerations:\nThe damage to the heart is to be attributed, among other things, to an\noverloading, which is caused by a blocking of enlarged vessel areas,\naside from an increase in viscosity. If the vessel tonus is further\nincreased in the areas which have remained unimpeded, the conditions for\nthe heart are thereby made worse.\n\nThe sceptical attitude toward the effect of drugs is strengthened above\nall by the observation that in the majority of the experiments in which\nno drugs were given, even the most severe disturbances of the peripheral\ncirculation were reduced remarkably rapidly under intensive heat\ntreatment. In this connection it must be emphasized that besides the\nrecovery of body temperature through heat therapy an unloading of the\nheart takes place because the blocked areas open up. Contrary to earlier\nconcepts, according to which there was danger of hemorrhage into the\nperiphery during rapid rewarming, and according to which one sought to\navoid this hemorrhage by wrapping up the extremities as well as by very\nslow warming, the \u201cvenalous bleeding into the periphery\u201d may be\nlife-saving under some circumstances. An exception, namely, loval\npyperacmia after considerable rise in temperature and corresponding\nreestablishment of circulation has already been described in the\nreference to the danger in some cases of very prolonged treatment in the\nlight cradle.\n\nThe familiar increase of peripheral blood volume as a result of alcohol\nleads one to expect that very intoxicated persons cool more rapidly.\nFigure 14[28] shows an experiment from which we may conclude that\n_actually acceleration of the cooling_ does set in after partaking\n_liberally of alcohol before the experiment_. It is very remarkable that\nin such an experiment, _the only exception among all cooling\nexperiments_, irregularity was absent in a cooling to 28.1\u00b0 C. [82.6\u00b0\nF.]. Even if it was not possible to reproduce this apparent protection\nagainst irregularity caused by partaking of alcohol in control\nexperiments on other subjects, there remains the possibility that the\ndistending of the peripheral vessels delays the overloading of the\nheart, just as on the other hand it increases the speed of cooling.\n\nOur observations contradict the old seafaring custom of pouring\n_alcohol_ into a person _already cooled_, since, according to these\nobservations the temperature tends, even in slight degrees of cooling,\nto sink further for a long time after rescue. As long as there is no\nactive supply of heat from outside, the disadvantage of an increased\nheat loss will reduce the utility of stopping the peripheral vessel\nblockage. Also in _later stages_ of recovery one must obviously be very\ncareful in giving alcohol; above all, this warning is emphasized by the\npossibility that one must reckon with a total irregularity after more\nthan an hour, which may go unnoticed by the inexperienced experimenter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _VIII. Preventive Measures_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _IX. Concerning Life Jackets_ [_Schwimmwesten_]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _X. Summary_\n\n1. The curve of rectal temperature of human beings chilled in water of\n2\u00b0 C. [35.6\u00b0 F.] to 12\u00b0 C. [53.6\u00b0 F.] shows a gradual drop to about 35\u00b0\nC. [95\u00b0 F.], after which the drop becomes rapid. Death may occur at\nrectal temperatures below 30\u00b0 C. [86\u00b0 F.].\n\n2. Death results from heart failure. The direct damage to the heart\nbecomes evident from the total irregularity observed in all cases,\nsetting in at approximately 30\u00b0 C. [86\u00b0 F.]. This cardiac damage is due\nto overloading of the heart, caused by the marked and regular increase\nin the viscosity of the blood, as well as by the marked throttling of\nlarge peripheral vascular areas; besides, a direct injury to the heart\nby the cold is also probable.\n\n3. If the neck is also chilled, the lowering of the temperature is more\nrapid. This is due to interference with the temperature-regulating and\nvascular centers; cerebral oedema also makes its appearance.\n\n4. The blood sugar rises as the temperature falls, and the blood sugar\ndoes not drop again as long as the body temperature continues to fall.\nThis fact suggests an intermediary disturbance of metabolism.\n\n5. Respiration of the chilled subject is rendered difficult due to the\nrigor of the respiratory musculature.\n\n6. After removal from the cold water, the body temperature may continue\nto fall for 15 minutes or longer. This may be an explanation of deaths\nwhich occur after successful rescue from the sea.\n\n7. Intensive rewarming never injures the severely chilled person.\n\n8. Strophanthin treatment was not observed to have been successful. The\nquestion of the use of strophanthin remains open, however. Remedies\nwhich influence the peripheral circulation are definitely not advisable.\n\n9. The most effective therapeutic measure is rapid and intensive heat\ntreatment, best applied by immersion in a hot bath.\n\n10. By means of special protective clothing, the survival time after\nimmersion in cold water could be extended to double the survival time of\nsubjects who were immersed without protective clothing.\n\n11. Certain proposals for improvement of life jackets are being made.\n\nConcluded on 10 October 1942.\n\n [Signed] Prof. DR. HOLZLOEHNER\n DR. RASCHER\n DR. FINKE\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Behavior of the heart action under the influence of medication_\n\n \u2502 \u2502Occurance of \u2502 Therapy \u2502Pulse becomes \u2502 Total \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502Irregularity \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 regular \u2502 dura- \u2502\nSubj.\u2502Water\u2502 After\u2502 At \u2502 \u2502 At\u2502 After exper. \u2502 tion \u2502\n \u2502temp.\u2502exper.\u2502 body\u2502 Mg. \u2502 min.\u2502time & admin. \u2502of ir- \u2502 Remarks\n \u2502 [\u00b0C]\u2502 time\u2502 temp.\u2502stroph.\u2502[min.]\u2502 strophanthin \u2502 regu- \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502[min.]\u2502 [\u00b0C]\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502larity \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 * \u2502 *\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nB. L \u2502 4\u2502 55\u2502 30\u25020.25 \u2502 65\u2502 \u2014 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502Death in\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 mg., \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 the\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 4 cc.\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 seventie\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 coram\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 th\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 in. \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minute,\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ten\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minutes\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 after\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 removal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 water.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nL. H \u2502 4\u2502 30\u2502 31.5\u25020.25 \u2502 60\u2502 \u2014 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502Death\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 mg., \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (heart\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 intra\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 stopped)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 cardi\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 five\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 al. \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minutes\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 after\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 administ\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ering\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 strophan\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 thin,\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ten\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minutes\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 after\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 removal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 water.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nV. E \u2502 5.2\u2502 60\u2502 30.3\u25020.25 \u2502 68\u2502 \u2014 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502Death\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 mg., \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (heart\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 heart\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 stopped)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 , \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 in the\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 masag\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 sixty-si\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 e, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 xth\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 coram\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minute\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 in, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 during\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 cardi\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 removal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 azol,\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 artif\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 water.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 icial\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 respi\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ratio\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 n. \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nS. M \u2502 6\u2502 75\u2502 31.4\u2502Artific\u2502 82\u2502 \u2014 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502Death\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ial \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (heart\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 respi\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 stopped)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 ratio\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 in the\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 n, \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 eighty-s\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 cardi\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 eventh\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 azol.\u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minute,\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 seven\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minutes\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 after\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 removal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 water.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\nL. O \u2502 4.5\u2502 30\u2502 31.2\u2502L. P \u2502 57\u2502 \u2014 \u2502 \u2014 \u2502Death\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 (heart\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 stopped)\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 in the\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 sixty-fi\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 fth\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minute,\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 eight\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 minutes\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 after\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 removal\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 from\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 water.\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n\n FIGURE 13.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1609-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 92\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 24 OCTOBER 1942, AND NOTE BY RUDOLF\n BRANDT\n\nReich Leader SS\nNr 1397/42\n\n Field Command Post, 24 Oct 1942\n\nDr. Sigmund Rascher\nMunich, Trogerstr. 56\n\n Top Secret\n\n 3 copies\n 2d copy\n\nDear Rascher!\n\nI acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th and 10th and both\nnotes of 16 October 1942.\n\nI have read your report regarding cooling experiments on humans with\ngreat interest. SS Sturmbannfuehrer Sievers should arrange the\npossibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us.\n\nI regard these people as guilty of treason and high treason, who, still\ntoday, reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy\nGerman soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods. I shall not\nhesitate to report these men to the offices concerned. I empower you to\nmake my opinion on this known to the offices concerned.\n\nI invite you to a personal conference in November as I cannot make it\nsooner despite my great interest.\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff will once again get in touch with Field\nMarshal Milch. You are empowered to make a report to Field Marshal\nMilch\u2014and, of course, to the Reich Marshal if he has time\u2014concerning\nthose who are not doctors.\n\nI think that covers which have heat packets or something similar sewed\nin their lining are the best for the warming of those who were stranded\nat sea and were picked up in boats or small vessels and where there is\nno possibility of placing these chilled people in a hot bath. I take it\nfor granted that you know these heat packets which we also have in the\nSS and which were used by the Russians a great deal. They consist of a\nmass which develops a warmth of 70\u00b0 to 80\u00b0 upon addition of water and\nretains it for hours.\n\nI am very curious as to the experiments with body warmth. I personally\ntake it that these experiments will probably bring the best and lasting\nresults. Naturally, I could be mistaken.\n\nKeep me informed on future findings. Of course we will see each other in\nNovember.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n\n2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff\n\nSent with request for acknowledgment. I present the report with the\nrequest for acknowledgment and return since the Reich Leader SS in\nMunich wants these copies again.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-323\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 94\n\n MEMORANDUM OF RASCHER ON WOMEN USED FOR REWARMING IN FREEZING\n EXPERIMENTS, 5 NOVEMBER 1942\n\nSigmund Rascher, M. D.\n\n Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 5 November 1942\nSubject: Requested report on concentration camp prostitutes.\n\nFor the resuscitation experiments by animal warmth after freezing as\nordered by the Reich Leader SS I had four women assigned to me from the\nwomen\u2019s concentration camp Ravensbrueck.\n\nOne of the assigned women shows unobjectionably Nordic racial\ncharacteristics: blond hair, blue eyes, corresponding head and body\nstructure, 21\u00be years of age. I asked the girl why she had volunteered\nfor the brothel. I received the answer: \u201cTo get out of the concentration\ncamp, for we were promised that all those who would volunteer for the\nbrothel for half a year would then be released from the concentration\ncamp\u201d. To my objection that it was a great shame to volunteer as a\nprostitute, I was told: \u201cRather half a year in the brothel than half a\nyear in the concentration camp\u201d. Then followed an account of a number of\nmost peculiar conditions at camp Ravensbrueck. Most of the reported\nconditions were confirmed by the three other prostitutes and by the\nfemale warden who had accompanied them from Ravensbrueck.\n\nIt hurts my racial feelings to expose to racially inferior concentration\ncamp elements a girl as a prostitute who has the appearance of a pure\nNordic and who could perhaps by assignment of proper work be put on the\nright road.\n\nTherefore, I refused to use this girl for my experimental purposes and\ngave the adequate reports to the camp commander and the adjutant of the\nReich Leader SS.\n\n [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-320\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 103\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO BRANDT, 28 JANUARY 1943, AND\n RASCHER\u2019S REPORT ON HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH GRAWITZ AND\n POPPENDICK\n\nThe Ahnenerbe\nThe Reich Business Manager\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS Berlin, 28 January 1943\nPersonal Staff G/R/8 S 1/Sb\n [illegible shorthand notes]\n\nAttention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt\nBerlin S. W. 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8\n\n Secret!\n\nSubject: Research of Dr. Rascher.\nDear comrade Brandt!\n\nI submit to you enclosed a documentary note of Dr. Rascher on his\ndiscussion with the Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] of 13 January\n1943. I would be much obliged to you if you could advise us as to what\nattitude we or Dr. Rascher are to take in the future. I am slightly\nastonished about the course of the discussion, for the orders of the\nReich Leader SS were especially to the effect that we\u2014that is the\nAhnenerbe\u2014were to take Dr. Rascher\u2019s work under our care. The argument\nof SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz, that it constituted an unbearable\nsituation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters,\nis not pertinent. I have never claimed to be a judge of medical matters,\nnor do I consider it as one of my duties. My duty merely consists of\nsmoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered\nby the Reich Leader SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On\none thing I certainly can form an opinion\u2014that is, on who is doing the\nquickest job.\n\nIf things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz\ndesires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher\u2019s work will not continue to\nadvance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.\n\n With comradely greetings,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n\n[Stamp]:\nPersonal Staff RF SS / Enclosure\nReceived on: 4th Feb. 1943 1\nJournal No: 1786/43\n\nTo: RB Please turn!\n COPY\n\n _Documentary note_ on discussion Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt\n SS] Dr. Grawitz\u2014SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Poppendick\u2014SS\n Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, 13 January 1943.\n\nRASCHER: Reports on freezing experiments with water and emphasizes that\nthey have been concluded practically, but not in theory.\n\nGRAWITZ: Question about the memorandum. Whether Rascher believes this to\nbe absolutely established for dry freezings, too?\n\nRASCHER: No, a lot of theoretical work is still to be done, primarily\nmany practical experiments have still to be conducted.\n\nGRAWITZ: That is my opinion, too. We cannot distribute a memorandum to\nthe troops, abolishing all former views, if this is not entirely\nwell-founded, as otherwise uncertainties will arise among the troops. I\nshall write to Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt that I am asking the\nReich Leader SS not to distribute the memorandum before a well-founded\nmethod of treatment of dry frozen persons has been established.\n\nRASCHER: Very well, that\u2019s why the Reich Leader SS gave me the order of\n13 December 1942. But I urgently want to emphasize that the results of\nthe freezing experiments with water have been established and are\nwell-founded.\n\nGRAWITZ: Well, now, this had to be mentioned in the letter to Brandt so\nthat you are not blamed in any way! You see, from my former activities\n(mention of some hospital) I know so much about metabolism that I am\nalmost a specialist in this field and can help you enormously.\n\nRASCHER: As I understood, Gruppenfuehrer, that\u2019s why I am to turn to\nyour office for glass materials, chemicals, etc.\n\nGRAWITZ: No. Not only for that. You have to turn to me in all medical\nmatters, since after all, I am Reich Physician SS and all medical\naffairs are subordinate to me. It is absolutely necessary that all\nmedical matters destined for the Reich Leader SS go through my office.\n\nRASCHER: I don\u2019t know, Gruppenfuehrer, if this was the intention. I am\nunder the direct orders of the Reich Leader SS and I have always\nreported directly to him. I have never received orders to another\neffect.\n\nGRAWITZ: You certainly will be transferred to the Waffen SS?\n\nRASCHER: Yes, I hope so. The transfer is under way.\n\nGRAWITZ: There you are. Then you will be under my orders as a physician\nat any rate and all matters will have to go through my office, otherwise\nthe situation would be unbearable.\n\nRASCHER: But I am under the orders of the Ahnenerbe! Am I to report to\nyou, too, what I have to report to the Ahnenerbe?\n\nGRAWITZ: Certainly! At least a copy on all medical matters has to be\nsent to me for my information. For it is an unbearable situation to have\na non-physician, such as Standartenfuehrer Sievers, inform me on medical\nmatters if he does not have the adequate special medical education. I\nhave nothing against Sievers. Well, yes, I know you are of the\nAhnenerbe. I don\u2019t say anything against your work for the Ahnenerbe, but\nI want you to work with the Ahnenerbe for the Reich Physician. I shall\nalso write to Brandt on that matter.\n\nPOPPENDICK: Well, I already had to ask Standartenfuehrer Sievers several\ntimes to come to me to receive information. In the long run all medical\nmatters wind up with us, anyway.\n\nGRAWITZ: You see, this is the point! When the Reich Leader SS does not\nunderstand a medical matter clearly he hands the matter over to me,\nanyway.\n\nRASCHER: Of course, I am grateful for every kind of help, but I believe\nthat I am primarily under the orders of the Ahnenerbe.\n\nGRAWITZ: Certainly not when you are a member of the Waffen SS. I am able\nto be of much use to you through my knowledge and I shall inform Brandt\nto that effect. It isn\u2019t that I bear a grudge against you or your work,\nbut all things have to follow their course. Don\u2019t be afraid, scientific\nthefts don\u2019t occur with us. As I know, you have to acquire the right of\ngiving lectures at universities as a qualified academic teacher under\nPfannenstiel. And you will need support. Do you want to be supported by\nme?\n\nRASCHER: Of course, I thank you most obediently. Where I need support, I\ngladly accept it.\n\nGRAWITZ: Well, we shall wait then with the memorandum until you have a\nfew hundred cases, then we shall continue. Of course, I would not like\nthe Reich Leader SS to believe that I want to impede you. But if\nsomething has not yet been proved to a great extent, we cannot\ndistribute anything to the troops that might spread uncertainty among\nthe responsible authorities!\n\nEverything may be true for freezing by water, but we don\u2019t have that in\nthe Waffen SS. So you agree to wait with the distribution of the\nmemorandum.\n\nRASCHER: Gruppenfuehrer, anyway it is entirely your affair, whether the\nmemorandum is issued now, as you are responsible for it. I composed the\nmemorandum on the basis of these few cases of dry freezing, because the\nReich Leader SS pressed for its publication. In composing the\nmemorandum, I was fully aware of the necessity that many experiments\nstill have to be carried out, and I also submitted this view on the\noccasion of a discussion with the Reich Leader SS in Dachau. But the\nReich Leader saw the results in Dachau and in wanting to help the troops\nordered the memorandum to be drawn up.\n\nGRAWITZ: In composing a memorandum or in any other scientific work you\nshould not let anybody press you, not even the Reich Leader SS, that\nwill never do! Well now, you\u2019ll send me a copy of all your medical\ncorrespondence with the Ahnenerbe, and you\u2019ll no longer write directly\nto the Reich Leader SS in medical matters but write to me, as it comes\nto me anyway. Will you do that?\n\nRASCHER: I\u2019ll have to discuss the matter with Standartenfuehrer Sievers\nfirst, this comes too much as a surprise.\n\nGRAWITZ: Well, I shall send you a copy of my letter to Dr. Brandt so\nthat you can get a clear picture. I am very pleased to have established\nsuch a close contact with you.\n\nThis is a certified true copy.\n\n [Signature] WOLFF\n SS Untersturmfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1616-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 105\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 17 FEBRUARY 1943, AND\n SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS FOR REWARMING OF CHILLED\n HUMAN BEINGS BY ANIMAL WARMTH, 12 FEBRUARY 1943\n\nDr. S. Rascher\nSS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n Munich, 17 February 1943\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Heinrich Himmler\n\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8\nDear Reich Leader,\n\nEnclosed I present to you in condensed form a summary of the results of\nthe experiments made in warming up people who have been cooled off by\nusing animal heat.\n\nRight now I am attempting to prove through experiments on human beings\nthat it is possible to warm up people cooled off by dry cold just as\nfast as people who were cooled off by remaining in cold water. The Reich\nPhysician SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, doubted very much that that\nwould be possible and said that I would have to prove it first by 100\nexperiments. Up to now I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the\nopen air during 9-14 hours at 27\u00b0-29\u00b0. After a time corresponding to a\ntransport of 1 hour, I put these subjects in a hot bath. _Up to now_\nevery single patient was completely warmed up within 1 hour at most,\nthough some of them had their hands and feet frozen white. In some cases\na slight fatigue with slightly rising temperature was observed on the\nday following the experiments. I have not observed any fatal results\nfrom this extremely fast warming up. I have not so far been able to do\nany warming up by \u201cSauna\u201d as ordered by you, my dear Reich Leader, as\nthe weather in December and January was too warm for any experiments in\nthe open air, and right now the camp is closed on account of typhoid and\nI am not allowed therefore to bring in subjects, for \u201cSauna\u201d\nexperiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith most obedient greetings and sincere gratitude, and\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours very devotedly\n RASCHER\n(enclosure)\n\n * * * * *\n\n Secret\n _Experiments for rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by\n animal warmth_\n\nA. _Purpose of the Experiments_\n\nTo ascertain whether the rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by\nanimal warmth, i. e., the warmth of animals or human beings, is as good\nor better than rewarming by physical or medical means.\n\nB. _Method of the Experiments_\n\nThe experimental subjects were cooled in the usual way\u2014clad or\nunclad\u2014in cold water of temperatures varying between 4\u00b0 C. and 9\u00b0 C.\nThe rectal temperature of every experimental subject was recorded\nthermoelectrically. The reduction of temperature occurred within the\nusual span of time varying in accordance with the general condition of\nthe body of the experimental subject and the temperature of the water.\nThe experimental subjects were removed from the water when their rectal\ntemperature reached 30\u00b0 C. At this time the experimental subjects had\nall lost consciousness. In eight cases the experimental subjects were\nthen placed between two naked women in a spacious bed. The women were\nsupposed to nestle as closely as possible to the chilled person. Then\nall three persons were covered with blankets. A speeding up of rewarming\nby light cradles or by medicines was not attempted.\n\nC. _Results_\n\n1. When the temperature of the experimental subjects was recorded it was\nstriking that an after-drop of temperature up to 3\u00b0 C. occurred, which\nis a greater after-drop than seen with any other method of rewarming. It\nwas observed, however, that consciousness returned at an earlier point,\nthat is, at a lower body temperature than with other methods of\nrewarming. Once the subjects regained consciousness they did not lose it\nagain, but very quickly grasped the situation and snuggled up to the\nnaked female bodies. The rise of body temperature then occurred at about\nthe same speed as in experimental subjects who had been rewarmed by\npacking in blankets. Exceptions were four experimental subjects who, at\nbody temperatures between 30\u00b0 C. and 32\u00b0 C., performed the act of sexual\nintercourse. In these experimental subjects the temperature rose very\nrapidly after sexual intercourse, which could be compared with the\nspeedy rise in temperature in a hot bath.\n\n2. Another set of experiments concerned the rewarming of intensely\nchilled persons by one woman. In all these cases rewarming was\nsignificantly quicker than could be accomplished by two women. The cause\nof this seems to me that in warming by one woman only, personal\ninhibitions are removed, and the woman nestles up to the chilled\nindividual much more intimately. Also in these cases, the return of\ncomplete consciousness was strikingly rapid. Only one experimental\nsubject did not return to consciousness and the warming effect was only\nslight. This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral hemorrhage,\nas was confirmed by subsequent autopsy.\n\nD. _Summary_\n\nRewarming experiments of intensely chilled experimental subjects\ndemonstrated that rewarming with animal warmth was very slow. Only such\nexperimental subjects whose physical condition permitted sexual\nintercourse rewarmed themselves remarkably quickly and showed an equally\nstrikingly rapid return to complete physical well-being. Since\nexcessively long exposure of the body to low temperatures implies danger\nof internal damage, that method must be chosen for rewarming which\nguarantees the quickest relief from dangerously low temperatures. This\nmethod, according to our experiences, is a massive and rapid supply of\nwarmth by means of a hot bath.\n\nRewarming of intensely chilled human beings by human or animal warmth\ncan therefore be recommended only in such cases in which other\npossibilities for rewarming are not available, or in cases of specially\ntender individuals who possibly may not be able to stand a massive and\nrapid supply of warmth. As for example, I am thinking of intensely\nchilled small children, who are best rewarmed by the body of their\nmothers, with the aid of hot water bottles.\n\nDachau, 12 February 1943.\n [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-268\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 106\n\n LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 19 FEBRUARY 1943, ON\n FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU\n\nThe Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\n\n Berlin W8, 19 February 1943\n Leipziger Strasse\n Phone numbers: [illegible]\n Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin\n\nFile No. 55 No. 81038/43 (2 IIB)\nReich Leader,\n\nThe experiments conducted in Dachau concerning protective measures\nagainst the effects of freezing on the human body by immersion in cold\nwater have led to results of practical use. They were conducted by the\nStabsaerzte [Captains] of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr.\nFink, and Dr. Rascher in cooperation with the SS, and are now finished.\nThe results were reported upon by those who worked on them during a\nconference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter\nhardships, on 26 and 27 October 1942, at Nuernberg. The detailed report\non the conference is at present in state of preparation.\n\nI thank you most gratefully for the great assistance that the\ncooperation of the SS has meant for us in conducting the experiments,\nand beg you to express our thanks, too, to the commander of the Dachau\ncamp.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signature] PROF. DR. HIPPKE\n\n2 [?] Feb 1943\n1509/43\nRF\n [stamp illegible]\n[figures 1509/43 handwritten]\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1580-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 107\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 26 FEBRUARY 1943, ON\n FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS\n AUSCHWITZ AND LUBLIN\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\n 1516/43\n\n 26 February 1943\n Secret\nDear Rascher,\n\nBest thanks for your letter of 17 February[29] with report on warming-up\nexperiments. I agree to experiments being made at Auschwitz or Lublin,\nalthough I believe that the time for the cooling-off and warming-up\ntests under natural conditions of cold weather has nearly passed for\nthis winter.\n\nI am sending this letter at the same time to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl,\nwhom I request to order the execution of your experiments at Lublin or\nAuschwitz.\n\n Kind greetings and\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl\n\nTransmitted with request to take note and to take the necessary steps.\n\n By order,\n [Signature (illegible)]\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-292\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 111\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 4 APRIL 1943,\n REPORTING ON DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU\n\nDr. med. Sigmund Rascher\n [4 April 1943]\nTo Herr Oberregierungsrat SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8\nMuch esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer!\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question of the saving of people frozen in the open air has in the\nmeantime been cleared up, since, thank goodness, there was once again a\nperiod of heavy frost weather in Dachau. Certain people were in the open\nair for 14 hours at -6\u00b0 C., reached an internal temperature of 25\u00b0 C.\nwith peripheral freezings, and were _all_ able to be saved by a hot\nbath. As I said: it is easy to contradict! But before someone does so,\nhe should come and see for himself. Moreover, a report about freezing in\nthe open air will be sent to the Reich Leader in the next few days.\n\n With best wishes,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours gratefully,\n [Signature] S. RASCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-322\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 114\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO KEINDL, 28 APRIL 1943, ABOUT PREVIOUS FREEZING\n EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT SACHSENHAUSEN\n\nDr. med. S. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\nPersonal Staff Leader SS\nDivision (Abteilung) Chief at the Institute for Military\n Scientific Research\nOffice A (Amt A)\n\n Dachau 3K, 28 April 1943\n\nTo the Commander of the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp,\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Keindl\nSachsenhausen, near Oranienburg\n\nObersturmbannfuehrer!\n\nBy order of the Reich Leader SS, I have been conducting freezing\nexperiments on human beings in the Dachau concentration camp for more\nthan a year. Today I learned from an experimental subject that I was not\nthe only one conducting these experiments, but that, on the contrary,\nalready in October and November 1938, similar experiments were conducted\nin the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr.\nSamenstrang is said to have frozen experimental subjects\u2014that is\nprisoners\u2014in cold water, and subsequently revived them by means of warm\nwater or hot compresses. As I was to work out and have worked out a\nprescription for the Waffen SS for the resuscitation of frozen persons\n(for the campaign in the East), knowledge of all preliminary experiments\nin my field of work is of great importance for me.\n\nI therefore request that if possible you let me know what kind of\nexperiments were conducted in your camp, and, if possible, what results\nwere obtained in connection with these experiments.\n\nAs you might not know anything about me, please make inquiries about me,\nif necessary, either at the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS\n(Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert) or from the Commander of the Dachau\nconcentration camp, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Weiss.\n\n Yours sincerely\n Heil Hitler!\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-231\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 116\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO SIEVERS, 17 MAY 1943, CONCERNING,\n A CONFERENCE WITH GEBHARDT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\n Copy\n By Messenger!\n\nDr. med. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n Dachau 3K, 17 May 1943\n\nTo: Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society\nAttn: SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers\nBerlin-Dahlem, 16 Pueckler Street\n\nDear Standartenfuehrer!\n\nThe following contains a short account of my report to SS Gruppenfuehrer\nDr. Gebhardt.\n\nOn 14 May 1943, I reported to SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt at\nHohenlychen. I had hardly arrived, when SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Gebhardt\nasked me in a very loud voice to explain how I dared to submit\nspecialist medical reports directly to the Reich Leader SS (he was\nreferring to the treatise on \u201cThe Cooling of Human Beings Outdoors\u201d). I\nactually did not even get a chance to speak and practically couldn\u2019t\nreply anything. Then, when I tried to reply, Prof. Dr. Gebhardt said\nthat if I wanted to defy him, my train would be leaving for Berlin at 3\no\u2019clock. When I was finally given the opportunity to speak I was able to\npoint out to Prof. Dr. Gebhardt that the report in question was not\nmeant to be a strictly scientific work, but simply was a short\ninformation for the Reich Leader SS on the results of the experiments\nconducted up to now. Dr. Gebhardt had taken the view that the report was\nunscientific, and if a student of the second term dared to submit a\ntreatise of that kind, he would throw him out. Later on I was able to\ntell him that of course all the physiological-chemical experiments that\ncould be carried out in Dachau with the available instruments had indeed\nbeen conducted. Whereupon Dr. Gebhardt replied: \u201cI can imagine that you\ndid a lot of work; one can tell it from this job. If I had not believed\nthat you did a lot of work, I would not have asked you to come at all.\u201d\n\nIn addition Dr. Gebhardt said that he intended to merge all the groups\nof physicians working independently within the SS, since that would suit\nthe Reich Leader SS much better than individual people working on their\nown. Besides that, he said that I somehow ought to learn university\nmethods of working since very likely I did not yet have the proper\ntraining. He suggested that it was necessary for me to get out of Dachau\nsince there I was quite left to myself and had no guidance whatsoever;\nthat since I intended to enter upon a university career, I would by all\nmeans have to complete the training of a university assistant first. He\nfurther said that all those SS physicians, who are qualified to enter\nupon a university career, had the duty to do so. Upon my reply that for\nthat reason I was already in touch with Professor Pfannenstiel,\nProfessor Gebhardt replied that these matters ought to be processed by a\ncentralized agency. In future it would not do that I send any reports\ndirectly to the Reich Leader SS, but that further reports to serve their\npurpose would have to be transmitted through him to the Reich Leader. If\nthe report had reached a suitable stage, he would first inform the Reich\nLeader SS, and then go to see the Reich Leader SS together with me.\nFinally Dr. Gebhardt asked me to give him data on my personal and\nscientific career to enable him to make further arrangements. He\nrequested me to call again in the afternoon.\n\nWhen I called in the afternoon, I was, as in the morning, accompanied by\nSS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer. This time Dr. Gebhardt was extremely\namiable. He asked me whether I now agreed with his arrangements; it\nwould be by far the best I could do, if I joined him. I should not\nworry, but just continue my work in Dachau, until I had finished my\njobs. Later, one would see what was to be done for the future. Upon my\nquestion, what it was all about, and who was my superior, whether the\nReichsarzt SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, who had come for an\ninspection several days ago, the Reich Leader SS, as he personally had\npromised me, or the Ahnenerbe, of which I had been a member for years,\nDr. Gebhardt suggested that all that will be straightened out. Just\ntrust it to me. But I\u2019ll need your curriculum vitae soon, since I have\nto report to the Reich Leader SS on 23 May.\n\nMay I ask you, Standartenfuehrer, under whom I am actually working?\nUnder the Reich Leader SS, the Ahnenerbe, the Reich Physician SS or Dr.\nGebhardt? Dr. Gebhardt has already asked me why I am not a member of the\nWaffen SS. Upon my answer that Dr. Hippke does not like to let me go, he\ndeclared that I was too able for him to let me go. Standartenfuehrer! If\nthe same tug of war starts in the Waffen SS as has been going on between\nLuftwaffe and the SS, I\u2019d rather do without a transfer to the Waffen SS.\nI was promised that I would continue to work under the Reich Leader SS\nor under the Ahnenerbe. But I cannot serve several masters at the same\ntime. Of course I am convinced that SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt\nhas the best of intentions. His assistants are enthusiastic about him.\nIf I am compelled to ask Prof. Dr. Gebhardt\u2019s advice each time I am\ngoing to start a new experiment, I will get so much involved in the\nacademic routine that I won\u2019t even be allowed to experiment with such a\nmethod as rapid resuscitation which overthrows all the established\nclinical experiences because the results contradict Prof. Dr. Gebhardt\u2019s\nmethods which are based upon centuries-old clinical experiences. Also\nthe cooperation with Professor von Luetzelberg would thus come to an\nend, as these experiments are from the very start contradictory to the\nhitherto recognized clinical experiences. I think, this arrangement\nwould stop everything that really ought to be experimented.\n\nI pray you with all my heart, Standartenfuehrer, to handle this affair\nin such a way that Prof. Dr. Gebhardt, who is a very close friend of the\nReich Leader SS does not become my enemy. I think that Prof. Dr.\nGebhardt can and will be an extremely disagreeable adversary. Before I\nget into trouble with him, I would rather resign my job and ask for an\nimmediate transfer to the Luftwaffe for combat service. I therefore ask\nyou again to deal with this affair with as much circumspection as it\nactually requires, because in addition I am convinced that Prof. Dr.\nGebhardt (apart from his personal ambition) really has good intentions.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Very respectfully yours and\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours very devotedly\n [Signature] S. RASCHER\n\nThis is to certify that the above copy is true:\n\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n SS Standartenfuehrer.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-432\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 119\n\n LETTER FROM RASCHER TO NEFF, 21 OCTOBER 1943, CONCERNING\n DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS\n\nDr. S. Rascher\n Dachau, 21 October 1943\n\nTo\nPolice-Rottwachtmeister Walter Neff\nPolice Training Battalion I\nDresden-Hellerau\n\nDear Neff:\n\nYour letter dated 11.10 reached me here on 15.10. First of all many\nthanks for your decision to write such a detailed letter. I really was\nvery pleased about it. To come right away to the affair concerned: I am\nvery sorry to hear that you are being bullied, especially as there\nexists no reason at all for it. Please let me know the name, rank, and\naddress of your commanding officer because I most certainly will take\nthe matter up. There is no purpose at all in your getting stuck there.\nFinally I too know how the general condition of your health had been,\nwhen you were still here, and I also am able to judge that you cannot go\nthrough heavy infantry training. I am glad that you have become\naccustomed to the ideals of the place and I am convinced that you would\nbe glad to go to the front. But on the other hand, I believe that I need\nyou more urgently than you are needed at the front. As a matter of fact\nI need you for the following: _From the Reich Research Council_\n[Reichsforschungsrat] I got the order to carry out open country freezing\nexperiments and I think they will take place on the Sudelfeld. Now I\nneed urgently a most reliable man, acquainted with the material, and\nthat is you in this case. During the next few days I will go with\nSievers to the Fuehrer\u2019s Headquarters [Fuehrerhauptquartier], and report\nthere in this sense, and will let you know immediately.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI expect your notice soon, and remain until then with sincerest\ncomradely regards,\n\n Your old chief,\n [Initialed] R.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-690\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 120\n\n LIST OF RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THE FILES OF THE\n REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL\n\n Cancer Research\u201470\u2014copies 15 [pencil notation]\n\n 25th copy.\n Worked on by: Professor Dr. K. Blome\n Berlin SW 68\n Lindenstr. 42 77 [pencil notation]\n Telephone: 174871 929 [pencil notation]\n\nPriority: \u201cSS\u201d\n\n SS-No. \u2502 Requested by\u2014 \u2502 Topic \u2502Registration\u2502Degree of\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 No. \u2502 secrecy\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n 0453 \u2502Schwarz, Kruft \u2502Combating of \u2502 2058/15 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 potato bug. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n 0496 \u2502Seel, Poznan \u2502Investigation of \u2502 2118/15 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 means for \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 combating \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 agricultural \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 parasites and \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 for disinfection\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 of the soil. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n 0328 \u2502Rascher, Munich \u2502Rewarming after \u2502 1879/15 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 general freezing\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 of the human \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 body; healing \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 after partial \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 freezings; \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 adjustment of \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 the human body \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 to low \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 temperatures. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n 0329 \u2502Hirt, Strasbourg \u2502Changes in the \u2502 1881/15 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 living organism \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 under the \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 influence of \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 poison gases. \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 \u2502 \u2502\n 0415 \u2502von Borstell, Colonel,\u2502Development of \u2502 1975/15 \u2502 Secret.\n \u2502 Weimar-Nohra. \u2502 aircraft \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 apparatus for \u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 insecticides and\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 fungicides which\u2502 \u2502\n \u2502 \u2502 can be sprayed. \u2502 \u2502\n\n Cancer Research\n Worked on by: Prof. Dr. K. Blome\n Berlin SW 68\n Lindenstr. 42\n Telephone: 174871\n Deputy: Dr. Breuer\n Berlin-Steglitz\n Grunewaldstr. 35\n Telephone: 726071\n\n No. \u2502 Requested by\u2014 \u2502 Topic\n \u2502 \u2502\n 0454/1857/15\u2502Zipf, Koenigsberg \u2502Tests of food colors for their\n \u2502 \u2502 cancer-causing effect on\n \u2502 \u2502 animals.\n 0473/1838/15\u2502Spek, Heidelberg \u2502Physio-chemical investigations\n \u2502 \u2502 on living cells.\n\n [Stamp] Top Secret\nThe Reich Research Council 22 [pencil notation]\n\nThe Director of the Business Management\n Committee\nCancer Research\n\n 3d copy\n Authorized person:\n Prof. Dr. Kurt Blome\n Berlin SW 68, Lindenstr. 42\n\n\u201cNesselsted\u201d\nProf. Dr. Blome, Commissioner for Cancer Research, Berlin SW 68.\n Lindenstr. 42\n\n DE 1413\u2014RPS\u2014VLI/44\n SS 4891\u20140242 (1739/15) 44\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS\n WALTER NEFF[30]\n\n_EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: When did the freezing experiments start?\n\nWITNESS NEFF: The first freezing experiments started during August or at\nthe end of July. They were conducted by Prof. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke,\nand Dr. Rascher. The freezing experiments can be divided into two\nseparate classes, the Holzloehner-Finke series, which were later\ndropped, and a series where Dr. Rascher conducted these experiments\nhimself.\n\nQ. All right. Suppose you describe the experimental basin.\n\nA. The experimental basin was built of wood. It was 2 meters long and 2\nmeters high. It was raised about 50 centimeters above the floor and it\nwas in Block No. 5. In the experimental chamber and basin there were\nmany lighting instruments and other apparatus which were used in order\nto carry out measurements.\n\nQ. Now, you have stated that you can divide the freezing experiments\ninto two groups, one where Holzloehner and Finke were working with\nRascher and then the period after Holzloehner and Finke had left?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, will you tell the Tribunal approximately how many persons were\nused over the whole period? That is, including both groups that you have\nmentioned.\n\nA. Two hundred and eighty to three hundred experimental subjects were\nused for these freezing experiments. There were really 360 to 400\nexperiments that were conducted, since many experimental subjects were\nused for more than one such experiment\u2014sometimes even for three.\n\nQ. Now, out of the total of 280 or 300 prisoners used, approximately how\nmany died?\n\nA. Approximately 80 to 90 subjects died as a result of these freezing\nexperiments.\n\nQ. Now, how many experimental subjects do you remember that they used in\nthe Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments?\n\nA. During that period of time approximately 50 to 60 subjects were used\nfor experimental purposes.\n\nQ. Did any of these experimental subjects die?\n\nA. Yes. During that period of time there were about 15, maybe even 18\ncases of death.\n\nQ. When was that experimental series concluded?\n\nA. It was concluded in the month of October. I think it was at the end\nof October. At that time Holzloehner and Finke discontinued these\nexperiments, giving the reason that they had accomplished their purpose\nand that it was useless to carry out further experiments of that kind.\n\nQ. And then Rascher continued experiments on his own?\n\nA. Yes. Rascher conducted these experiments saying that he had to build\na scientific basis for them and he prepared a lecture for Marburg\nUniversity on the subject.\n\nQ. How long did Rascher continue to experiment with freezing by cold\nwater?\n\nA. Until May 1943.\n\nQ. Now, were the experimental subjects for the freezing experiments\nselected in the same way as for the high-altitude experiments?\n\nA. No. Here Rascher turned to the camp administration and told them that\nhe needed so and so many experimental subjects. Then the political\ndepartment of the camp selected 10 inmates by name. That list was sent\nto the camp commandant and was signed by the camp commandant and they\nwere then sent to Rascher\u2019s station and the subjects on that list had to\nbe experimented on. I was able to use the original list as evidence in\nthe first Dachau trial.\n\nQ. Do I understand then that the experimental subjects used in the\nfreezing experiments were political prisoners?\n\nA. There were a number of political prisoners and also a number of\nforeigners, but there were also prisoners of war and inmates who had\nbeen condemned to death.\n\nQ. These persons were not volunteers, were they?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Suppose you describe to the Tribunal exactly how these freezing\nexperiments were carried out, that is what tests they made, how they\nmeasured the temperature and how the temperature of the water was\nlowered in the basin and so forth?\n\nA. These basins were filled with water, and ice was added until the\nwater measured 3\u00b0, and the experimental subjects were either dressed in\na flying suit or were placed into the ice water naked. During the period\nwhen Holzloehner and Finke were active, most experiments were conducted\nunder narcotics because he maintained that you could not find the exact\ncondition of the blood, and that you would exclude the will power of the\nexperimental subject if he was under an anaesthetic. Now whenever the\nexperimental subjects were conscious, it took some time until so-called\nfreezing narcosis set in. The temperature was measured rectally and\nthrough the stomach through the Galvanometer apparatus. The lowering of\nthe temperature to 32\u00b0 was terrible for the experimental subject. At 32\u00b0\nthe experimental subject lost consciousness. These persons were frozen\ndown to 25\u00b0 body temperature, and now in order to enable you to\nunderstand this problem, I should like to tell you something about the\nHolzloehner and Finke period. During the period when Holzloehner and\nFinke were active, no experimental subject was actually killed in the\nwater. Deaths occurred all the more readily because during revival the\ntemperature dropped even further and so heart failure resulted. This was\nalso caused by wrongly applied therapy, so that in contrast to the\nlow-pressure experiments, deaths were not deliberately caused. In the\nair-pressure chamber on the other hand, each death cannot be described\nas an accident, but as willful murder. However, it was different when\nRascher personally took over these experiments. At that time a large\nnumber of the persons involved were kept in the water until they were\ndead.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, you have identified the defendant Weltz in the\ndefendants\u2019 dock. On what occasion did you meet Weltz?\n\nA. I met Weltz in Munich. I saw him there once. According to my\nrecollection it was in Luftgau Kommando VII, Prinzregenten Strasse No.\n2, and I saw him speak to Rascher there, and at a later date Rascher\ntold me that that was Professor Weltz. I remember this incident\nespecially since Rascher often discussed Weltz and his animal\nexperiments, which he carried out with reference to freezing. I never\nsaw Professor Weltz in Dachau or anywhere in the camp.\n\nQ. Do you know, Witness, whether Rascher and Weltz exchanged information\non freezing problems?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know that. I would assume so, since Rascher discussed\nProfessor Weltz\u2019 experiments, and he certainly must have had some\ndiscussions with Weltz on the subject. However, I know of no\ncorrespondence with Weltz.\n\nQ. Do you recall the occasion when two Russian officers were\nexperimented upon in the freezing experiments?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Will you relate that incident to the Tribunal?\n\nA. Yes. It was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. Two\nRussian officers were carried out from the bunker. We were forbidden to\nspeak to them. They arrived at approximately 4 o\u2019clock in the afternoon.\nRascher had them undressed and they had to go into the basin naked. Hour\nafter hour passed and while usually after a short time, 60 minutes,\nfreezing had set in, these two Russians were still conscious after 2\nhours. All our appeals to Rascher asking him to give them an injection\nwere of no avail. Approximately during the third hour one Russian said\nto the other, \u201cComrade, tell that officer to shoot us.\u201d The other\nreplied, \u201cDon\u2019t expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.\u201d Then they shook\nhands and said \u201cGoodbye, Comrade.\u201d If you can imagine that we inmates\nhad to witness such a death, and could do nothing about it, then you can\njudge how terrible it is to be condemned to work in such an experimental\nstation.\n\nAfter these words were translated for Rascher in a somewhat different\nform by a young Pole, Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole\ntried at once to give them an anesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher\nreturned immediately and threatened to shoot us with his pistol if we\ndared approach these victims again. The experiment lasted at least 5\nhours until death occurred. Both corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy\nin the Schwabing Hospital.\n\nQ. Witness, how long did it normally take to kill a person in these\nfreezing experiments?\n\nA. The length of the experiment varied, according to the individual\ncase. Whether the subject was clothed or unclothed also made a\ndifference. If he was slight in build and if in addition to that he was\nnaked, death often occurred after only 80 minutes. But there were a\nnumber of cases where the experimental subject lived up to 3 hours, and\nremained in the water until finally death occurred.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Will you describe to the Tribunal the method used for rewarming the\nvictims of the freezing experiments?\n\nA. During the period when Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke were there,\nrewarming was in the beginning carried out by massage and partly by\nmeans of injections of drugs affecting the heart, and also by means of\nrewarming by electrical heaters and sometimes by means of a warm bath.\nAt the end of the Holzloehner period, the hot water rewarming method was\nintroduced, and that was carried out until the end of the rewarming\nexperiments with the exception of a few special experiments with animal\nheat. About 10 women from the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck were\nordered to report to Dachau to supply the heat and were forced to press\nthemselves against the body of the frozen person in order to rewarm him\nin that manner. These are the methods which were employed in order to\nrewarm the frozen body.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, did I understand you to say that the hot water bath\nmethod of rewarming was not adopted until after Holzloehner and Finke\nhad left?\n\nA. After Holzloehner and Finke had left the station, hot water rewarming\nwas also carried out.\n\nQ. Do you recall receiving orders in September 1942 from Sievers to take\nthe hearts and lungs of five inmates who had been killed to Professor\nHirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study?\n\nA. It is correct that I had to take specimens belonging to five persons\nwho died during experiments from the morgue to Hirt in Strasbourg. I\nmyself, of course, have never done any dissecting and therefore did not\nprepare these specimens. Sievers ordered me to go to Strasbourg and\nthere deliver the glasses to Professor Hirt, together with an\naccompanying letter. This was the end of September or the beginning of\nOctober. The travel warrant had been made out by Sievers and the\ntraveling expenses were also paid by the Ahnenerbe.\n\nQ. Had the five experimental subjects been killed shortly before you\nleft for Strasbourg?\n\nA. I cannot remember with absolute certainty whether the specimens were\nfresh or whether they were taken from older corpses. I do know that\namong the specimens there was one from a Dutchman. I cannot recollect\nfor certain the nationality of the other four.\n\nQ. Did you deliver these hearts and lungs to Professor Hirt in\nStrasbourg?\n\nA. I delivered them in Strasbourg, not to Professor Hirt himself but to\nthe laboratory at the University there. The letter to Professor Hirt I\nhanded to him personally, and he wanted me to return and see him in the\nafternoon, since he had to give me something to take to Dachau. He gave\nme a sealed letter to Dr. Rascher and a parcel for Sister Pia which I\nhanded to Rascher to pass on.\n\nQ. Now, Professor Hirt was also a member, in fact the head of the\nDepartment of the Ahnenerbe Society, was he not?\n\nA. We knew that Professor Hirt was also making experiments and belonged\nto the Ahnenerbe Society.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT HANDLOSER[31]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Let us pass on, General. Your attorney asked you whether or\nnot you ever gained any information concerning the freezing experiments\ncarried out by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. Do you deny that you\never received knowledge on that matter?\n\nDEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I said, no.\n\nQ. As a result of the Eastern campaign weren\u2019t you very much interested\nin \u201cCold\u201d problems?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Isn\u2019t that why you sent army officers to the Luftwaffe conference in\nOctober 1942?\n\nA. Of course the interest in cold problems was of an important nature. I\ndo not know who assigned them. From May until the end of October I was\nwith headquarters in the Ukraine and I believe that the chief probably\ntelephoned me as to whether or how many people we should send, and he\nmay have made some proposal, and I think I would have told him on that\noccasion \u201cYes, I am in full agreement. Send somebody there.\u201d It is quite\na matter of course that we took people who knew something about cold\nbecause they were the people who would be interested in it.\n\nQ. Well, having sent them, you then immediately lost interest in the\nproblem, I suppose?\n\nA. No, I did not lose interest. At some period of time somebody probably\nreported to me whether something particular had happened or whether\nthere were any particular results or not, and what could be exploited by\nus. But, at that time there was no mention of anything in particular\nhaving occurred, nor was it said that any particular revolutionary\nresults were achieved. At any rate, I cannot recollect that anything\nlike that happened. I should merely like to point out that my interest\nin cold problems was in our particular sphere of these problems, that is\nthe so-called earth-bound cold, at normal height or at the most in the\nmountains where it concerned soldiers in mountain troops. That was\nsomething which we discussed during various meetings, at first in 1942;\nit was discussed to a great extent, and very exact directives were\ncontained in the reports of these meetings. You will find them in 1942\nand you will find them in 1943. Naturally we were interested in cold\nproblems, and it is quite a matter of course that whenever we were\ninvited by the Luftwaffe to send our experts we did. The same thing is\ndone everywhere, not only in the army and in the field of medicine, but\nin technical fields as well.\n\nQ. Well, I thought that was probably correct, General; now I want to put\nit to you that Holzloehner had made a very remarkable discovery and one\nwhich I am sure came to your attention. Holzloehner and Rascher had\nfound out that this massive warm bath was an extremely effective way of\nreviving persons from shock due to long exposure to cold, a treatment\nwhich had been first discovered by a Russian in the 19th century but had\nbeen forgotten somehow. Wasn\u2019t this a matter remarkable enough so that\nSchreiber, who was at this meeting, or one of the many other army\ndoctors who were down there, would perhaps call it to your attention,\nafter the extreme cold you had suffered in Russia the previous winter?\n\nA. I said already before that we were always interested in cold problems\nand as you say, very correctly, mainly because of this terrible winter\nof 1941-42. I knew before that our regulations which were valid up to\nthe war and perhaps during the first year of the war, stated that people\nwho were frozen had to be rewarmed very slowly. The entire population\nwas informed that a frozen person should not be rewarmed too quickly.\nEven before that we included in our regulations that one should\nconcentrate on rewarming, and certain forms of rewarming were described.\nIf we army people who knew the Russian front were not as impressed by\nthis warm bath, as you may think we were, it was probably because there\nwere no warm baths available along the entire Eastern front, and this\nplays quite a large part in the impression any new invention may have\nmade on us.\n\nQ. Well, now, General, let me put it to you this way. Did you make any\nchanges in the basic directives concerning the rewarming after shock\nfrom exposure to cold after this Luftwaffe conference or after the\nconference in December 1942?\n\nA. If you look through the reports of the meetings and the directives it\nis quite possible that somewhere, I can\u2019t tell you exactly where\nalthough I have it, something is said about warm or hot baths in regard\nto freezing. You yourself brought to our knowledge again, through a\ndocument, that in December 1942, that is, after Nuernberg, Holzloehner\nspoke about his rewarming questions during a conference in the Academy.\nThat was reported to 300 or 400 men who transferred that information to\nthe front and I am sure that later on new directives contained\ninformation about the warm bath, too.\n\nQ. I am sure it did, too, General. That is the reason I asked you\nbecause I think that there is no doubt that great importance was\nattached to the results of this experiment in Dachau by Rascher,\nHolzloehner, and Finke. I now want to ask you if you didn\u2019t actually\nhear Holzloehner speak in December 1942 at the meeting of consulting\nphysicians at the Military Medical Academy?\n\nA. I cannot recollect that, and I must say once more that that is\nsomething which was done within the various expert branches. I am sure\nyou will see that these expert branches dealt with these suggestions\nthemselves. However much one so desires, it is not possible to\nparticipate in several expert branches simultaneously.\n\nQ. Well, then, to put it to you, General, this speech by Holzloehner is\nreported in our Document NO-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, and it goes\non\u2014you have a very short synopsis here of his report but he does give\nclinical observations in cases of deaths resulting from cold, and I find\nthat you made some comments at this cold session on page 51 of the\noriginal report. It reads:\n\n \u201cHandloser stresses the extraordinary importance of education\n also in combating cold effects and appeals to all medical\n officers, in their capacity as leaders of the health service, to\n see to it that through frequently repeated explanations each\n individual is taught to observe the necessary precautionary\n measures.\u201d\n\nA. May I ask you where it is? Is it with reference to the lecture by\nHolzloehner? At any rate, it seems to be within the framework of the\ncold problem.\n\nQ. General, I will put the German to you so that you can see for\nyourself. General, let us read the little summary of the speech by\nHolzloehner because the Tribunal does not have this document before it.\nIt reads:\n\n \u201cStabsarzt Professor Holzloehner:\n\n \u201cPrevention and Treatment of Freezing\n\n \u201cIn case of freezing in water of a temperature below 15\u00b0\n biological counter-measures are practically ineffective, whether\n in the case of human beings or animals. Human beings succumb to\n reflectory rigidity, increase of blood sugar, and acidosis, at\n an earlier stage and to a greater extent than animals. At a\n rectal temperature of below 30\u00b0 under such conditions of\n distress at sea auricular flutter regularly sets in; at under\n 28\u00b0 heart failure frequently occurs in human beings.\n (Over-exertion due to unequal distribution of blood, increased\n resistance, and increased viscosity.) Treatment with drugs is\n senseless and has no effect. In the case of human beings, best\n results are also achieved with hot baths. The foam-suit was\n developed as a prophylaxis against freezing in water below 15\u00b0.\u201d\n\nNow, General, after that little summary of the talk by Holzloehner there\nwere several other lecturers on freezing problems and then at the end we\nhave the gentlemen who made some comments on these lectures; we find\namong them Bremer, Dr. Hippke, the man who commissioned these\nexperiments, and Jarisch and Buechner. Now I want to ask you if this\ndocument refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us whether or\nnot you heard this report by Holzloehner.\n\nA. Yes, after reading what I have in my hand now, it is quite possible\nthat I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I\nhave not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this\ndocument in my hands once before here in Nuernberg; you once gave it to\nme and I forgot about it.\n\nQ. Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations about human\ndeaths resulting from cold in this lecture which you heard?\n\nA. I cannot tell you that.\n\nQ. Does it not say so in your own report here?\n\nA. It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as\nI was informed later, Holzloehner had gained a large amount of\nexperience from his service on the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was\nsomething which was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency\nsea station near the Atlantic coast and near that there was a hospital\nwhere he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea.\nThere was no cause to suspect anything special behind this.\n\nQ. Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human\nbeings?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk\nHolzloehner gave in Nuernberg 2 months before this and, as I recall,\nthere was some indignation in this meeting in October 1942, because all\nthese gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no\nrumor of this seeped up from Nuernberg to Berlin in 2 months, so when\nthe same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete\nignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on\nliving human beings in a concentration camp?\n\nA. I cannot say how far any discussions or any indignations were noted\nin Nuernberg. At any rate, I never heard anything about any rejection or\nany indignation. I could well imagine that if I were to hold a lecture\nsomewhere and I afterwards gained the impression that there was some\nkind of obscurity, or some particular sensation, and if 2 months later,\nI gave the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my\nlecture and would draw my conclusions from what I had learned\npreviously. I am sure that this might well have been the case here. At\nany rate after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and\nif one doesn\u2019t look at the pages exactly, one must assume that the man\nnoted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of\nHolzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show\nyou that a few other lectures took place between the lecture of\nHolzloehner and the discussion. You will also have to admit that\nconsidering the fact that we were approaching winter again (this meeting\ntook place in December 1942) my remarks did not refer so much to\nProfessor Holzloehner\u2019s lecture, but were merely a reminder that we\nwanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire\ninterest on the front where freezing took place in order to help our\nsoldiers. That is all this discussion was.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SCHROEDER[32]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I don\u2019t believe you have told the Tribunal yet about the\nconversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments, have\nyou?\n\nDEFENDANT SCHROEDER: What experiments do you mean? What conversation do\nyou mean? Do you mean in 1940?\n\nQ. General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some\ndispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but\nyou knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and\nRascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at\nDachau?\n\nA. Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before.\n\nQ. And, I am suggesting to you that after you learned that Holzloehner\nhad been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to\nhim?\n\nA. Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things\nwhich play a part here. I said yesterday that in 1940 Holzloehner had\nfurnished people who were rescued from the sea to the Rescue Station at\nWitze, where he first gained experience. Then I lost sight of\nHolzloehner, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again\nfor the first time in the fall of 1944, when for some reason that I do\nnot know, he visited one of the men in my office. At that time I spoke\nto him briefly, and since I had learned in the meantime that he was\nconducting, experiments in Dachau, I asked him whether that was correct\nor how he was doing it. I remember at that time he told me that he was\nconducting experiments based on the experience which he had gained on\nthe coast, and he was supplementing these experiments by conducting\nexperiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time he was speaking\nabout six or seven criminals who had been condemned to death were put at\nhis disposal for that purpose. At that time, he said nothing about any\nfatalities. I gained the impression then that the entire manner of the\nexperiments had impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did\nnot want to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that.\n\nQ. Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you\nshould have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was\nthis meeting with Holzloehner?\n\nA. I mentioned it during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall\nof 1944. I cannot remember the exact date. It could have been November\n1944. I am not quite sure.\n\nQ. Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments,\nthen; is that right?\n\nA. Considerably later, yes.\n\nQ. And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had\nseen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand you have denied\nheretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner\u2019s report or not?\n\nA. No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he\ndid not show me a report.\n\nQ. Now, General, I am reading from a summary of an interrogation of you\nmade on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows: \u201cSchroeder\nalso knows about the \u2018See-Not\u2019 and \u2018Winter-Not\u2019 reports from which he\ncould conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could\nalso be concluded from Holzloehner\u2019s report on the freezing experiments,\nand it could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher\nwrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in\n1944.\u201d Now, is this summary inaccurate?\n\nA. Very inaccurate.\n\nQ. All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943 you\nreceived a report on the Nuernberg meeting, did you not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and\nRascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at\nDachau, did he not?\n\nA. That is not the right way of putting it. He said that Holzloehner had\nmade the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I\ndid not know them then. I learned their names only since I was\nimprisoned.\n\nQ. You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with\nHolzloehner on these experiments; is that right?\n\nA. No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher\u2019s name for the first time in\nthis report of 1945 when I was imprisoned.\n\nQ. Well, I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a\nminute\u2014I think Rascher\u2019s and Finke\u2019s names are mentioned in this report\nwhich you got in the first part of 1943 on the Nuernberg meeting. You do\nnot recall that?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. And I very well remember that Rascher had made a comment on this\nrather long lecture by Holzloehner, from which it could clearly be seen\nthat Rascher himself was experimenting with Holzloehner; do you not\nremember that?\n\nA. I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen these\nreports, \u201cSee-Not\u201d and \u201cWinter-Not,\u201d and have read them through\ncarefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that\nin this report there is an extensive report by Holzloehner and after\nthat a short remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at\nthat time because I had no connections with Rascher, nor did I see any\nreason why I should; but I did interest myself in Holzloehner\u2019s report\nbecause I knew him from working with him on the French coast.\n\nQ. Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now\nI want to go on with your discussion with Holzloehner. Can you tell us,\nmore or less, exactly what he told you?\n\nA. That is a little too much to ask me to recall a brief remark that I\nmade in 1944 on the occasion of a very short visit. I do recall that I\nmet Holzloehner outside my hut, and I asked him to step in a moment;\nthen I asked him about the experiments. He answered me briefly and that\nwas the end of our conversation. The only thing that struck me was that\nHolzloehner, who previously had been a very lively and brisk person,\nseemed very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the 5 years of\nwar that had passed. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I\ncould only adduce later from his tragic demise. It could be that I\ncommented to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment,\nbut I think it is quite possible because Augustinick knew Holzloehner\nvery well and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that\nlater.\n\nQ. You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzloehner did not\nwant to talk about these experiments, and you also had been dabbling in\nDachau experiments yourself. I think under these circumstances it might\nbe expected that you would have questioned Holzloehner rather closely\nabout what went on in his experiments. You did not do that?\n\nA. He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel\ncoast could be checked on experiments being performed in Dachau on\ncriminals condemned to death, and that these experiments had been\ndescribed in the report which he had submitted. That made it perfectly\nclear what was going on, so why should I ask anything further? I was not\nparticularly interested in going into that specific result.\n\nQ. Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time?\n\nA. Yes, some time before, and that must have been why Holzloehner came\nto me because these experiments had long been concluded.\n\nQ. You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the\nNuernberg meeting in October 1942?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Now, you mentioned this report which you received on that meeting;\nthat is Document NO-401, Prosecution Exhibit 93. You stated that you did\nnot know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner. I found a\nstatement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows: \u201cFor the\nrelevant statements, we have to thank the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr.\nRascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke; they refer to a stay in water of 2 to\n12 degrees.\u201d That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and\nFinke were working with Holzloehner, does it not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, I think you stated to your own defense counsel that it was\nimpossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had\nbeen carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical\nobservations made on people fished out of the North Sea, is that right?\n\nA. Yes, I based my testimony solely on the Holzloehner report which was\nthe only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others\nbut I did not read them. I glanced through them briefly but gave no\nfurther attention to them because I did not know the people who had\ndrawn them up.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they\nmight not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that\nthese were really experiments and not clinical observations on people\nwho accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the\ntranslation it states as follows:\n\n \u201cThe rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was\n determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an\n advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders\n the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult. This\n also affects respiration. Inspiration is deepened, and\n expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions\n occur.\u201d\n\nNow, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the\nwater 5 to 10 minutes where it is said that he had rigor of the skeletal\nmuscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed\nand where there is a heavy mucous secretion, did you imagine that they\nhad Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making these\nobservations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you\nthink that, General?\n\nA. Yes, that\u2019s what I thought. You don\u2019t know the local situation at\nVisson. There were a beach and dunes, and a guard from the rescue\nstation always stood on the dunes to keep an eye on the water and the\nsurrounding country, particularly when flights to England were taking\nplace, so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell\ninto the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready\nat that time and went out to sea immediately, so that it was altogether\npossible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could\nvery quickly be observed and rescued. These are the facts of what\nactually took place at that rescue station at that time.\n\nQ. On the same page they have this remark: \u201cWith the drop of the rectal\ntemperature to 31\u00b0, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to\na deep, cold-induced anaesthesia if the decline reaches below 30\u00b0.\u201d\n\nNow, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a\nrectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31\u00b0 and then tossed him\nback and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a\nclouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30\u00b0\nand noted a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia?\n\nA. No, that isn\u2019t the correct way to put it either. This is one of the\nobservations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of\nattention in order to explain these incomprehensible fatalities, namely,\nthe fact that when the people were removed from the water their\ntemperature still dropped and simultaneously with the drop in\ntemperature a fatal collapse of the heart occurred. This was one of our\nfundamental and new observations. And I must report again and again that\nthis rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for\nobserving these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole\nthing.\n\nQ. General, you\u2019ve already covered yourself a little bit by saying you\ndidn\u2019t read these discussions after Holzloehner\u2019s lecture very\ncarefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher, in any event, and\nsee if you won\u2019t admit that if you had read this little comment by\nRascher that there could have been no doubt whatsoever in your mind that\nexperiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the\nNorth Sea. This is on page 15 of the translation, and Rascher has said:\n\n \u201cSupplementing the statements of Holzloehner, there is a report\n on observations according to which cooling in the region of the\n neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a\n low sinking of the body temperature up to 1\u00b0 C., without\n changing the blood sugar level or the heart function. Checking\n of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the\n temperature in the stomach and showed complete agreement. After\n taking alcohol, body temperature decreases at a quicker pace.\n After taking dextropur, the decrease is slower than with the\n experiments in both a sober and an alcoholic condition. Hot\n infusions (10 percent dextro solution, table salt solution,\n tutofusin, table salt solution with pancortex) were successful\n only for a time.\u201d\n\nNow, General, if you had read that, wouldn\u2019t it have been perfectly\nclear that these were experiments?\n\nA. Today, of course, after this whole question has been exposed I\nshould; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that\nreport that these were a special group of human experiments. I can say\nthat here under oath, and I should like to reiterate it. That was my\nattitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been changed by\nwhat I have discovered here.\n\nQ. I might also point out to you that Benzinger\u2019s comment expressly\nspeaks of Holzloehner\u2019s experiments repeatedly; but I assume that that\nalso made no impression on you?\n\nA. I can say one thing to that. My comrades, the medical officers in my\noffice at that time in Italy, had no notion either that human\nexperiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word\nsaid about such a thing on the occasion of my inspection visits. Of\ncourse, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought\nup; but I never heard any indication that these reports were the result\nof a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others,\ntoo, did not see so clearly as is pointed out here that these were human\nexperiments.\n\nQ. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about these\nexperiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nuernberg in\nOctober, with considerable comment there about these experiments?\nHolzloehner later gave a lecture before all the consulting physicians,\nat least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he\nspoke. He gave another report there on these experiments. You never\nheard any rumors in the air force about these things; is that right?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you?\n\nA. I have stated frequently that I don\u2019t even know Finke.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[33]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. WEISGERBER: During the subsequent period you came in contact with\nthe cold experiments of Dr. Rascher?\n\nDEFENDANT SIEVERS: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in\nadministrative conferences at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor\nHolzloehner, and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment. That is to\nsay, the experimental subject had just been placed into a room, but I\ndidn\u2019t see anything else of this experiment.\n\nQ. On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a\ndiscussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail\nabout Rascher concerning these experiments?\n\nA. These three men were very busy reading the apparatus used in\nconnection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to\napply the warm covers as quickly as possible. Professor Holzloehner\nstated that they had almost concluded their experiments and that further\nexperiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were\ndiscussed at that time.\n\nQ. Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about\nthese cold experiments?\n\nA. No. These reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as\nbecomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here.\n\nQ. In Document 1611-PS (_Pros. Ex. 85_), you find a letter sent by the\nReich Leader SS to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September 1942. In the second\nparagraph it states that it was sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers\nfor information. Paragraph 1 mentions the interim report on the cold\nexperiments by Dr. Rascher at the Dachau concentration camp. One could\nconclude therefrom that you received this interim report.\n\nA. This interim report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise\nHimmler wouldn\u2019t have answered Rascher direct. I don\u2019t think, however,\nthat it is out of the question that Rascher had told Hitler in this\ninterim report, or in some other way, that when I heard of these cold\nexperiments I considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending\nme that report Himmler\u2019s opinion on that subject was to be transmitted\nto me, and that is why I received a copy of that letter for my\ninformation.\n\nQ. Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will\nfind there Dr. Rascher\u2019s letter dated 3 October 1942. (_NO-285, Pros.\nEx. 86._) This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It\nbecomes evident from that letter that Rascher applied to you in a number\nof matters, is that correct?\n\nA. Yes, I shall revert to that briefly, first of all concerning the\nlow-pressure chamber. He says here that he turned to me in order to take\nsteps regarding the low-pressure chamber. I didn\u2019t do anything about\nthat, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later\nwhen Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself ordered me to send\nhim this draft letter which was previously discussed. He further says\nthat he turned to me regarding a teletype which requested the furnishing\nof women for these experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders\nregarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing\nleft for me to do.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t you participate in a second cold experiment?\n\nA. Yes, together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of\nHimmler, as he had been included in Rascher\u2019s experiments with Himmler\u2019s\napproval. Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that Rascher\nalone would not be sufficient in order to clarify these scientifically\nvery extensive and difficult questions. Hirt could only come to Munich\nfor one day because of his state of health and for that reason asked\nthat everything be prepared beforehand, so that he could gain insight\ninto all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher\nto prepare everything according to Hirt\u2019s desire. A professional\ncriminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment.\n\nQ. Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to\ndeath, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal?\n\nA. Before the experiment started Hirt wanted to look at the files\nbecause there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally.\nThe sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp\nAdministration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by\na regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more\nthan 10 years\u2019 penitentiary behind him, and had been recently, sentenced\nto death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man\nwhether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the\nman answered that he was well aware of it. He said that he would have to\ndie anyway for he was a confirmed criminal, and he just could not stop\nhis criminal activity; therefore he deserved death.\n\nQ. Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject\nwhether he was actually a volunteer?\n\nA. After Hirt\u2019s questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed\nto that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement,\nproviding it didn\u2019t hurt him. This assurance could be given to him\nbecause the experiment was carried out under complete anaesthesia. I\ndidn\u2019t participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was\ngiven an anaesthetic.\n\nQ. You yourself saw the files from the criminal police?\n\nA. Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt.\n\nQ. Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional\ncriminal sentenced to death by a regular court?\n\nA. This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed\nin the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he had\nalready had 10 years\u2019 penitentiary.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to page 86 of the\ndocument book before you? This is a report about a so-called \u201cCold\nConference\u201d dated 26 and 27 October 1942. Did you receive this report in\nthe Ahnenerbe?\n\nA. I certainly didn\u2019t receive it and I don\u2019t remember having seen it\nanywhere.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t Curator Wuest receive that report?\n\nA. I do not believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher,\nwhich only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly\nby Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest if Himmler\nactually sent them himself. I don\u2019t believe that has happened in this\nparticular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about it.\nThese reports and the research assignments just discussed lay completely\noutside the interests and sphere of Wuest.\n\nQ. What do you know about the so-called dry-cold experiments of Dr.\nRascher?\n\nA. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler\u2019s order\nwhich was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing\nof the equipment. I don\u2019t know whether these experiments were actually\ncarried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this\ncourtroom. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was\nnecessary for them to be performed in the mountains. Himmler had also\nordered that these experiments be carried out in the grounds of the\nmountain villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodation was\navailable there. Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at\nSudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had\nheard that there were a sufficient number of cases of freezing to be\nfound in hospitals at the front. I therefore asked Rascher why it was\nnecessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my\nquestion and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide\nby Himmler\u2019s order.\n\nQ. Which year was that?\n\nA. That was at the end of 1942.\n\nQ. The order was at the end of 1942?\n\nA. The end of 1942. The conversation with Rascher about the\naccommodation took place afterwards.\n\nQ. And that was intended for the winter of 1943-44?\n\nA. No, for 1942-43. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable,\nsome other place had to be found and I handled this matter in a very\ndilatory manner. Rascher pressed me on the matter and Himmler was rather\nindignant, but after all I couldn\u2019t create a house by myself. Himmler\nsubsequently ordered that preparations be made for these experiments to\nbe carried out at least in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I\nthink it must have been the winter of 1943-44. I\u2019m sure it was 1943-44,\nand I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations were to be\nmade for 1944-45. These experiments, however, were never carried out\nbecause Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944.\n\nQ. In that case you are saying that these dry-cold experiments were not\ncarried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943-44. You assisted in\npreventing these experiments from being carried out by delaying the\nfinding of suitable accommodation?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. I will now briefly summarize your testimony with reference to the\ncount concerning cold experiments.\n\nMR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, the defense counsel has put\nquestions to the witness and the witness has testified to these\nquestions. I really think summations after each experiment are\nunnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: A short summation on the part of defense counsel\nmight be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition.\n\nDR. WEISGERBER: Yes, your Honor. You accidentally attended the\ncompletion of a cold experiment by Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen\nno reports about Dr. Rascher\u2019s experiments and received no knowledge\nabout them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects\nfor the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually\nhad nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the\ncircumstances which you have previously described. You know nothing\nabout any dry-cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You\nsucceeded in delaying and finally completely frustrating the dry-cold\nexperiments in the mountains. Is that correct?\n\nDEFENDANT SIEVERS: Yes, that is correct.\n\nQ. After searching your mind, did you do anything in that connection\nwhich went beyond the orders given you by Himmler?\n\nA. No, in no way at all.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[28] Figure 14, headed \u201cMean Values from Group of Four Experiments each\nat 4\u00b0 C. [39.2\u00b0 F.] to 4.5\u00b0 C. [40.1\u00b0 F.] Water Temperature,\u201d is a chart\nshowing the skin temperature and the rectal temperature of four\nexperimental subjects each of whom respectively in a sober state, was\ngiven 100 cubic centimeters of alcohol one hour before the start of the\nexperiment, and was given 100 grams of pure dextrose one hour before\nstart of the experiment. The three curves indicating skin temperature\nshow drops to 16\u00b0 C. and below after 60 to 80 minutes; the three curves\nshowing rectal temperature show a low of 22.3\u00b0 C. and 21.3\u00b0 C. after 70,\n100, and 110 minutes respectively, and then an increase to 31.3\u00b0 C.\nafter 130, 200, and 230 minutes respectively.\n\n[29] 1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105, see p. 249.\n\n[30] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17-18\nDecember 1946, pp. 595-695.\n\n[31] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 11, 12,\n13, and 18 February 1947, pp. 2815-3104.\n\n[32] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 25, 26,\n27 February 1947, pp. 3470-3700.\n\n[33] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10,\n11, 14 April 1947, pp. 5656-5869.\n\n 3. MALARIA EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf\nBrandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers were charged with special\nresponsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving\nmalaria experiments (par. 6 (C) of the indictment). Only the defendant\nSievers was convicted on this charge. In the case of the defendant\nMrugowsky the judgment of the Tribunal makes no special reference to\nthis charge.\n\nAlthough the defendant Rose was not charged with _special_\nresponsibility for participation in malaria experiments, the prosecution\noffered proof to show some participation by Rose in these experiments.\nHowever, the Tribunal in its judgment refrained from making a finding of\nguilt or innocence as to Rose, since malaria experiments were\nparticularized in paragraph 6 (C) of the indictment and since Rose was\nnot among those defendants who were charged with special responsibility\nby name (judgment, vol. II). The Tribunal said that the manner of the\nprosecution\u2019s pleading \u201cconstituted, in effect, a bill of particulars\nand was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they\nwere entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, [and] that only such\npersons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be\ncalled upon to defend against the specific items. Included in the list\nof names of those defendants specifically charged with responsibility\nfor the malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think\nit would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an\noffense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not\ncharged.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was\ninadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We\nthink it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose\u2019s knowledge of\nhuman experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.\u201d\n\nThe Tribunal did make findings of guilt or innocence with regard to\nseveral experiments which were not particularized in detail in the\nindictment and concerning which the indictment did not name any\nparticular defendants as having special responsibility. For example, the\nprosecution introduced evidence concerning phlegmon, polygal and gas\noedema experiments (_subsections 12-14, see pp. 653 to 694_) under the\ngeneral charge of paragraph 6 of the indictment, which alleges that the\ncriminal experiments \u201cincluded, but were not limited to\u201d the\nparticularized experiments. (_See also introductions to sub-section\n12-14, see pp. 653-4, 669-70 and 684._)\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the malaria experiments\nis contained in its final briefs against the defendants Rose and\nSievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 280 to\n283. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants\nSievers and Rose. It appears below on pages 283 to 288. This\nargumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 289\nto 314.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT ROSE_\n\n * * * * *\n\nWith respect to the malaria experiments, two questions are presented for\nconsideration: first, whether the malaria experiments were performed in\na criminal manner, and second, whether the defendant Rose was connected\nwith such experiments.\n\nThat the performance of the malaria experiments in the Dachau\nconcentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war was\ncriminal has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In\nDecember 1941, while working in Italy, Dr. Claus Schilling met Conti who\nbecame interested in supporting further work by Schilling on malaria\nproblems. A meeting was arranged with Himmler who gave his permission\nfor experiments to be carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.\nSchilling began his work in Dachau in February 1942 and continued his\nexperiments until the end of the war. He was primarily concerned with\ndiscovering a way of immunizing persons against malaria. During the\ncourse of the experiments, approximately 1,200 concentration camp\ninmates were infected with malaria either by being bitten by infected\nmosquitoes or by injections of malaria-infected blood. After having been\ninfected, the prisoners were treated with various drugs, including\nquinine, neosalvarsan, and pyramidon. Most of the experimental subjects\nwere non-German nationals. Of the experimental subjects infected,\napproximately 30 died as a direct result of the experiments and an\nadditional 300 to 400 died as a result of complications.\n\nThe above facts are established by the Review of the General Military\nCommission in the case of the U. S. against Weiss and others, held at\nDachau, Germany. (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125._) Claus Schilling was a\ndefendant in that case and was convicted and sentenced to death. In an\naffidavit submitted in evidence before that Tribunal, dated 30 October\n1945, Schilling admitted that the experimental subjects were not\nvolunteers.\n\nOne of the assistants to Schilling in his experiments at Dachau was Dr.\nPloetner, who was a member of the Institute for Military Scientific\nResearch of the Ahnenerbe under the defendant Sievers. Sievers conferred\nwith Ploetner regarding the malaria experiments and received reports\nfrom him. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123; entries for 30 January, 22 February,\n23 May, 31 May, 1 June, 24 August._) Rose stated that he learned that\nPloetner was a collaborator of Schilling through an inquiry to the\nJournal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. Ploetner had published an\narticle in that magazine and it had come to Rose\u2019s attention. (_Tr.\n6339._)\n\nThe witness August Vieweg testified for the prosecution and\nsubstantiated the findings of the Military Commission at Dachau. Vieweg\nwas first subjected to the malaria experiments himself and thereafter\nserved as an inmate-assistant in the malaria ward. Vieweg testified that\nSchilling experimented on approximately 1,100 inmates, including\nGermans, Poles, Russians, and Jugoslavs. Among the Russian inmates used\nwere prisoners of war. Seven or eight of the subjects died in the\nmalaria station, primarily as a result of pyramidon poisoning. (_Tr. p.\n428._) He also testified that to his knowledge, an additional 60 inmates\ndied after having been transferred from the experimental station. He\nfurther stated that none of the inmates volunteered, that he personally\ndid not, and that the experimental subjects were not freed as a result\nof undergoing the experiment. The original infection card from the files\nof Schilling in Dachau, showing the date of infection of the witness\nVieweg with \u201cCulture Rose,\u201d was introduced. (_NO-983, Pros. Ex. 128_;\n_see also Tr. pp. 584-5_.)\n\nThe defendant Rose participated in the criminal experiments of Schilling\nby furnishing him material with which to carry out the experiments. This\nmaterial was furnished by Rose with knowledge of facts which would have\nled any reasonable man to the conclusion that Schilling was carrying out\ncriminal experiments. Rose had known Schilling for many years and\nsucceeded him as Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the\nRobert Koch Institute. Moreover, Rose, by his own admission, was an\nadviser to Dr. Conti, who arranged for Schilling to carry out his\nexperiments in Dachau. It is highly unlikely that such an arrangement\nwould have been made without consulting Rose.\n\nRose furnished Schilling with malaria spleens for his experiments in\nItaly during the year 1941, a fact which Rose denied on the stand until\ncontradicted by his letter to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941.\n(_NO-1756, Prog. Ex. 486._) Rose continued to furnish infection material\nto Schilling after he set up his experimental station in Dachau. Rose\nand his witnesses admitted that anopheles eggs were sent to Schilling in\n1942, but Rose, after that occasion, issued instructions that no more\nmaterial was to be sent to Schilling because he did not agree with his\nresearch aims. (_Tr. p. 6415._) On 4 April 1942, Schilling wrote to Rose\nasking for \u201cCulture Rose\u201d to continue his experiments. This letter bears\nthe dateline \u201cDachau, 3K, Hospital for Inmates,\u201d and it was initialed by\nRose on 17 April 1942. Schilling stated that he would be \u201cvery thankful\n* * * for this _new_ support of my work.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] That Rose\ncomplied with this request of Schilling\u2019s is established because the\nwitness Vieweg was himself infected with \u201cCulture Rose.\u201d\n\nOn 5 July 1943, in a letter, also with the notation \u201cDachau, K3, Malaria\nStation,\u201d Schilling thanked Rose for a consignment of atroparvus eggs\nand accepted Rose\u2019s offer to send him his excess eggs. This letter\nmentions the \u201cPrisoner August,\u201d who obviously was the witness, August\nVieweg. This letter was initialed by Rose on 27 July. (_NO-1753, Pros.\nEx. 488._) On the same date Rose replied to Schilling\u2019s letter, advising\nhim that at the next favorable opportunity, a shipment of anopheles eggs\nwould be made to him.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSievers had knowledge of and supported the criminal malaria experiments\nin Dachau. He testified that early in 1942 he learned from Himmler that\nSchilling was conducting malaria experiments in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 5692._)\nIn a memorandum dated 3 April 1942 concerning a consultation between\nSievers and Dr. May on the location of an experimental station for the\nAhnenerbe, Sievers mentioned as a persuasive reason for locating in\nDachau the fact that Schilling was carrying out his malaria experiments\nthere. (_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126._) Although this memorandum gives the\nname as \u201cSchling\u201d, Sievers testified that the name Schilling was\nintended. (_Tr. p. 5693._)\n\nThe witness Vieweg testified that in late 1943 or early 1944 Sievers\nmade several visits to Schilling\u2019s malaria station where he consulted\nwith Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling\u2019s. (_Tr. pp. 445-7,\n464._) He stated that Sievers consulted with Schilling and also\ninspected the laboratory. (_Tr. p. 423._) Sievers testified that the\npurpose of these visits and consultations was to arrange for the\ntransfer of Ploetner to the Institute for Military Scientific Research\nof the Ahnenerbe.\n\nA number of entries in the Sievers diary for 1944 prove that Sievers was\nconnected with and supported the malaria experiments. On 30 January he\nreceived a memorandum by Ploetner on malaria. A notation of 22 February\nstates that \u201cfurther work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr.\nPloetner to be done through RGF [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Conti].\u201d\nPloetner, in addition to his work with Schilling, was also collaborating\nwith Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments. (See entries of 29\nJanuary and 14 April.) On 10 May 1944, the entry indicates that\nRascher\u2019s research work was transferred to Ploetner. This was apparently\na result of Rascher\u2019s difficulties in connection with the kidnapping of\nchildren by him and his wife. On 23 May 1944, Ploetner was charged with\nthe management of the Ahnenerbe division in Dachau. The entry for 31 May\nindicates that Sievers and Grawitz reached an understanding concerning\nPloetner\u2019s continued collaboration with Schilling. On 21 June, Sievers\nconferred with Schilling about limiting Ploetner\u2019s activities with him\nafter his transfer to the Ahnenerbe. Ploetner was actually appointed\ndepartment head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the\nAhnenerbe on 27 June. The entry for 24 August 1944 notes that\ncollaboration between Schilling and Ploetner had been agreed upon.\n(_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Malaria Experiments_\n\n1. Under the direction of Professor Dr. Schilling, malaria experiments\nwere carried out in Dachau concentration camp in the years 1941-1944.\n\n2. According to the statements in the verdict of the United States\nMilitary Court at Dachau of 26 January 1946 (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125_) a\ngreat number of people were killed in these experiments.\n\n3. Sievers had not the slightest connection with either Professor\nSchilling\u2019s malaria experiments or with any other malaria experiments.\n\nThe prosecution charges Sievers with participation in malaria\nexperiments.\n\n \u201cAs can be seen in all spheres of this devilish experiment\n program in Nazi Germany, the defendants charged with the malaria\n experiments had on their side an extensive knowledge of\n Schilling\u2019s activity. In some cases they worked actively with\n the late Dr. Schilling\u201d. (_Tr. pp. 403-4._)\n\n_For proof, the prosecution refers to NO-721, Prosecution Exhibit 126._\n\nRegarding 3546-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 123, Sievers\u2019 diary 1944, entries\nof 22 February 1944 and 31 May 1944, the prosecution states:\n\n \u201cFrom this document it can be seen that on or about 1 April 1942\n Wolfram Sievers had knowledge of Dr. Schilling\u2019s activity in\n Dachau. This letter represents a proposal for planned further\n experiments and clearly shows that the distinguished Wolfram\n Sievers in his capacity as Reich Business Manager of Ahnenerbe\n had a finger in all these matters.\u201d\n\nThe defense has proved:\n\nSievers stated in his cross-examination that the affairs which he\ndiscussed with Dr. May on 1 April 1942 in Munich had nothing whatsoever\nto do with malaria experiments. Sievers paid a social visit to Dr.\nSchilling in Dachau in the middle of the year 1944 in order to get Dr.\nPloetner released for the manufacture of pectin. (_Cross-examination of\nSievers, German Tr. pp. 5692-93._) Neither Sievers nor the Ahnenerbe nor\nthe Institute for Military Scientific Research [Institut fuer\nWehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung] had anything to do with malaria\nexperiments. (_Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. p. 5693_;\n_Statement of the witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5877_.) Neither can\nthere be proved from Point four of the memorandum of 1 April 1942\n(_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126_) any connection of Sievers with the malaria\nexperiments.\n\nAn affidavit of the secretary Hildegard Wolff relates how the memorandum\nof 1 April 1942 and the drawing up of Point four came about. She took\ndown and typed the memorandum from Sievers\u2019 dictation. (_Sievers 11,\nSievers Ex. 8._) According to this, Sievers, in the very hurried\ndictation, said Frau Wolff should write down as Point four what Himmler\nhad said in his telephone conversation about the erection of the\ninstitute in Dachau. Therefore, not Sievers\u2019 but Himmler\u2019s opinion is\nstated here.\n\nThrough the discussion of 1 April 1942 between Sievers and Dr. May it\nhad been made completely clear that human experiments within the\nframework of the research order to Dr. May were absolutely out of the\nquestion, not only for the reason that such experiments would have been\nrejected on principle, but also because human experiments had nothing\nwhatsoever to do with the task of developing an insecticide for insects\nharmful to human beings. Moreover, no other kind of human experiment was\ncarried out in connection with Dr. May\u2019s work. The witness, Dr. May,\ntestified concerning Sievers\u2019 diary entry of 22 February 1944 that there\nnever existed any cooperation between Dr. May, Dr. Ploetner, and Dr.\nSchilling. (_Witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5878._)\n\nThat, however, would have been a necessary condition in order to\nclassify Sievers\u2019 administrative activity in this connection as\nparticipation.\n\nAs to points four, five, six, seven, there is no occasion for statements\nconcerning these points.\n\n _Summary_\n\nSince Sievers took no part in the malaria experiments of Professor\nSchilling at Dachau or any other malaria experiments, he is not guilty\nof a crime. Thus any special responsibility and participation in malaria\nexperiments is excluded.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT ROSE_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Statements Concerning the Question of Responsibility of the\n Defendant Rose for the Malaria Experiments Carried Out by\n Professor Claus Schilling at the Concentration Camp Dachau and\n Concerning the Question of Rose\u2019s Participation in These\n Experiments._\n\nIn the indictment, Professor Rose is not charged with special\nresponsibility for the malaria experiments carried out by Professor\nSchilling at the Dachau concentration camp or with participation. The\ndefendant Rose is also not mentioned in Document Book No. 4 of the\nprosecution which deals with these malaria experiments. In the course of\nthe verbal proceedings in the court, the prosecution has, however,\npreferred charges against Professor Rose to this effect and introduced\nseveral new documents in the trial during the cross-examination of\ndefendant Rose (_NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487_; _NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488_;\n_NO-1755, Pros. Ex. 489_; _NO-1756, Pros. Ex. 486_) and also heard the\nwitness Vieweg concerning this question. (_German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp.\n464-516._)\n\nThis evidence shows that among others also the Department for Tropical\nDiseases of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, under the direction of\nthe defendant Rose, sent anopheles eggs and malaria cultures on a few\noccasions to Professor Schilling at Dachau during the years 1942 to\n1943. At this juncture it should be mentioned that it is completely\nimmaterial for the judgment of the case what the name of the culture of\nmalaria tertiana was and whether or not its name was first changed by\nSchilling to \u201cCulture Rose\u201d. The above-mentioned evidence also shows\nthat Professor Schilling told Professor Rose in two of his letters about\nhis breeding of mosquitoes; finally it also shows that Professor\nSchilling asked the defendant Rose from Italy to procure for him spleens\nof persons whose death had been caused by malaria. This was in 1941, at\na time when Schilling was not yet working in Dachau. According to the\ntestimony given by the defendant Rose during cross-examination (_Tr. pp.\n6412-3_), he evidently complied with Schilling\u2019s request.\n\nThe Tribunal will have to decide whether these above-mentioned\nactivities of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch\nInstitute under the management of the defendant Rose or his own\nactivities, constitute, within the meaning of the Penal Code,\nparticipation on the part of the defendant Rose in the deeds of\nProfessor Schilling. In my opinion this decision can only be a negative\none, for the followings reasons:\n\nThe delivery of material necessary for malaria research such as\nanopheles eggs and malaria cultures was one of the official duties of\nthe Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute.\n(_Rose 11, Rose Ex. 27._) This department had a section which dealt\nexclusively with these matters. This can be seen from both the yearly\nreports of the Robert Koch Institute and from the report covering the\nThird Conference East of Consulting Specialists discussing\nwork-projects. (_Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10_; _Rose 10, Rose Ex. 26_; _Rose\n12, Rose Ex. 28_.) Deliveries of this kind are internationally common\npractice and were never denied by the defendant Rose. It is also common\npractice to use the organs of human corpses for the carrying out of\nscientific research. (_Tr. p. 6474_; _Rose 51, Rose Ex. 50_.)\n\nThe prerequisites for such deliveries are that they are requested either\nby well-known institutes or by renowned research scientists. It cannot\nbe denied that Schilling, a coworker of Robert Koch and a member of the\nmalaria commission of the League of Nations, was famous as a malaria\nresearch scientist. In a case of this kind, the non-delivery of such\nmaterial would have been an express violation of traditional practice\nand of official duty. It is also not international usage for the orderer\nto be questioned about the intended use of the material before its\ndelivery. (_Compare Mrugowsky 4a, Mrugowsky Ex. 96_; _Rose 49, Rose Ex.\n48_; _German Tr., 19 June 47, p. 9680_.) Even if Professor Rose\ndeclared, in the witness box during examination on his own behalf, that\nhe assumes full responsibility for it, it should be mentioned here that\nsuch deliveries are carried out in such a routine way that the chief of\nthe institute often knows nothing about it since these matters are\ndispatched independently by the personnel employed by him in the\nlaboratory. This also was the procedure in the case in question as the\nevidence shows unequivocally. (_Rose 35, Rose Ex. 32_; _German Tr., 16\nDec. 46, p. 507_; _Tr. pp. 6020, 6352_.) Thus, it is by no means\nsurprising that the defendant Rose could no longer remember the\ncorrespondence with Professor Schilling put before him by the\nprosecution during cross-examination especially since undoubtedly it\noften happens that, as in the case in question, although the letters are\nsent by the orderer to the head of such an institute personally, the\ndispatching of the order is nevertheless carried out independently by\nthe personnel of the institute.\n\nBesides, the delivery of these materials by the Department for Tropical\nDiseases of the Robert Koch Institute to Professor Schilling was by no\nmeans a prerequisite for the carrying out of his experiments in Dachau,\nsince it has already been established that Schilling obtained no less\nthan 12 other malaria cultures from other institutes. (_NO-1752, Pros.\nEx. 487_; _German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 509_.) Professor Schilling also\nobtained mosquitoes from other institutes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p.\n507._) Naturally these institutes could also not have had any scruples\nabout sending material to Professor Schilling. In addition to this,\nProfessor Schilling personally maintained a group of people to catch\nmosquitoes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 508._) If Professor Schilling\nturned at all to the Robert Koch Institute in this matter, the main\nreason for doing so was that for decades he himself had been the head of\nthe Department for Tropical Diseases of the Institute and that personnel\nwere still working there who had formerly already been employed under\nhis management.\n\nThe defendant Rose did, as a matter of fact, oppose Schilling\u2019s\nscientific approach to the problem as may clearly be seen from his\nopinion on Schilling for the Reich Ministry of the Interior (_Tr. p.\n6021_) and from his lecture in Basel. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) However,\nto judge by Professor Schilling\u2019s personality and past he could,\nnevertheless, not conceive the idea that Professor Schilling\u2019s work at\nDachau could be anything but completely above reproach. Experiments on\nhuman beings in malaria research are first of all, a matter of course\nand common practice. Even if the defendant Rose always limited his own\nwork to the traditional evaluation of therapeutic malaria infections,\nexperiments on prisoners in this field must unquestionably be\npermissible from an ethical point of view, as can be proved by the\nmalaria experiments on many hundreds of prisoners in American prisons.\n(_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1_; _Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Ex.\n103_; _Mrugowsky 80, Mrugowsky Ex. 76_; _Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49_.) Apart\nfrom the fact that the delivery of material to Schilling by no means\nobliged him to inform himself about the latter\u2019s research work and its\nways and means, Rose really had no knowledge whatsoever of the object of\nthe research carried out by Schilling, and did not know the\ncollaborators of the latter. (_Rose 29, Rose Ex. 34_; _Rose 30, Rose Ex.\n33_.) Much less was he informed about the conditions under which\nSchilling was working in Dachau.\n\nThe defendant Rose himself is a well-known malaria research scientist.\nMalaria research was the main study of his department at the Robert Koch\nInstitute in Berlin and also later in Pfaffenrode. Professor Schilling\nonly worked with malaria tertiana (benign tertian) in Dachau. (_NO-1752,\nPros. Ex. 487._) Professor Rose, as an experienced malaria research\nscientist, knew of course that this form of malaria is not a dangerous\none and that no complications are to be expected from it. (_Rose 50,\nRose Ex. 49._) The witness Vieweg (_Tr. pp. 457-458_) also expressly\nstated that none of the prisoners died of malaria, but that the cause of\ndeath could be traced back to technical errors [Kunstfehler] or to\ncomplications, as, for example, faulty puncture of the liver resulting\nin hemorrhage due to omission of an operation and an overdose of\npyramidon in therapy, outbreak of typhus among the experimental subjects\nand finally, wrong doses in the treatment with salvarsan. Just in\npassing it should also be mentioned here that the defendant Rose also\nopposed this last-mentioned method of treatment. This method was\nprohibited in the German Luftwaffe at his suggestion. (_NO-922, Pros.\nEx. 435._)\n\nNo further explanation is necessary to show that solely the person\ncarrying out the experiments is responsible for technical errors and\nnegligence in the process. It seems to me that not even his superiors\nwho ordered the work, namely Himmler and Grawitz, were responsible for\nthem. However, a person assigned to supervise these experiments would\nhave been obliged to take action whenever he was informed of such\ntechnical errors or negligence. The defendant Rose, however, was neither\nassigned to supervise nor was he informed of these matters. It is also\nunfair to assume that he knew about these matters, because he happened\nto take part in the conference on freezing experiments which took place\nin Nuernberg in October 1942. Firstly, the freezing experiments carried\nout by Professor Holzloehner, although also taking place on Dachau, were\nin no way connected with the malaria experiments carried out by\nProfessor Schilling. Furthermore, the participants of the conference\nwere misinformed about the method employed in these experiments and\nabout the status of the experimental subjects. (_Handloser 37, Handloser\nEx. 18_; _German Tr., 12 Dec. 46, p. 315_.)\n\nNow, to be sure, it is known that Holzloehner\u2019s, Rascher\u2019s, and Finke\u2019s\nfreezing experiments were carried out in Dachau. That, however, was\ncertainly not made public at the above-mentioned Nuernberg conference.\nEven if one of the participants suspected that experiments at a\nconcentration camp were concerned, he would not have had the slightest\nreason to suppose that the concentration camp in question was Dachau.\n\nSchilling\u2019s reports about his work were always sent to Himmler or\nGrawitz but never went any further. That also explains why no reports\nabout Schilling\u2019s experiments were found in the confiscated files of the\ndefendant Rose. (_Tr. pp. 5566, 6021_; _German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp.\n466-7_; _German Tr., 26 Mar. 47, p. 5106_; _German Tr., 2 Apr. 47, pp.\n5420-1_.)\n\nRose personally was the prototype of a worker above reproach in the\nfield of malaria research and with regard to his care for the well-being\nof his malaria patients (_Rose 47, Rose Ex. 35_), as shown by the\ninvestigation undertaken by the competent American authorities. He\nrisked his own life (_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_) in order to assure the\norderly handing-over of his Malaria Research Institute in Pfaffenrode to\nthe Americans\u2014in contrast to Dachau, without burning files and the\nlike, and also to insure continued regular care and medical treatment\nfor his patients. (_Rose 31, Rose Ex. 36_; _Rose 32, Rose Ex. 37_; _Rose\n33, Rose Ex. 38_; _Rose 34, Rose Ex. 39_.) It would be completely\nincomprehensible if such a man were to be made responsible for the\ntechnical errors and negligence of another who was not even under his\ninfluence.\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n\n NO-856 125 Extracts from the review of the 289\n proceedings of the general\n military court in the case of\n the United States vs. Weiss,\n Ruppert, et al., held at Dachau,\n Germany.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n\n Rose Document 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extracts from report of Professor 298\n Dr. E. Gildemeister concerning\n the activities of the Robert\n Koch Institute\u2014Reich institute\n for the fight against infectious\n diseases.\n Rose Document 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. Hans 300\n Luxenburger, 24 March 1947,\n concerning Rose\u2019s interest in\n therapeutical malaria\n treatments.\n Rose Document 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of 302\n Professor Dr. Ernst Georg Nauck,\n M. D., Hamburg 4,\n Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for\n nautical and tropical diseases.\n\n _Testimony_\n\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness August H. 303\n Vieweg\n Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 308\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-856\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 125\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE\n GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES\n _VS._ WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL., HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY\n\n * * * * *\n\nA series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were\nconducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling (_R\n157_).[34] Three hundred to four hundred persons died as a result (_R\n204, 206_). The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set\nout in detail _infra_ in connection with Dr. Schilling.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_B. The common design at the Kaufering Branch Camps of Dachau_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_C. The Individual Defendants_\n\n * * * * *\n\n15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ A special experimental station had been\nset aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments\nunder the supervision of the accused Dr. Schilling (_R 191, 157, 482_).\nSchilling performed his research for the purpose of determining\nimmunization for and treatment of malaria (_R 192_). Requests for\nprisoners were made by Schilling (_R 159-160_). One such request which\nwas admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested\n(_R 160, Pros. Ex. 38_).[35] A list of inmates was prepared in the camp\nphysician\u2019s office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were\nrepresented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a\ncopy of the list (_R 284, 285, 287, Pros. Ex. 47, 48, 157_). There the\nlist was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer who sometimes made a\nfew changes in the list (_R 285_). These lists appeared about once every\nmonth since about 1943 (_R 285_). None of the 1,200 selectees ever\nconsented or volunteered (_R 160-161_). Priests were often selected for\nthese experiments (_R 356, 353_). An inmate, a priest named Father Koch,\nrelated his experience in that connection (_R 356_). He was first\nX-rayed and then sent to the malaria station (_R 356-357, 353, 215_). He\nwas put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which\nhe had to hold in his hands for about half an hour (_R 358_). That\noccurred every day for one week (_R 358, 363_). Every afternoon another\nbox of mosquitoes was put in between his legs while he was in bed (_R\n358, 363_). Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his\ntemperature was measured each day and night (_R 358, 364_). He was given\nquinine (_R 358, 364_). In about 17 days he left the hospital (_R 359,\n364_). After being released from the hospital he had to report back\nevery Saturday (_R 360, 364_). Eight months later he had an attack of\nmalaria, which recurred precisely every 3 weeks for 6 months (_R 359,\n363, 364, 365_). The symptoms he felt were high fever, chills, and pains\nin the joints (_R 359_). Koch did not volunteer for the experiments nor\ndid the other prisoners who were mostly Poles and Russians, who\nunderwent the treatment with him (_R 356, 362_).\n\nThe prisoners were infected with malaria by the injections of the\nmosquitoes themselves or the injections of extracts of the mucous glands\nof the mosquitoes (_R 157_). After having contracted malaria the\nprisoners were treated in different ways (_R 157_). Some, as Father\nKoch, were given quinine (_R 358_). Others were given neosalvarsan,\npyramidon, antipyrin, a drug numbered 92516, and several combinations of\nthese (_R 157_). Some people died as a result of these experiments (_R\n158_). Schilling was present when autopsies were performed on some of\nthose persons (_R 158_). Whenever anyone died who had been injected with\nmalaria, a report of that death was made to the accused Schilling and\nthe chief doctor (_R 158_). Some of the victims died from the\nintoxication of neosalvarsan and pyramidon, for many individuals could\nnot withstand large doses of these drugs (_R 159_). From the autopsy it\ncould be determined that a patient died of neosalvarsan since the\nreactions were similar to arsenic (_R 193, 194_). In the beginning of\n1944 three deaths resulted from the use of pyramidon (_R 194_). These\npeople were brought directly from the malaria ward to the autopsy room\n(_R 197_). Two young Russian boys who were transferred from the malaria\nward to the general medical ward died within a day after their arrival\nbecause of overdoses of pyramidon (_R 394-395, 405_). They had been sent\nto the general ward so that the official cause of death which would be\nstated would not be malaria (_R 405_). Pyramidon has a toxic on the\nblood corpuscles which causes them to disintegrate (_R 195_). Malaria\nwas the direct cause of 30 deaths and as a result of complications, 300\nto 400 more died (_R 196, 197_). People who had died directly from\nmalaria had come straight from the malaria ward while the 300 to 400\nothers had undergone the malaria experiment (_R 204_). These people who\nhad been subjected to malaria may later have died of tuberculosis,\npneumonia, or dysentery (_R 196_). Some of the patients whom Dr.\nSchilling used had had tuberculosis before undergoing the experiments\n(_R 11_). Fever type diseases have adverse effects on tuberculosis (_R\n211_). An index of the malaria diseased people was kept in the hospital\noffice (_R 198_).\n\nSchilling received various visitors such as Dr. Rabbit, who was a Reich\nSS physician at Oranienberg (_R 192_).\n\nA pretrial affidavit of the accused Schilling executed in his own\nhandwriting on 30 October 1945 before 2d Lieutenant Werner Conn was\nadmitted into evidence (_R 827, Pros. Ex. 122_). This statement reads in\npertinent part and in translation as follows:\n\n \u201cMy name is Professor Dr. Claus Schilling. I have already worked\n on tropical diseases for 45 years. I came to the experimental\n station in Dachau in February 1942. I judge that I inoculated\n between 900 and 1,000 prisoners. Those were mostly inoculations\n for protection. These people, however, were not volunteers. The\n inmates whom I gave protective inoculations were not examined by\n me but by the current camp doctor. Before the inoculation there\n was usually an observation of several days. The last camp doctor\n was Dr. Hintermayer. As well as I can remember, in 3 years there\n were 49 patients who died outside the malaria station. The\n patients were always released by me as cured only after 1 year.\n\n \u201cAs remedy I used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan. I know\n for sure of six cases where I used pyramidon tablets to hold\n down the fever (_Pros. Ex. 122_).\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n_V. Evidence for the Defense._\n\n * * * * *\n\n15. _Doctor Claus Karl Schilling_\n\nThe accused Doctor Schilling elected to testify and made the following\nunsworn statement: He was 74 years old, married, had one son, and was a\nphysician. He had specialized in tropical diseases, particularly\nmalaria, since 1898 (_R 1490, 1500_). Dr. Schilling studied under\nProfessor Koch of Berlin, and graduated from Munich as a physician in\n1894 (_R 1894_). He did research work in Africa on malaria, sleeping\nsickness, and tsetse fly diseases (_R 1497, 1498_). Dr. Schilling worked\nfor the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for\nthe study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome (_R 1499, 1500,\nDef. Ex. 19_).[36] In December 1941 in Italy Dr. Schilling met Dr.\nConti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler (_R\n1500, 1501, 1508_). Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order to\ncontinue his studies at Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling had selected Dachau\nbecause it was near his birthplace (_R 1568-1569_). The question of\nusing prisoners for experiments was not discussed (_R 1502_). In January\n1942, Schilling went to Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling only accepted this\ncommission at Dachau because the League of Nations, of which he was a\nmember, told him of the importance of curing the seventeen million known\ncases of malaria. He believed it was his duty to humanity (_R 1540_). He\nnever became a member of the SS or the Nazi Party (_R 1503_). He was a\n\u201cfree, independent, research man.\u201d (_R 1568._)\n\nDr. Schilling infected thousands of prisoners with malaria \u201cBenign\nTertian\u201d which is not fatal (_R 1503_). The purpose for this was to find\na vaccination against malaria and today there is no vaccination against\nmalaria except the one discovered by Schilling (_R 1503_). Dr. Schilling\nused mosquitoes and blood transfusions to infect the patients and\nreceived patients already infected (_R 1503, 1504_). The patients were\ndivided into groups and were constantly watched, one group for the\npurpose of keeping up the strain and another for immunization purposes\n(_R 1505-1506_). The latter were injected repeatedly to step up their\nimmunity (_R 1506_). Schilling re-infected about 400 to 500 patients and\nused quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan, and a dye No. 2516 which made\nthe patients immune; to prove this he had to test by infecting them\nagain (_R 1507_).\n\nDr. Schilling could not work with animals because they are not receptive\nto malaria and men are used throughout the world (_R 1507_). He assumed\nthat Admiral Stipp and Mark Boyd, two malaria authorities, used humans\nin their experiments (_R 1508_). Infected malaria has been used to cure\nparalysis (_R 1508_).\n\nOnly about four or five of the patients refused to be immunized, but\nthey consented after Schilling explained the importance of the work (_R\n1509_). The selections of the patients were made as follows: Berlin\nallowed him thirty patients a month and he would requisition them\nthrough the camp physician from the commandant who contacted the labor\nleader (_R 1510_). The latter selected healthy prisoners and Schilling\u2019s\nassistants chose the final names and sent them to Berlin, where the\nselection was approved (_R 1509, 1510_). These patients were carefully\ninspected and could not be refused by Schilling by order of Himmler (_R\n1511_).\n\nThe doses of neosalvarsan were 1.54 grams and at no time failed (_R\n1512_). He used pyramidon to lower the body temperature although the\ndrug has a bad effect on the blood corpuscles (_R 1513, 1514_). He used\nthis drug only in 15 cases and found that two grams were not harmful.\nThis was important so the body could react without fever (_R 1515_).\nNobody died from pyramidon (_R 1515_). Malaria has been used to cure\nsyphilis and neosalvarsan can destroy parasites in a fever (_R 1515_).\n\nDr. Schilling never dealt with Dr. Blaha on any autopsies involving\nneosalvarsan poisoning. Discharged patients were told to report back if\nthey felt sick (_R 1516_). Periodic checks were made of them and any\npatient was received back if there was sign of relapse (_R 1517_). If\nSchilling was asked to resume his work, he would do so only on\nvolunteers (_R 1518_).\n\nDr. Schilling was withdrawn as a witness, at this point, but resumed the\nstand later and testified as follows: In death through neosalvarsan all\norgans are affected (_R 1536_). Blood cells may die, but nothing like\nthis happened in his cases (_R 1536, 1537_). It is impossible to\ndetermine death by malaria by a mere autopsy without a microscope,\nespecially where there may be other complications (_R 1537_). Pyramidon\nis rarely the cause of death (_R 1537_).\n\nOut of the 100 people infected by Dr. Schilling with malaria, not a\nsingle one of them died of uncomplicated malaria (_R 1538_).\n\nWeight of the patients during experiments increased. Additional food was\ngiven and people suffering from contagious disease would be isolated (_R\n1539_). Dr. Schilling never stated the wrong cause of death (_R 1539_).\n\nDr. Schilling stated he couldn\u2019t experiment on himself because he had\nhad malaria in 1933 and men like him cannot be reinfected in most cases\nalthough malaria is a recurring disease (_R 1541_). If there is chronic\nmalaria, the heart muscles will suffer as in all chronic diseases (_R\n1543_). Malaria will increase the watery substance in the blood and the\nbrain will suffer under chronic malaria (_R 1544_). Chronic malaria will\nweaken the body to make it susceptible to other diseases and one may die\nof another disease while having malaria (_R 1546_). Schilling had SS\ndoctors helping him and examined all patients personally and supervised\nthe records (_R 1546_). Schilling recognized Prosecution Exhibit 131\nwhich stated that 19 cases were treated with pyramidon, three of whom\ndied (_R 1547_). He declared these patients were suffering from typhus\nand were removed from the ward (_R 1547, 1548_).\n\nAlthough there was a typhus epidemic in November 1944 and he knew that\npeople were dying, he continued his experiments (_R 1550_). Everyone who\nwas inoculated remained at the station (_R 1550_). One patient was\ninjected three times and later died of typhus (_R 1551_). He was given\nneosalvarsan, atabrine, and quinine. Pyramidon doses of three grams per\nday for five successive days were given. Dr. Blaha did not inform\nSchilling of the deaths due to pyramidon poisoning. If Schilling had\nbeen notified he would have stopped the experiment. An Italian named\nCalveroni was infected with blood and might have gotten typhus (_R\n1556_).\n\nIf a man is suffering from malnutrition, a big dose of neosalvarsan is\nnot advisable (_R 1557_). If it would save his life, Schilling would\ngive it to him (_R 1557_). It depended on the physical condition of the\nman and of what he was suffering; yet, Schilling gave the drug to Father\nWicki who only weighed 50 kilos (_R 1558_), but Schilling says that\nWicki was not a severe case (_R 1559_). Schilling gave 3 grams of\nneosalvarsan in 5 days, which was the largest dose he ever gave over\nthat period of time. He does not remember giving drugs to sufferers of\ndysentery (_R 1562_).\n\nSchilling did not remember specific cases where he did not use caution\n(_R 1566, 1567_). He recalled the priest Stachowski who died, but\ndoesn\u2019t remember he died from neosalvarsan (_R 1567, 1568_).\n\nDr. Schilling was not under the control of the SS (_R 1568_). He heard\nrumors about beatings, but did not concern himself with \u201cthings that\nwere not my business\u201d (_R 1569_). All his records had been burned (_R\n1570_). Schilling denied all accusations against him other than what he\nadmitted as part of his duty (_R 1572, 1573_). He declared that his work\nwas unfinished and that the court should do what it could to help him\nfinish his experiments for the benefit of science and to rehabilitate\nhimself (_R 1574_).\n\nMrs. Hubner, who knew Professor Schilling for 30 years, stated that she\noften saw him in Italy and in Germany and has known him to be of good\nreputation and of good veracity (_R 1519, 1520, 1521_). He told her his\nonly aim was to help cure malaria (_R 1522_). She believed his\nintentions at Dachau were good (_R 1523_).\n\nFrau Durck, the wife of a university professor of anatomical pathology\nwho was interested in malaria research, knew Professor Schilling since\n1924 (_R 1525, 1526_). Schilling was always regarded in his field as a\nserious scientist (_R 1527_). She knew what he was doing at Dachau but\nher husband would not have done it (_R 1527_).\n\nDr. Eisenberger, a lawyer for 52 years, knew Dr. Schilling for 30 years\n(_R 1527_). He considered Schilling highly respectable and reliable, and\nsaid Schilling was seeking to benefit science and would never do\nanything wrong (_R 1528_).\n\nHeinrich Stoehr, a male nurse at Dachau, testified it was known that\nSchilling worked on orders from Himmler (_R 1608, 1609_). The camp\nphysician\u2019s and Schilling\u2019s assistants examined the patients prior to\nexperimentation (_R 1609_). Dr. Brachtel, an SS doctor and assistant to\nSchilling, also performed atabrine experiments (_R 1610_). If a patient\nhad a relapse from malaria, he was treated by Dr. Schilling (_R 1611,\n1612_). Others were given quinine by some of the hospital staff (_R\n1611, 1612_).\n\nMax Kronenfelder worked in the malaria station under Schilling from\nFebruary 1941 to June 1943 (_R 1614_). He knew about a Dr. Brachtel, who\nalso made private experiments on malaria without the knowledge of Dr.\nSchilling (_R 1615_). Kronenfelder took blood smears and performed minor\ndetails such as cleaning up (_R 1616_). Brachtel experimented with\npatients who had tuberculosis, helped by a man named Adam (_R 1617_).\nAdam was often in the morgue with Dr. Blaha (_R 1618_).\n\nFather Rupieper had been subjected to the malaria experiment in August\n1942 (_R 921_). Other priests who were also subjected were Peter Bower,\nGustav Spitzick, Amon Burckhardt, Fritz Keller, and Kasinemer Gasimer\nRikofsky (_R 921_).\n\n * * * * *\n\n VI. Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence.\n _Common Design._\n\n * * * * *\n\n15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ When one of Dr. Schilling\u2019s patients\ndied there were orders to report that fact to the malaria station even\nthough the man had died in another section of the hospital (_R 1712_).\nToward the end of 1942 Professor Schilling was personally present at the\nautopsy of a man who died of neosalvarsan and he requested the brain,\nliver, kidneys, spleen, and a piece of stomach (_R 1712, 1731_). In that\ncase Dr. Schilling dictated part of the findings with respect to the\ncause of death (_R 1712_). When the first three patients died from\npyramidon in February 1945, a member from the malaria station and Dr.\nHintermayer were present (_R 1713, 1723, 1731_). Dr. Blaha stated that\nin his experience as a physician the average patient could receive 3.3\npyramidon a day, and that the largest dose would be 2 grams per day, but\nthat of course assumed that the individual was healthy and strong (_R\n1713_). In Dr. Blaha\u2019s judgment, the prison inmates could not be given\nmore than 1\u00bd to 2 grams for a few days (_R 1714_). If these people were\nto receive 3 grams per day for three successive days, signs of poisoning\nwould be revealed (_R 1714_).\n\nDr. Blaha stated that an autopsy revealed that death from pyramidon was\nthe result of sudden suffocation which was not true in the case of\ntyphus (_R 1725_). Death from typhus could be determined by certain\nindicia without a microscope (_R 1725_).\n\nDr. Blaha explained that the ordinary mydol tablet contained 3 pyramidon\nand that it is sold over the open counter (_R 1722_). If taken in\nmoderate doses it will not have any ill effects (_R 1722_).\n\nA leaflet of I. G. Farben, Indiana, which held the neosalvarsan\ncontained the following instructions: \u201cIn between the individual\ninfections, spaces of time should be permitted to elapse, from 3 to 7\ndays.\u201d (_Pros. Ex. 134_) These were instructions for syphilis (_R\n1564_). In paragraph five in the leaflet it read in part, \u201csuch caution\nin the use of neosalvarsan is recommended for undernourished and severe\nanaemic patients, tuberculosis, diseases of the lungs, heart, kidneys,\nliver, and intestines.\u201d (_R 1564, 1565._)\n\n * * * * *\n\nX. Merits and Defense.\n\n * * * * *\n\n15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ Dr. Schilling, at the call of Himmler,\nbegan conducting his malaria experiments at Dachau in February 1942. He\ncontinued these experiments until liberation of the camp. It was\nundisputed that the inmates whom Dr. Schilling used in his work were not\nvolunteers. Dr. Schilling\u2019s research was performed for the purpose of\ndetermining immunization for and treatment of malaria. His requests for\ninmates were made about every month. These lists were prepared in the\ncamp physician\u2019s office and then sent to the camp commander and labor\noffice. About 1,200 selectees were thus chosen for subjection. Many of\nthem were priests. The number of people who died from the malaria or\nfrom the drugs such as pyramidon or neosalvarsan is not known. Certainly\nsome died. It is reasonable to infer that the deaths of many of the\ninmates from tuberculosis, dysentery, typhus, and other diseases were\ncaused in part by the fact that those people had been subjected to\nmalaria. Although Dr. Schilling\u2019s motive may have been simply and purely\na scientific one, his activities exemplified the Nazi scheme which\nexisted at Dachau. The part he played in that scheme is clear.\n\n * * * * *\n\nXIV. Sentences.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn many respects the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He\nvoluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he\nintended to perform. Being the educated and learned person that he was,\nSchilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work\nsuited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have\nstemmed from his desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize\nNazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists\nwho either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system.\nIt is believed that the sentence of the Court, which was aware of\nSchilling\u2019s position in the scientific world, should be approved.\n\n * * * * *\n\nXVI. Actions.\n\nA form of action designed to carry the foregoing recommendations into\neffect, should they meet with your approval, is submitted herewith.\n\n [Signature] Charles E. Cheever\n [Typed] CHARLES E. CHEEVER\n Colonel, JAGD,\n Staff Judge Advocate.\n\n MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT ORDER ON REVIEW\n\n Order No. 3.\n\nWhereas Martin Gottfried Weiss, Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, et al., were\nconvicted of the offenses of Violations of Laws and usages of war in\nthat they acted in pursuance of a common design, did encourage, aid,\nabet, and participate in the subjection of Allied nationals and\nprisoners of war to cruelties and mistreatments at Dachau concentration\ncamp and its subcamps by the General Military Court appointed pursuant\nto paragraph 3, SO 304, Hq., 2 November 1945, at Dachau, Germany and\neach accused was sentenced to death by hanging except four: Peter Betz\nwho was sentenced to life imprisonment, Hugo Alfred Erwin Lausterer who\nwas sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, Albin Gretsch\nwho was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, and Johann\nSchoepp who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years by\njudgment dated the 14th day of December 1945, and\n\nWhereas the case has now come before me by way of review and after due\nconsideration and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me, I hereby\norder:\n\n That the findings and the sentence in the cases of Weiss,\n Ruppert, Jarolin, Trenkle, Niedermeyer, Seuss, Eichberger,\n Wagner, Kick, Hintermayer, Witteler, Eichelsdorfer, Foerschner,\n Schilling, Knoll, Boettger, Betz, Endres, Kiern, Rewitz, Welter,\n Suttrop, Tempel, Lausterer, Becher, Kramer, Filleboeck,\n Schoettl, Gretsch, Kirsch, Langleist, Lippmann, Degelow, Moll,\n Schulz, and Wetzel be upheld.\n\n That the sentence imposed in the case of Eisele be reduced to\n confinement at hard labor for life.\n\n That the sentence imposed in the case of Puhr be reduced to\n confinement at hard labor for 20 years.\n\n That the sentence imposed in the case of Mahl be reduced to\n confinement at hard labor for 10 years.\n\n That the sentence imposed in the case of Schoepp be reduced to\n confinement at hard labor for 5 years,\n\nand for so doing this shall be sufficient warrant.\n\nDated this 24th day of January 1946.\n\n [Signed] L. K. TRUSCOTT, JR.,\n Lieutenant General, U.S.A.\n Commanding.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 11\n ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27\n\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF PROFESSOR DR. E. GILDEMEISTER CONCERNING THE\n ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE\u2014REICH INSTITUTE FOR THE FIGHT\n AGAINST INFECTIOUS DISEASES\n\n * * * * *\n\n2. Malaria Research.\n\n_a. Cultures of strains._ The strain \u201cGreece\u201d of plasmodium vivax was\nbred in the department by Miss Lange till 31 December 1942, in the 30th\ncontinuous passage of man-mosquito-man. The number of infected patients\nup to that date was 379. The main work concerned the malaria treatment\nof paralytics and schizophrenics. In addition, however, there were a few\ntherapeutic experiments with other diseases, in cases where the clinics\nconcerned required mosquito bite infections in order to obtain a\nreliable malaria free from lues. The number of clinics and hospitals\nobtaining part or all their requirements of therapeutical malaria\ninfection from the department rose to 11. In addition to the strain\n\u201cGreece\u201d, various other malaria strains were taken into the mosquito\npassage for comparative experiments; they were, however, not permanently\nmaintained. This considerable amount of incoming clinical material was\ncontinuously collected and sorted although it has not yet been used.\n\nIn the course of the research two more laboratory infections occurred\ndue to mosquito bites.\n\nThe following examinations by Dr. Hoering, Professor Rose, and Dr. Emmel\nwere made possible by the maintenance of the anopheles colony and the\nmalaria breed.\n\n_b. Parasite straining._ Dr. Hoering continued her work on the\nimprovement of the microscopic presentation of malaria parasites.\nDespite certain improvements of the microscopic picture it was not\npossible to develop a procedure easily applicable in practice and\nsuperior to the established methods.\n\n_c. Artificial feeding and artificial infection of anopheles._ Dr.\nHoering continued to develop the methods of artificial blood feeding of\nanopheles, evolved by Dr. Olzscha. In this artificial feeding the\nanopheles would not take citrated blood even though sugar had been\nadded. Blood haemolized with water and saturated with sugar was taken,\nas well as liquid blood, although the addition of sugar was preferred.\nArtificial feeding of blood is biologically not altogether equal to\nnatural feeding. The duration of life was almost the same with\nartificial feeding as with the normal feeding of the animal. However,\nfemales which were merely artificially fed, only laid eggs in\nexceptional cases.\n\nIt is known that with anopheles which suck blood from the animal, the\nblood enters the duodenum without previously entering the sucking\nstomach, while other nutritious matter first reaches the sucking and\nreserve stomachs. It was previously assumed that the nature of the food,\nespecially the number of cells, acted as indicative irritation. Dr.\nHoering\u2019s experiments with artificial blood nutrition showed this\nassumption to be wrong. Sweetened as well as unsweetened blood, which is\nused for artificial feeding, first enters into the reserve stomachs in\nthe same way as a sugar solution. Further experiments proved that the\npiercing of a membrane also causes no indicative irritation.\n\nAfter the method of the artificial feeding with blood had been\ndeveloped, Dr. Hoering carried out experiments with the feeding of\ninfected blood containing malaria. Finally, it was possible to infect\nanopheles by artificial feeding of blood, so that normally developed\nsporozoites grew inside them. This is the first time that such an\nexperiment was successfully carried through.\n\n_d. Conservation of malaria parasites._ Professor Rose had the\nexperiments continued concerning the conservation of malaria parasites\nin liquids suitable for the conservation of blood. Even after 150 days\nmalaria parasites could be demonstrated morphologically in individual\ncases. However, attempt at infection with such blood did not succeed.\nThe continuation and repetition of these experiments are planned.\n\nThe as yet unknown possibility of keeping malaria parasites alive in\nvitro for such long periods raises the problem of whether malaria\nparasites may become also dormant in human beings. The fact that an\ninfection could be achieved in human beings with 90-day-old parasites\nproves that these preserved parasites did not lose their development and\nmultiplying properties. The assumption of such dormant forms in the\nhuman being would offer new explanations for malaria relapses after long\nintervals of recovery. The department is engaged in morphologically\ncharacterizing the dormant forms observed in a test tube and in\nsearching for the existence of such forms in clinical malaria cases.\n\n_e. The appearance of anopheles in the Warthegau._ Dr. Olzscha\ninvestigated the appearance of anopheles in 221 hamlets, villages, and\nscattered settlements of the Warthegau. Anopheles were found practically\neverywhere. The investigation of 600 individual clusters proved beyond\ndoubt that except in a few cases where a definite determination was not\npossible, they belonged to the genus of messaeae of anopheles\nmaculipennis. Only in one case were A. m. artroparvus found.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_h. Malaria treatment._ Professor Rose in cooperation with\nObermedizinalrat Dr. Sagel, director of the Country Mental Institution\nin Arnsdorf-Saxony, and Dr. Mertens, Dr. Koenig, and Dr. Peters,\nLeverkusen, tested the efficacy of new synthetic remedies against\nmosquito sting malaria. The best method of administering a new and\nproved preparation was developed.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 47\n ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 35\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER, 24 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING\n ROSE\u2019S INTEREST IN THERAPEUTICAL MALARIA TREATMENTS\n\nI, Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, born on 12 June 1894 in\nSchweinfurt, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, have been\ninformed that I will be liable to punishment if I make a false\naffidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made\nin order to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. 1 at the\nPalace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.\n\nBeing a psychiatrist myself, I took an interest in Professor Rose\u2019s\nmalaria research insofar as we talked now and again about Rose\u2019s\nprogress and the results of his research. For me as a psychiatrist it\nwas always noteworthy that Rose regarded cooperation with the\npsychiatrists of hospitals for the insane by no means only from the\npoint of view of his interest in malaria research. On the contrary, he\nalways showed definite interest in the related psychiatric-therapeutic\nquestions. Contrary to the opinion formerly advocated by Wagner-Jauregg,\nhe hoped to attain more thorough and permanent success in treatment by\ninfection with mosquitoes as advocated by him (Rose) instead of the\nformerly customary blood transfusion, because in his opinion endothelia\ninfection was also attained thereby.\n\nHe also was particularly interested in the question of finding a benign\ntropical strain and employing it in treatment, in order to carry out\nthorough and long fever treatments on cases of paralysis relapse; this\nis generally unsuccessful when employing the usual tertiana strains in\ncases of relapse.\n\nHe was especially interested in the possibility of therapeutic influence\nupon schizophrenia. In the well-known psychiatrist Dr. Sagel, he had a\nco-worker who advocated the opinion that schizophrenia, apart from its\nhereditary basis, must be caused by an additional external impairment,\nand he suspected that these causes lay in infectious diseases,\nespecially rheumatic infections. Working from this assumption, he hoped\nfor success with this disease similar to that with paralysis. This idea\nwas not a new one. Similar experiments were conducted earlier. Rose was\nespecially encouraged in this work by some impressive isolated successes\nin quite hopeless cases of schizophrenia. I can recall his joy as he\ntold me, apart from other, cases, of a woman who was about to be\ndivorced, after the head of the institution had declared her condition,\nwhich had existed for more than 3 years, to be incurable. In this case\nRose\u2019s treatment, according to his report, not only resulted in\ncompletely restoring the sick woman\u2019s health but also led to her return\nto her family and the reestablishment of the marriage.\n\nMunich, 24 March 1947\n\n [Signed] PROF. DR. HANS LUXENBURGER\n\nThe above signature of Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger,\nresiding in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, given before me, Notary,\nTheobald Petri, Administrator, is herewith certified and attested.\n\nMunich, 24 March 1947.\n\n [Signed] _Petri_, Notary\n (Theobald Petri), Notary\n Administrator of the Notary\u2019s Office, Munich\n XVII\nSeal\n\nI certify that the above document is a true and correct copy. Nuernberg,\n10 April 1947.\n\n [Signature] Dr. HANS FRITZ\n (Dr. Hans Fritz)\n Defense Counsel\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 50\n ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 49\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. ERNST GEORG\n NAUCK, M. D., HAMBURG 4, BERNHARD-NOCHT-INSTITUTE FOR\n NAUTICAL AND TROPICAL DISEASES\n\n * * * * *\n\nExperimental infections of human beings with malaria tertiana (mild\ntertian malaria) have proved to be harmless and have very frequently\nbeen carried out on voluntary experimental subjects. It is well known\nthat artificial infection with tertiana is also carried out as a cure\nagainst other diseases (paralysis, rabies). If the artificial infection\nis carried out carefully and under medical supervision, death or\npermanent damage to health should not occur. If the experiment with\nmalaria tertiana, as carried out by Claus Schilling, was carried out\nwith the same care, no danger to the experimental persons should have\nbeen entailed. Since Claus Schilling was a prominent scientist of\ninternational fame, it must be assumed that he carried out his\ninvestigations with the intention or the knowledge not to harm human\nlife. This we find confirmed in the following:\n\n1. Stitt\u2019s diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment of Tropical Diseases, by\nRichard P. Strong, 7th edition, London, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., 1945,\npage 59:\n\n \u201cThe question of the occurrence of immunity in malaria has been\n extensively studied in recent years, not only from the\n epidemiologic standpoint but from experimental inoculations\n which have been carried on in both men and animals. However, in\n interpreting the results of the inoculations in man which have\n been carried out by direct injection of blood containing\n schizonts or by the injection of sporozoites from mosquitoes or\n by the bites of infected mosquitoes, many factors regarding the\n virulence or number of the parasites inoculated, the species and\n conditions of infectivity of the mosquitoes, the temperature at\n which they have been kept, and other factors, must be taken into\n consideration in drawing conclusions with regard to the\n susceptibility of individuals to infection. Much of the work is\n still in the experimental stage, though some definite progress\n has recently been made.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS\n AUGUST H. VIEWEG[37]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: While you were an inmate at the concentration camp, did you\never undergo any medical experiments?\n\nWITNESS VIEWEG: I was used for malaria experiments by Professor\nDachfinney at the Dachau concentration camp.\n\nQ. How many times were you subjected to the malaria experiments by Dr.\nSchilling?\n\nA. On five occasions I received injections of 5 cubic centimeters of\nhighly infectious malaria blood.\n\nQ. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal what effect these experiments had\non you; that is, did you have high fever, serious illness, and so forth?\n\nA. Quite often I ran a very high temperature. I got into a very\nexhausted condition, and after the injection I received large doses of\nmedical drugs, quinine, ephedrine, and many others. I was in bed for\nweeks, and after one treatment there were 20 to 26 occasions in the\ncourse of the years 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946, when I had malaria\nattacks, so that for a long time I was unable to work.\n\nQ. At the present time, do you have recurrences of this malaria fever?\n\nA. This last year I was in the hospital from August 1st to 15th, again\nwith malaria attacks.\n\nQ. How many recurrences of malaria have you endured since you were\nexperimented on by Dr. Schilling?\n\nA. After my treatments in the experimental station had been concluded I\nstayed with Dr. Schilling, and there were 20 occasions when I was\ntreated for recurrences.\n\nQ. Are you completely cured now, Witness?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. After you had undergone the various experiments at the hands of Dr.\nSchilling, did you then become a worker in Dr. Schilling\u2019s laboratory?\n\nA. After my first so-called immunization treatment had been concluded,\nthe chief medical officer of that department sent me over to Dr.\nSchilling\u2019s department for laboratory duties.\n\nQ. On what date did you assume those duties?\n\nA. I am afraid I can\u2019t tell you that exactly, but it must have been on\nor about August 1942.\n\nQ. What were your duties in Dr. Schilling\u2019s experimental station?\n\nA. In Dr. Schilling\u2019s department I was in charge of animals. In other\nwords, I cultivated animals, white mice, and canaries; in fact, I was in\ncharge of that department.\n\nQ. Did you have any other or additional duties, such as file clerk or\ntypist, Witness?\n\nA. For a certain period, I substituted for the clerk and I was in direct\ncontact with Dr. Schilling on various occasions. I had a certain amount\nof business with the chemistry department, purchases from Dachau, and I\nwas also in charge of the detachment which had to search the water near\nDachau for anopheles mosquitoes.\n\nQ. While with Dr. Schilling, did you have the opportunity to read any of\nDr. Schilling\u2019s correspondence?\n\nA. I had frequent occasions to see the reports which Dr. Schilling sent\nin every 3 months, and sometimes I saw the answers which Dr. Schilling\nreceived from Berlin, as well as from some other chemical manufacturers.\n\nQ. Witness, can you recall to whom those reports were sent, in Berlin?\n\nA. These quarterly reports, which Dr. Schilling used to prepare, went to\nthe SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reich Medical Officer.\n\nQ. You have referred to the fact, today, that you saw some of the\nanswers Dr. Schilling received from Berlin; who was the originator of\nthose letters that Dr. Schilling received from Berlin?\n\nA. As far as I can recollect, these replies were sent to Professor\nSchilling by Dr. Grawitz.\n\nQ. Do you know where Dr. Schilling received his material to be used in\nthis research, that is, infected blood for the malaria experiments, fly\neggs, and so forth?\n\nA. I can remember that Dr. Schilling received malaria fly eggs,\nso-called eggs from which he bred other flies, from Duesseldorf; they\ncame from an insane asylum, but I can\u2019t remember the name, and some from\nthe Medical Institute at Rome that used to receive eggs. In fact, his\nmaterial used to come from Berlin. According to my memory, it came from\nProfessor Rose, and also from Athens; but I am afraid I cannot recollect\nthe name there.\n\nQ. Do you know whether Professor Rose had any correspondence with Dr.\nSchilling?\n\nA. I remember that in connection with previous breeding attempts we were\nnot too successful, and subsequently I saw a number of letters given to\na stenographer by Dr. Schilling. They were addressed to Professor Rose.\nHe was making certain explanations in them regarding certain types of\ninsects, in connection with which my name was used. I am certain it went\nto Berlin and I am certain that answers were received on numerous\noccasions.\n\nQ. Did Dr. Schilling ever send any reports of these experiments to\nProfessor Rose, to your knowledge?\n\nA. Whether he sent reports about malaria patients, I don\u2019t know. At any\nrate, as far as these fly-breeding experiments are concerned, he had\nsent reports. I know that for certain.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, we will go back to the malaria experiments for the moment.\nWhat was the nationality of the people used for the malaria experiments,\nwhat type of people were they?\n\nA. The biggest proportion, approximately two hundred patients, used for\nthe malaria experiments were Germans, a large proportion were Polish\npriests, and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslavs, and some\nPoles.\n\nQ. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?\n\nA. Of the Russians, many were prisoners of war.\n\nQ. What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments\nfrom your knowledge?\n\nA. According to my knowledge, 1,084 experimental subjects were used for\nthe malaria experiments.\n\nQ. Will you kindly tell us, Witness, how many of these subjects used in\nthe malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments?\n\nA. According to my knowledge seven or eight died at the malaria station,\neither directly or because of the treatment with drugs. I can describe\nthe details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards\nbecame ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that\ntime, Dr. Brachtel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the\nhospital, made a liver puncture and the patient bled to death.\n\nQ. Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died\nfrom the experiments. Of that number who died, did the deaths occur in\nthe malaria station itself?\n\nA. This was the number of dead who were not transferred by us to another\ndepartment, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had\nbeen transferred to another station.\n\nQ. Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other\npatients who were transferred to some other station after they were\nexperimented on? That is, did some others die after they were\nexperimented on?\n\nA. Of our patients, during the years after they came to us for\nobservation, I can recollect that another 60 patients died. I cannot say\nfor certain they died of malaria or other results of the experiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. FRITZ: I have a few questions to ask the witness. Witness, on Friday\nyou seemed to be fairly well acquainted with certain malaria questions,\nobviously on the basis of knowledge gained with Professor Schilling. I\nwould now like to ask you the following questions concerning some very\nimportant details: During your examination by the prosecuting counsel\nyou spoke of certain regrettable incidents. A number of deaths had\noccurred during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by\nProfessor Schilling. At the time you mentioned about seven cases, but\nyou only described one in detail. The patient had yellow fever in\naddition to malaria and then bled to death because the liver was\npunctured. I now ask you to tell me something about the reasons for the\nother six deaths.\n\nWITNESS VIEWEG: The other six patients were the so-called \u201cmedicament\ndeath\u201d cases. One patient died as a result of the salvarsan drug. The\nother one died as a result of the so-called \u201cperiphery\u201d experiment, and\nthe last four died as the result of a pyramidon experiment.\n\nQ. Were the patients who, after being released from the station of\nSchilling, suffered relapses sent back to Professor Schilling\u2019s station?\n\nA. If they reported back to us, they were taken back to the station.\n\nQ. In that case did any patients die in Professor Schilling\u2019s department\nwho later on had malaria or relapses?\n\nA. Patients who were in danger of death were transferred to another\nstation.\n\nQ. Do you remember whether malaria tertiana is a fatal illness?\n\nA. As far as I know nobody with us died of malaria tertiana. The deaths\nwere a result of the secondary diseases which appeared because of the\ndrugs used in the malaria experiments.\n\nQ. Did Professor Schilling say anything to you about these fatal cases\nwhich were under his responsibility and observation, and if so, what?\n\nA. The first two cases, the patient who died as a result of the\npunctured liver and the one who died because of the salvarsan injection,\nDr. Schilling regretted very deeply. He tried to prevent such happenings\nas much as possible. In the last four cases, concerning the pyramidon\nexperiment, he was told that the patients were in a very bad condition.\nNevertheless, he insisted that they continue to receive the pyramidon\ndrugs\u2014I think it was 3 grams per day\u2014and when these patients arrived\nat the delirium stage, they were transferred from our ward shortly\nbefore their death.\n\nQ. And now something else. On Friday you testified that Dachau received\nanopheles from Dr. Rose\u2019s institute and that there was an exchange of\ncorrespondence about the difficulties you had in breeding these eggs. Do\nyou know where Dr. Rose worked, in which institute?\n\nA. I think these letters were addressed to the Robert Koch Institute in\nBerlin.\n\nQ. Do you know from this correspondence whether these replies came from\nDr. Rose personally or from his assistant?\n\nA. That I cannot state from memory. I recall one reply from a lady who\nwas in charge of the breeding of these eggs in Berlin.\n\nQ. That was probably an assistant who had worked with Rose for many\nyears?\n\nA. Yes, but I think Professor Schilling first turned to Professor Rose,\nand probably the replies primarily came from Professor Rose.\n\nQ. Can you remember the name of the lady?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Do you know with whom Dr. Schilling had dealings and correspondence\nin addition to Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Rose?\n\nA. I cannot remember. I know that he corresponded with an institution in\nDuesseldorf called Graefenrad or something like that, and he requested\nthe breeding of these eggs there, and they sent us flies, live flies.\n\nQ. Did you have the name \u201cRose\u201d in mind, or did you only recall his name\nwhen you were first examined?\n\nA. No. The name \u201cRose\u201d remained in my recollection because I, myself,\nwas infected with the malaria called \u201cRose\u201d. He had these various\nimmunization groups, the so-called malaria stock, which had various\ndifferent names, and I was with a group which was infected with a\nso-called Rose Culture.\n\nQ. You have testified before that you received eggs from Rome. You could\nnot however remember the name. Was it perhaps Professor Vissireli, Dr.\nRosni, or Dr. Raphaeli?\n\nA. I think it was Vissireli.\n\nQ. Did you also receive these eggs from Hamburg?\n\nA. We received no eggs from the Tropical Institute in Hamburg, but\nProfessor Schilling corresponded with that Institute.\n\nQ. Can you remember in which year you received these eggs from the\nRobert Koch Institute, or rather from Professor Rose?\n\nA. It was in the summer of 1942.\n\nQ. You have told us about a number of these flies which you had to breed\nin the vicinity of Dachau. Were you present?\n\nA. There was one special detachment for this purpose, including an SS\nman and one or two inmates. That was in the swamps surrounding Dachau\nduring the summer months. Various water tests were made, and according\nto the degree of heat of the swamps, Dr. Schilling ordered the waters to\nbe infected with a mixture of pig food. This special detachment went\naround the cellars of the Dachau camp during the winter months and\nworked on that matter. Our laboratories then examined these anopheles\nflies, and used them for breeding purposes.\n\nQ. Can you state anything about the quantities caught?\n\nA. It varied in the winter\u2014sometimes they brought 10, sometimes 30 to\n50, and sometimes 60.\n\nQ. Did your department in Dachau deliver any such eggs to other\ndepartments?\n\nA. We delivered such eggs on one occasion, but I cannot remember where.\n\nQ. I now come to the question of malaria culture. From where did\nProfessor Schilling receive his malaria cultures?\n\nA. I cannot say exactly. I know that he received malaria cultures from\nEssen and from Berlin. But this was in February 1942, when I had not yet\narrived at the ward. I remember we had 12 different malaria cultures. I\nknow that Professor Schilling used one, and another man used one\u2014I\nthink his name was Flugg\u2014in order to give one such culture the name of\n\u201cFlugg.\u201d\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[38]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Let\u2019s go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did\nyou have with Schilling in 1941?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I\nsaw reports about Schilling\u2019s malaria work in Italy on behalf of the\nItalian Government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the\nInterior; then, either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, I\ngave an opinion, a written opinion, on an application which Professor\nSchilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich\nMinistry of the Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling personally in\n1941. I am not certain whether he was in Germany again at that time, but\nI can\u2019t deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was 6\nyears ago.\n\nQ. Did you supply him with any material while he was working in Italy?\n\nA. No, nothing.\n\nQ. Who was Fraeulein von Falkenberg?\n\nA. You mean Fraeulein von Falkenhayn?\n\nQ. No, I mean Fraeulein von Falkenberg.\n\nA. I don\u2019t know any Fraeulein von Falkenberg.\n\nQ. You are sure you didn\u2019t supply Schilling with any material in 1941?\n\nA. I cannot remember it. It might have been done by my department\nwithout my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility\nfor it, but I did not learn of it until now. My assistants did not tell\nme anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I\nshall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done\nwithout my knowledge.\n\nQ. Well, it is not terribly important, but let us let you have a look at\nDocument NO-1756. In the meantime, when did this incident occur about\nyour giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at\nDachau?\n\nA. I beg your pardon, I didn\u2019t understand your question.\n\nQ. When did you give Schilling material, after he had gone to Dachau?\n\nA. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on\nthe testimony of my assistant, von Falkenhayn, and my secretary, Block.\nMy secretary, Block, testified here that it was the end of 1941, but I\nwould assume that she is mistaken about that, since Fraeulein von\nFalkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I\nthink the latter is more likely.\n\nQ. Document NO-1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for\nidentification.\n\nQ. Isn\u2019t there a Fraeulein von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of\nyours to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941?\n\nA. No. In the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it\nsays Fraeulein von Falkenhayn.\n\nQ. That is a mistake then in the English translation.\n\nA. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had\nformerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her.\nSince I have this letter I can give you some information about the\nmatter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in\nmalaria, the so-called Henry reaction; that is a reaction which is\ncarried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen\nreaction, in this reaction also the spleen of dead persons is used.\nProfessor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I, as\nhead of the tropical medical department, was in a position to obtain a\nspleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered\nsaying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria\nwas very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also\nvery rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in\nthe treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of\nWagner-Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment paralysis\ndeaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such\nmalaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as\nI can remember the matter, my assistants contacted various pathological\ninstitutes in Berlin and asked that if such an autopsy should occur\nthere, the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to\nProfessor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.\n\nQ. Did you ever supply any to him?\n\nA. As far as I can recall, in the course of several months, one or two\nsuch cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I cannot\nsay for certain today.\n\nQ. Well, you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my\nearlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941; isn\u2019t\nthat right?\n\nA. I beg your pardon. I didn\u2019t understand the question.\n\nQ. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments\nago, before you saw the letter, to the effect that you had not given him\nany material in 1941. You now, after having seen the letter, state you\ndid in fact give him some.\n\nA. Yes. I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of\nthe malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes. I did not think of\nnegotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although\nFrau Block said that the malaria eggs were supplied to Schilling in the\nlatter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?\n\nA. Yes. That is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you\nspeak of malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no\nmalaria eggs.\n\nQ. Yes, that is right.\n\nA. I am inclined to agree that von Falkenhayn and Block think\ndifferently. I think that von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in\n1942.\n\nQ. Did you know anything about this before it was sent?\n\nA. I cannot remember it. I don\u2019t believe so. As far as I remember I was\ninformed of it by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, after I had been given a\nletter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in\nDachau.\n\nQ. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent\nto Schilling; is that right?\n\nA. I did not issue a precise order. I said that since we ourselves were\nusing so many mosquitoes I didn\u2019t want any more material to be sent to\nMr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his\nwork. But Fraeulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was\nfurther correspondence with Fraeulein Lange. I have not been able to\nfind this correspondence and I can\u2019t clear up the question completely. I\nhave to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can\u2019t answer\nfrom my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I\ntold you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn\u2019t\nknow at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from\nmy department. I didn\u2019t know that at the time. I learned it only a short\ntime ago from Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit.\nApparently she was afraid of some objections and sent a letter to that\neffect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you\nabout it.\n\nQ. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?\n\nA. No. As I said on direct examination, the Rose strain could not come\nfrom my department because we didn\u2019t have any strain with the name Rose.\nWhere this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I\ndon\u2019t know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don\u2019t think\nthere is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given\nby Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria\nstrain was sent\u2014that is quite sufficient\u2014no matter whether it is\ncalled Rose or some other name.\n\nQ. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with\nSchilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?\n\nA. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so\ndefinite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say\nI can\u2019t answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I\nnever corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work.\nWhether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don\u2019t\nknow, since I don\u2019t have my files. Concerning any information about such\ninfrequent correspondence and whether he wrote a certain letter 5 or 6\nyears ago, he says, \u201cI would like to look that up in my files.\u201d\nUnfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough, if\nyou have copies of such a letter, to make it available to me. You have\nmy files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For\nexample, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 1941. That\nwas in the same filing cabinet from which you got the record of the\ntyphus meeting on 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of the Interior.\n\nQ. You overestimate the prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn\u2019t\ndwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you\ncontinued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments?\nYou say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more.\nAre you clear about it?\n\nA. Yes, I think I can remember reliably.\n\nQ. Well, when did this malaria strain go down?\n\n * * * * *\n\nA. I don\u2019t know. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the\nmalaria strain was given to Schilling. I don\u2019t know when. She didn\u2019t\nmention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution\nExhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud,\nProfessor?\n\nA. \u201cProf. Claus Schilling\n\n \u201cDachau, 4 April 1942\n \u201c3 K, Hospital for Inmates\n\n \u201cTo Prof. Dr. Rose\n \u201cBerlin, Fohrerstrasse 2\n \u201cRobert Koch Institute\n\n \u201cDear Colleague:\n\n \u201cI inoculated a person intracutaneously with sporocoides from\n the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the\n second inoculation I do not have the sporocoides material\n because I do not possess the Strain Rose in the anopheles yet.\n If you could find it possible to send me a few anopheles\n infected with Strain Rose during the next few days (in the last\n consignment 2 out of 10 mosquitoes were infected), I would be\n able to continue this experiment and I would naturally be very\n grateful to you for this new support of my work.\n\n \u201cThe mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding\n satisfactorily; I am working now on six tertiary strains. I\n remain with hearty greetings and\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cYours truly\n \u201c[Signed] CLAUS SCHILLING\u201d\n\nQ. Schilling apparently thought there was a \u201cStrain Rose.\u201d\n\nA. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He\nmust have renamed this strain which came from my department and called\nit Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do\nthat.\n\nQ. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, \u201cL. g. RO\n17/4\u201d?\n\nA. Yes, that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days\nafter it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also\nthe file note \u201cSettled EVF.\u201d That is Erna von Falkenhayn on 17 April\n1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department,\nFraeulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old chief although\nshe denies it now; but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am\nresponsible for what Fraeulein von Falkenhayn did even if she did not\ntell me about it.\n\nQ. Well, you saw the letter of 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your\ninstructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?\n\nA. I cannot tell you now. That is quite possible. It is not even certain\nthat I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is\nmuch more likely that Frau Block brought this letter to my home where\nsuch things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been\ndealt with 10 days before, you can see that such letters were opened by\nmy secretary.\n\nQ. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she\nhadn\u2019t seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you\nhadn\u2019t corresponded with Schilling during these years.\n\nDid you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?\n\nA. Yes. Those are a type of anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a\ntype of anopheles I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus in my\nlaboratory.\n\nQ. Suppose I put Document NO-1753 to you. This will be marked as\nProsecution Exhibit 488 for identification. This is another letter from\nSchilling. This one is dated a year later\u20145 July 1943, acknowledging,\n\u201cwith appreciation the receipt of your letter of 30 June and the\nconsignment of atroparvus eggs.\u201d\n\nI would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last\nparagraph of the letter where it says: \u201cPlease give Fraeulein Lange, who\napparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success\nthan the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.\u201d\n\nDo you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg?\n\nA. No, I am sorry I do not remember the name of this man.\n\nQ. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was\nAugust.\n\nNow, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year\nprevious not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had\na change of heart yourself. Isn\u2019t that right?\n\nA. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more\nmaterial to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material\nourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in\nwhich Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that\nwhen we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling\nagain. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to\ntestify anything from memory. You see here again that this matter was\napparently dealt with by Fraeulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to\nme again.\n\nQ. Well, I didn\u2019t read it that way, Professor. The first line\nacknowledges your letter of June 30th.\n\nA. Well, then it\u2019s possible that I wrote to Schilling.\n\nQ. Frau Block suffered from bad memory about your correspondence with\nSchilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn\u2019t she?\n\nA. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary\nremembers such things better, but it is, of course, possible to make\nmistakes if one doesn\u2019t have access to the files. I have told you that I\ncannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence\nbecause I had too much correspondence.\n\nQ. Well, isn\u2019t it possible you supplied material to him in 1944?\n\nA. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraeulein\nvon Falkenhayn that the department for fever therapy never gave them any\nmaterial and, at that time, I no longer had an office in Berlin.\nHowever, I must again rely on Fraeulein von Falkenhayn\u2019s testimony. I\nmyself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once\nor twice over long distance.\n\nQ. I put in Document NO-1755. This will be marked \u201cProsecution Exhibit\n489\u201d for identification. This is a reply from you to Schilling, dated 27\nJuly 1943. This letter speaks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn\u2019t\nit?\n\nA. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs, so\nthat we could give up some of them.\n\nQ. There wasn\u2019t as big a shortage as you thought; is that right?\n\nDR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the\ndefendant Rose. It is not impossible that it was written by an assistant\nand initialed \u201cR.\u201d I know the signature of Professor Rose, and I think\nthe \u201cR\u201d looks a little different. Perhaps he might be shown the\nphotostat.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Let the photostat be shown to the witness.\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: I must say I do not understand this signature at all.\nWhen I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s very\nimportant.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[34] All \u201cR\u201d references in Document NO-856 are to pages of the Record of\nthe case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.\n\n[35] \u201cPros. Ex.\u201d references in this document are to prosecution exhibits\nin the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.\n\n[36] \u201cDef. Ex.\u201d references in this document are to defense exhibits in\nthe case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.\n\n[37] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13 and\n16 December 1946, pp. 418-468.\n\n[38] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25\nApril 1947, pp. 6410-6484.\n\n 4. LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf\nBrandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and\nparticipation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment\n(indictment, par. 6 (D)). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt,\nRudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted and the defendants Handloser,\nRostock, Gebhardt, and Blome were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the Lost (mustard) gas\nexperiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Karl\nBrandt and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on\npages 315 to 324. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the\ndefense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs\nfor the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. It appears below on pages\n324 to 334. This argumentation is followed by selection from the\nevidence on pages 336 to 354.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Gas Experiments_\n\nThe treatment of wounds caused by chemical warfare agents was of\nconsiderable interest to military medical circles of Germany. On 1 March\n1944, the Fuehrer gave Karl Brandt broad powers in the field of chemical\nwarfare. (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270._) The decree itself is not available,\nbut there is no dispute that Brandt\u2019s jurisdiction extended to\npharmaceutical products to treat gas wounds. So much he admits. (_Tr. p.\n2629._) This necessarily involved a determination of the most effective\nmethod of treatment. That the decree included medical research on gas\nwounds can also be concluded from the fact that copies of the decree\nwhich Brandt sent to Himmler (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_) were forwarded to\nGrawitz and Sievers who had previously worked on this problem.\n(_NO-013a, Pros. Ex. 271_; _NO-013b Pros. Ex. 272._)\n\nIn any event, on 31 March 1944, Sievers reported to Brandt about the\nresearch activities of Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Hirt had been\nexperimenting on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp since\nNovember 1942. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) For a detailed description of\nHirt\u2019s experiments, see the brief against Sievers (p. 318 ff). Brandt\nadmitted that Sievers gave him the written report by Hirt, which was\nintroduced as Prosecution Exhibit 268 (_NO-099_) and that this report\nshows on its face that experiments on human beings were performed by\nhim. (_Tr. p. 2626._) It is significant to note that the report speaks\nof heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost. Moreover, Brandt\nadmitted he talked to Hirt in Strasbourg in April after the meeting with\nSievers. (_Tr. p. 2610._) Approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish,\nCzech, and German nationality were experimented on with gas, of whom\nabout 50 died. They did not volunteer. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) Hirt\ncontinued his gas experiments at Natzweiler during the summer of 1944.\n(_Tr. p. 1058._) His gas research was classified \u201curgent\u201d by Rostock in\nAugust 1944. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._)\n\nIn addition to his participation in the gas experiments of Hirt, Karl\nBrandt personally furthered the criminal experimentation of Otto\nBickenbach. Brandt testified that the gas experiments of Bickenbach came\nto his attention in the fall of 1943 on the occasion of a visit to\nStrasbourg to see a cyclotron; that later he helped him to arrange a\nlaboratory; that he assisted him in obtaining experimental animals; that\nBickenbach did not conduct experiments on human beings; that he helped\nhim in 1944 after he had established this laboratory. (_Tr. pp. 2619,\n2620._)\n\nThe Sievers\u2019 diary for 1944 contains the following entry under 2\nFebruary:\n\n \u201cMet Professor Bickenbach in Karlsruhe and he advises that he\n has put his research work under the control of General\n Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt.\n\n \u201cDiscussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt: 1. Professor Dr.\n Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein,\n contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning\n the phosgene experiments that were [and was] in Natzweiler with\n him. Commission is to be withdrawn; for our part Natzweiler is\n to be closed.\u201d (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)\n\nPhosgene is a chemical warfare agent. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Brandt admits he\nwas in Natzweiler, but insists that only animal experiments were\nconducted. This is in direct contradiction to statements contained in an\nofficial war crimes report of the Government of the Netherlands.\n(_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) Josef Kramer, former camp commander at\nNatzweiler, also stated that Bickenbach experimented on prisoners.\n(_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._)\n\nBrandt testified that he later assisted Bickenbach in establishing a\nlaboratory in Fort Franzeky, which is near Strasbourg, and that he saw\nanimal experiments there. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Bickenbach was a professor at\nthe University of Strasbourg with Hirt and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2631._)\n\nThe Bickenbach reports sent to Karl Brandt not only prove that\nBickenbach and his collaborators Helmut Ruehl and Fritz Letz carried out\nphosgene experiments on 40 Russian prisoners of war, but that four of\nthe subjects were killed as a result. (_NO-1852, Pros. Ex. 456._) This\ndocument completely destroys the credibility of the defendant Brandt.\n\nThese reports on the phosgene experiments are designated top military\nsecret and are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are all addressed to\nPlenipotentiary General Brandt. These reports obviously cover the same\nseries of experiments which culminated in experiments on 40 prisoners\ndetailed in the 7th report. They were found in the apartment of\nProfessor Bickenbach by French authorities. The purpose of these\nexperiments was to determine the effectiveness of a drug called\nhexamethylentetramine against phosgene poisoning. Certain preliminary\nstudies are detailed in the 4th report, dated 11 August 1944, and\nmention is made of tests carried out on a \u201cnervous Russian prisoner of\nwar, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties * *\n*\u201d.\n\nThe 7th report, which is undated, concerns experiments carried out\nshortly after 11 August 1944 (the date of the 4th report) as Strasbourg\nwas overrun by the Allies a few months later. These experiments were\nperformed on \u201c40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of\nhexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those\nwere protected orally, twenty intravenously and eight were used as\ncontrols.\u201d On the basis of the 4th report, it can only be concluded that\nthe 40 prisoners referred to were Russian prisoners of war. The\nexperimental subjects are further described as being \u201cpersons of middle\nage, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the\nhealthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei)\nand the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a\nlocalized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the\nothers, no pulmonary disease could be found.\u201d (_1852-PS, Pros. Ex.\n456._)\n\nThe experimental persons were subjected to phosgene poisoning with\nresulting death to no less than four subjects. (_Tr. p. 3404._) Other\nsubjects suffered severe lung oedema.\n\nDefense counsel for Karl Brandt urged the possibility that this report\nwas not received by him. Assuming _arguendo_ that the report was not\nmailed to Brandt, and, if received, not read, the fact remains that the\nexperiments were performed by Bickenbach and his collaborators, whose\nwork was directly controlled by Brandt. (_Supra._) Were there no other\nevidence on this point, the circumstances of the report having been\naddressed to Karl Brandt are sufficient proof of his responsibility.\nMoreover, the research of both Bickenbach and Hirt was classified urgent\nby Brandt\u2019s Office for Science and Research under Rostock. (_NO-692,\nPros. Ex. 457._)\n\nThe continued interest of Brandt in research on chemical warfare agents\nand his knowledge of experiments on concentration camp inmates are shown\nby the report dated 31 March 1945 concerning experiments at the\nNeuengamme concentration camp. (_NO-154, Pros. Ex. 446._) Water\ndecontamination experiments were carried out there on inmates. The\nreport states that the \u201cthird series of experiments was carried out with\nan agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost; in accordance\nwith the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4\nDecember 1944 with Reich Commissioner Brandt.\u201d\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments_\n\nFrom the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944, experiments to\ndetermine the most effective treatment for wounds caused by Lost\n(mustard) gas were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp under\nthe supervision of Professor Hirt of the Reich University of Strasbourg.\nThe experiments were ordered by Himmler and the Luftwaffe, and sponsored\nby the Reich Research Council. The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant\nSievers supported this research on behalf of the SS. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex.\n267._) The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies of the\nAhnenerbe was made by Sievers. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._)\n\nThe defendant Sievers participated in these experiments by actively\ncollaborating with the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt, and\nwith Hirt and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer.\n\nThe record shows that Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least\nas early as 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler and\nHirt. (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_; _NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_.)\n\nOn 9 April 1942 Sievers wrote to Hirt that Himmler wanted detailed\ninformation from Hirt on his Lost experiments. Sievers went on to say:\n\n \u201cWe are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the\n furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection\n with special secret experiments which we are at present\n conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief\n secret report for the Reich Leader SS on your Lost experiments?\n\n \u201cBut you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being,\n especially since the Reich Leader SS is staying permanently at\n the Fuehrer\u2019s Headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a\n visit at Strasbourg as soon as possible. But perhaps it would be\n easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the\n opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for\n Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our\n secret experiments at Dachau.\u201d (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._)\n\nThe wording of the letter makes it apparent that it was Sievers himself\nwho brought Hirt\u2019s research activities concerning Lost gas to Himmler\u2019s\nattention. This is also proved by the fact that on 9 February 1942, he\nhad already submitted to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Hirt\u2019s report\nconcerning the creation of a skeleton collection and research in the\nfield of intravital microscopy. The latter experimentation involved the\neffect of Lost on the living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) Brandt\ninformed Himmler about Hirt\u2019s report on 27 February, and directed\nSievers to report again on Hirt\u2019s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) It\nwas thus Sievers\u2019 report on Hirt\u2019s research activities which prompted\nHimmler to take an interest in Hirt\u2019s Lost experiments.\n\nOn 27 June 1942 Sievers forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt the\ninformation of Hirt concerning the use of mustard gas on combatting\nrats. In this letter he mentioned that he would have another conference\nwith Hirt on this subject. According to Sievers, Hirt had voiced his\nexpert opinion that Lost even \u201cin a dilution of 1-100 is dangerous for\nman if it contacts the body in an adequate amount.\u201d (_NO-794, Pros. Ex.\n259._) It was Sievers who forwarded on 2 June 1942 Hirt\u2019s report on his\nexperiments in treating gas wounds by vitamins. In his covering letter\nto this report, Sievers informed the defendant Rudolf Brandt that he was\nto meet Hirt \u201cin order to discuss with him a more intensive application,\ncontinuation, and promotion of his research work\u201d. In the report itself,\nHirt stated that he had not been able to conduct experiments with Lost\ngas on human beings because of the offensive against France, but\nsuggested such experiments particularly in order to determine the\nprotective effect of vitamin treatment. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._)\n\nIn a memorandum of 26 June 1942 concerning support by the Ahnenerbe of\nthe research work of Hirt on mustard gas, Sievers proposed that an\nInstitute for Military Scientific Research be established within the\nAhnenerbe to bring together Hirt\u2019s and similar research and thus\nfacilitate the organizational and technical execution of the\nexperiments. He proposed appointing Hirt as an active member of the new\ninstitute as chief of Department H (Hirt). He also stated that Rascher,\nwho was then performing high-altitude experiments in collaboration with\nRuff and Romberg, should be appointed as chief of Department R\n(Rascher). He stated that the necessary supplies for the new institute\nwould be easier to explain and more reasonable than if applied for under\nthe name of Ahnenerbe alone. (_NO-2210, Pros. Ex. 483._)\n\nAs a result of this suggestion by the defendant Sievers, Himmler\ndirected the establishment of the Institute for Military Scientific\nResearch within the Ahnenerbe in July 1942. In his letter to Sievers,\nHimmler requested that the new institute \u201csupport in every possible way\nthe research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and\npromote all corresponding research and undertakings; to make available\nthe required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to\nprocure them * * *.\u201d (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33._)\n\nSievers proceeded to make all the necessary arrangements for carrying\nout the Lost gas experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. On 27\nAugust 1942 in a letter to Gluecks of the WVHA, he stated that in\nconnection with a visit to Hirt in Strasbourg he would like to take Hirt\nwith him to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942 and he asked Gluecks to make\nthe necessary arrangements with the commander of the camp. (_NO-935,\nPros. Ex. 481._) In a file note dated 17 September 1942 Sievers stated\nthat the conference mentioned in his letter to Gluecks had been held in\nNatzweiler on 31 August 1942, and that the working conditions there for\nthe proposed experiments were favorable. Professor Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr.\nWimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach would require automobile transport for part\nof the trip from Strasbourg to Natzweiler in order to perform their work\nthere, and accordingly 20 liters of gasoline would have to be made\navailable to the camp authorities each month. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._)\nIn a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers stated that the\nnecessary conditions existed in Natzweiler \u201cfor carrying out our\nmilitary scientific research work * * *\u201d. He requested that Gluecks\nissue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to\nenter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their accommodation and\nboard. He also stated that:\n\n \u201cThe experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to\n be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical\n barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building\n are required, in particular the installation of the hood which\n can be produced with very little material. In accordance with\n attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I\n request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the\n reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at\n Natzweiler will be covered by this office * * *.\u201d (_NO-978,\n Pros. Ex. 480._)\n\nIn a memorandum on 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt,\nSievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in\nNatzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials.\nSievers was particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials\nwere asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. He said that:\n\n \u201cWhen I think of our military research work conducted at the\n concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special\n attention to the generous and understanding way in which our\n work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given.\n Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if\n at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible\n out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as\n a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea,\n but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that\n to the German people in a possible emergency.\u201d (_NO-098, Pros.\n Ex. 263._)\n\nBrandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting\nup the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt\nreplied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942, and told Sievers that he\nhad had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and\nthat he had reported that they would be remedied. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex\n180._)\n\nThe witness Holl gave in his testimony an accurate and detailed\ndescription of the manner in which the Lost gas experiments were carried\nout. The execution of the experiments was supervised by Hirt in the\nexperimental station Ahnenerbe in the Natzweiler concentration camp. In\nthe middle of October 1942 the preparation for these experiments was\nfinished and the actual experimentation began sometime in October or\nNovember, after the experimental subjects were given the same food as\nthe SS guards for approximately 14 days. The first series of experiments\nwas carried out by Hirt on 30 experimental subjects with a liquid gas\nsubstance. (_Tr. p. 1051._) In spite of the fact that Hirt, before\nselecting these experimental subjects, had promised them that he would\nintervene with Himmler in order that they should be released as a reward\nif they would volunteer for the experiments, none of the experimental\nsubjects of all the experiments carried out by Hirt volunteered.\nPolitical prisoners, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and also some German\nnationals were among the experimental subjects used. (_Tr. p. 1052._)\n\nThe first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt and an officer\nof the Luftwaffe in the following manner: One drop of the liquid was\napplied to the lower arm of the experimental subject. Approximately 10\nhours later burns began to appear and spread over the whole body in\nevery place where drops of the fluid contacted the skin. Some of the\nexperimental subjects became partially blind. The victims of these\nexperiments suffered terrible pain. Photographic pictures of the burns\nwere taken daily. After the fifth or sixth day of the experiment, the\nfirst fatality occurred. The corpse of the victim was dissected and the\nautopsy showed that the greater parts of the lungs and other organs had\nbeen destroyed. On the following day, that is, on the seventh day of the\nexperiment, another seven of the experimental subjects died. The\nremaining 22 were sent to another concentration camp after approximately\n2 months when they had recovered sufficiently and became fit for\ntransport. (_Tr. pp. 1052-3._) Other experiments on concentration camp\ninmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp were carried out in the gas\nchamber approximately 500 meters distant from the camp. The experimental\nsubjects had to enter this gas chamber two by two. They had to smash\nsmall ampules which contained the liquid. This liquid evaporated and the\nexperimental subject then had to inhale the resulting vapor. Usually the\nexperimental subjects became unconscious and were returned to the\nAhnenerbe station for further observation of the results of the\nexperiments. (_Tr. pp. 1053-4._) These results were approximately the\nsame as those observed in the first series. The breathing organs of the\nexperimental subjects were likewise destroyed. Their lungs had been\neaten away by the gas. About 150 concentration camp inmates were\nexperimented upon in this manner. (_Tr. pp. 1034-5._) Approximately the\nsame percentage as in the first series died as a result of this type of\nexperimentation. (_Tr. p. 1056._)\n\nOther Lost gas experiments were carried out by means of injection. These\nexperiments were carried out in a special room adjoining the\ncrematorium. The victims of these experiments died without exception.\n(_Tr. p. 1056._) Another type of experiment was carried out on the\nexperimental subjects, who had to take the liquid orally. As Holl was\ntransferred before Christmas 1943 to an outside camp, he was not able to\ngive information on the results of this type of experiment. (_Tr. p.\n1056._) He, however, returned once a month to the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp and was therefore able to observe that the Lost gas\nexperiments continued until autumn 1944, when the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp was liberated by the Allies. (_Tr. pp. 1057-8._)\n\nFrom Holl\u2019s testimony it is proved that approximately 220 inmates of\nRussian, Polish, Czech, and German nationalities were experimented upon\nwith gas by Hirt and his collaborators. About 50 of them died. None of\nthe experimental subjects volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._)\n\nOn 7 April 1943, when the Lost experiments were well under way\n(_supra_), Himmler ordered an intensification of Lost research. At about\nthis time the progress of Hirt\u2019s Lost research was threatened by the\ntransfer of Hirt\u2019s assistant, Wimmer, a medical officer of the\nLuftwaffe. Since personnel matters fell within the scope of Sievers\u2019\nduties, he wrote to Rudolf Brandt protesting the proposed transfer of\nWimmer and stating that if Wimmer left the Institute for Military\nScientific Research, the Lost experiments would have to end. Sievers\nthen outlined the proper procedure for securing the future services of\nWimmer at the Ahnenerbe Institute. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)\n\nAgain, on 3 November 1943, Sievers, in order to further the Lost\nexperiments and assure their continuation, made a certificate which\nenabled two of Hirt\u2019s research assistants to obtain increased food\nrations. Sievers stated that the research activities in which these\npersons were engaged with Department H (Hirt), Strasbourg, of the\nInstitute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe involved\nhealth-damaging poisons which had caused injuries to their health.\n(_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)\n\nThe evidence clearly indicated that during the entire period covered by\nthe Lost experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society. In\nearly 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost\nexperiments in a report entitled \u201cProposed Treatment of Poisoning caused\nby Lost\u201d. The report was described as from the Institute for Military\nScientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the\nStrasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due\nto Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this\nreport. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt\nhad received a Fuehrer Decree giving him broad powers in the field of\nchemical warfare (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_), Sievers informed Brandt\nabout Hirt\u2019s work and gave him a copy of the report. This is proved by\nSievers\u2019 letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex.\n275._) Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear\nthat experiments had been conducted on human beings. (_Tr. p. 2626._)\n\nThe proof has also shown that in October 1943 the defendant Blome, in\nhis capacity as a Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, issued\na research assignment for Hirt in support of his gas experiments. This\nis proved by the file index card on Blome\u2019s research assignment in the\nReich Research Council, where the assignment to Hirt by Blome is listed\nunder SS priority number 0329. (_NO-690, Pros. Ex. 120._) Sievers\nadmitted that a Reich research assignment to Hirt \u201con the behavior of\nLost gas in living organisms\u201d was made. (_Tr. p. 5817._) He further\nadmitted that at a conference in April 1942, Himmler told him that Hirt\nshould make Lost experiments on human beings other than volunteer\nmilitary cadets. (_Tr. p. 5679._)\n\nSievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler\nconcentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning\nthe arrangements to be made for Hirt\u2019s Lost experiments. These\narrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental\nsubjects. (_Tr. pp. 5842-43._) Sievers testified that the Lost\nexperiments were harmful. (_Tr. p. 5810._) On the visit of 25 January\n1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments\nand watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons. Sievers said\nthat the experimental subjects told him that they were volunteers and\nHirt confirmed this to Sievers. (_Tr. p. 5732._) The testimony of\nSievers was contradictory as to his knowledge that the Lost experiments\ncaused deaths. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt\nwhether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the\nexperiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects\nhad died due to other causes. (_Tr. p. 5733._) On the other hand,\nSievers seemed to be referring to Lost experiments when he stated that\nhe knew of one condemned criminal who had died from the experiments.\n(_Tr. p. 5810._) As to the nationality of the experimental subjects,\nSievers was of the opinion, in view of their manner of speech, that the\ntest persons were Germans. (_Tr. p. 5812._) The proof, however, clearly\nshows that Sievers already, as early as January 1942, had knowledge that\nnonvolunteers were to be used for the Lost experiments of Hirt. In his\nletter of 3 January 1942, Sievers requested Hirt to submit comprehensive\nresearch reports to him in order that he might forward them to Himmler.\nSievers assured Hirt that Himmler would permit Hirt to conduct\nexperiments of any kind \u201con prisoners and real criminals who would never\nbe released anyhow and on persons scheduled for execution.\u201d (_NO-3629,\nPros. Ex. 547._)\n\nSievers\u2019 diary entries indicate that his primary concern was making the\nnecessary arrangements for the carrying out of the Lost experiments. On\n25 January 1943 Sievers visited Natzweiler and consulted with the camp\nadministration; on 28 January 1943 Sievers consulted with Pohl\nconcerning the continuation of the Lost experiments and undoubtedly\narranged for the allocation of test persons, although he testified that\nhis conversation related to obtaining space for animals. (_Tr. p.\n5736._) On 24 and 25 January Sievers received reports from Hirt on Lost\nexperiments and on 17 March 1943 Sievers attended a conference at the\nInstitute for Military Scientific Research where Lost experiments were\nreported. (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._)\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_I. Experiments performed._ Counsel for the defense does not wish to\nmake a statement in this connection.\n\n_II. Order to carry out the experiments._ The defendant Karl Brandt is\nnot mentioned in connection with the order to carry out these\nexperiments.\n\n1. _Drug F 1001._ NO-199, Prosecution Exhibit 253, and NO-198,\nProsecution Exhibit 254, show that the order to carry out these\nexperiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp was given by Himmler\nor Reich Physician SS Grawitz in 1939. This is confirmed by the fact\nthat the reports on the concluded experiments were submitted to Grawitz\nor Himmler.\n\n2. _\u201cLost\u201d experiments._ According to NO-098, Prosecution Exhibit 263,\nthe order to Hirt was given on 13 July 1942 as shown in the letter dated\n3 November 1942, which contains a research commission of the SS\nInstitute for Applied Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe.\nAccording to 492-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 267, the order to carry out\nexperiments was given by Himmler or Goering.\n\nIn accordance with Sievers\u2019 testimony (_Tr. pp. 5733-34_) Himmler, on 8\nMarch 1944, ordered Hirt to carry out human experiments despite the\nlatter\u2019s arguments that only animal experiments could achieve further\nresults. The issuing of this order is supported by the fact that the\nreports were sent to Reich Physician SS Grawitz to be passed on to Reich\nLeader SS Himmler. NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 269, contains a\npreliminary final report made by Hirt of the year 1941; NO-097,\nProsecution Exhibit 260, Hirt\u2019s final report of 2 June 1942 to be\nsubmitted to the Reich Leader SS; also NO-099, Prosecution Exhibit 268,\nHirt\u2019s 1944 proposals for treatment. This is also supported by the\ncorrespondence between Sievers and Hirt. NO-793, Prosecution Exhibit\n258, reports on a conference with Himmler.\n\n3. _N-substance._ The order to carry out the experiments was issued by\nReich Physician SS Grawitz in connection with Schwab and after Gebhardt,\nGluecks, and Panzinger had been heard. Reference is made to an\ninstruction from Hitler and an order from Himmler of 15 May.\n\n_III. Reason for and aim of the experiments._ Statement of the defendant\nKarl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2383._)\n\n1. _\u201cLost\u201d and Drug F 1001._ Research work on a healing drug for\ninjuries, not poisoning, caused by \u201cLost\u201d. Experiments of this kind have\nbeen carried out by all nations since World War I, England being the\nleading nation in these experiments on human beings. The general need\nfor experiments on human beings, and only those are relevant here, has\nbeen recognized by all nations as a military necessity. (_Karl Brandt\n106, Karl Brandt Ex. 49_; _Karl Brandt 107, Karl Brandt Ex. 50_.)\n\nThe necessity to carry out experiments increased in Germany,\nparticularly during World War II, as all nations were eagerly engaged in\nthe manufacture of \u201cLost\u201d gas. The need became imperative in 1944 when\nreliable sources reported that the enemy was getting chemical-warfare\nagents ready. (_Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101,\nKarl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt\n12, Karl Brandt Ex. 11_.)\n\n2. _N-substance._ Reasons for and aim of the experiments are unknown.\nN-substance is the name for \u201cnormal\u201d substance. It is not a chemical\nwarfare agent but a fuel substance, intended to be used for ignition.\nThis N-substance is not to be mistaken for N-\u201cLost\u201d, that is,\nnitrogen-Lost. (_Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Ex. 36_; _Karl Brandt 103,\nKarl Brandt Ex. 42_.)\n\n_IV. Participation in the performance of the experiments._\n\n1. _Drug F 1001._ The experiments were carried out exclusively at SS\noffices on the orders of the Reich Leader SS. They were performed before\nthe defendant Karl Brandt received his first official appointment.\n\n2. _\u201cLost\u201d._ The experiments were made by Hirt and Wimmer in the SS\nInstitute for Military Scientific Research in Strasbourg. According to\nSievers\u2019 testimony (_Tr. p. 5788_) the defendant Karl Brandt did not\nhave any influence on these institutions. The \u201cLost\u201d chemical warfare\nagent does not act like gas, but in a dried form injures the skin.\nOrdinarily, experiments are made by all nations by applying small drops\nof \u201cLost\u201d to the skin. They cause injuries to the tissue, which are\ntreated with healing drugs. This procedure is demonstrated in Holl\u2019s\ntestimony. (_Tr. p. 1052._)\n\n3. _N-substance._ Sievers\u2019 testimony (_Tr. p. 5738_) shows that the\nexperiments were not carried out due to a laboratory experiment of\nProfessor Thyssen and an expert opinion sent to Himmler.\n\n_V. The experimental subjects._\n\n_A. Number of experimental subjects._\n\n1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement.\n\n2. _\u201cLost\u201d._ The statements made by the witness Holl about the number of\npersons experimented upon must be treated with caution, since they do\nnot originate with Holl, but were stated by the prosecution and merely\nconfirmed by Holl. The testimony of Nales about experiments cannot refer\nto \u201cLost\u201d.\n\n3. _N-substance._ Since there were no experiments, no statement is made.\n\n_B. Consent of the experimental subjects._\n\n1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement.\n\n2. _\u201cLost\u201d._ Sievers\u2019 testimony (_Tr. p. 5732_) shows that Hirt said\nthat the experimental subjects had volunteered, following a lecture by\nHirt. This testimony seems to be quite trustworthy, as it was usual to\nmake similar experiments on officer candidates of the Academy of\nMilitary Medicine in Berlin. Testimony of Becker-Freyseng (_Tr. p.\n8072_) as well as testimony of Sievers (_Tr. pp. 5730-31_); also\ntestimony of the witness Nales (_Tr. pp. 10409-10471_).\n\n3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement.\n\n_C. Type of experimental subjects._\n\n1. _F 1001._ The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the\nexperimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case\nwere foreigners used.\n\n2. _\u201cLost\u201d._ According to Sievers\u2019 testimony, the persons used in the\nexperiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that\nthe nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no\nsignificance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant\nRudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is no basis to judge the true\nstate of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt\u2019s testimony (_Tr. pp. 4930-34_) shows\nthat he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements\nare conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the\ninterrogators.\n\n3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement.\n\n_D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects._\n\n1. _Drug F 1001 and \u201cLost\u201d._ The usual forms of the \u201cLost\u201d experiments,\napplying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (_Tr. p. 1052_) do not\nentail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most\ndetailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of \u201cLost\u201d. Experiments\nwith deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The\nrelevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the\nmanner of the experiment. Holl\u2019s statement (_Tr. p. 1050 ff._) and the\naffidavit of Wagner (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280_) also, to a certain degree,\ncontradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital\nKapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with\nillustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit\nof Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments,\nan elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more\nreserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during \u201cLost\u201d\nexperiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the \u201cLost\u201d experiments\nwere are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a\ncommittee. Sievers\u2019 statement (_Tr. p. 5732_) reports a visit to Wimmer\nat Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had\nbeen any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites\ntwo deaths, they had not resulted from \u201cLost\u201d experiments. The\nexperiments with drug F 1001, too, are \u201cLost\u201d experiments. The danger\ninvolved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no\ndeaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general\ncondition was not impaired. (_NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253._) In contrast to\nthis, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of\nthe general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these\ndisturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the\nclimax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the\nduration of the experiments.\n\n2. _N-substance._ The experiments were not carried out. Over and above\nthat, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments\nwould, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm.\n\n_VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl\nBrandt._\n\n1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out\nexperiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders.\n\n2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical\nwarfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits:\n(_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 5_, _Karl Brandt\nEx. 6_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 4_, _Karl\nBrandt Ex. 5_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt\n89_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 37_). They show that this decree does not refer to\nan authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and\ntheir research, but that it represents a production order referring to\ndefense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution\nExhibit 275, proves that Hirt\u2019s experiments had been completed when the\ndefendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt\u2019s\ntreatment-instructions for injuries caused by \u201cLost\u201d following the\ndecree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first\ntime, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that\nthis was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a\nsphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders\n(see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts\nwith Himmler). (_Also Karl Brandt 120_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 35_.) The\naffidavit of Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is refuted by Karl\nBrandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf\nBrandt. (_Tr. pp. 4930-34._) As a matter of fact the name of the\ndefendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents\nextending over a period of several years. The special secrecy\nsurrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas\ndefense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the\ninadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide\nthis from the enemy. (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl\nBrandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex.\n10_.)\n\n3. Karl Brandt\u2019s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by\nthe fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from\nSpain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been\npredominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of\ncost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (_Karl Brandt 12_,\n_Karl Brandt Ex. 11._) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on\nwork with N-gas (_NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279_) proves that the defendant Karl\nBrandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very\ndifferent sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt\nExhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further\nconfirmed by Sievers\u2019 letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (_NO-793, Pros.\nEx. 258._) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing\nexperiments by \u201csingle possibilities\u201d.\n\nNO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July\n1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt\u2019s\nresearches in every possible way.\n\n4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the\ndecree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his\naffidavit, (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_; _Tr. pp. 4941-42_.)\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by\nProfessor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp.\n\n2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30\nApril 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons\nare supposed to have suffered from severe burns.\n\n3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The\nprosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers\u2019\nparticipation in the Lost gas experiments:\n\n Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (_NO-791, Pros.\n Ex. 256_) concerning experiments with insecticides.\n\n Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (_NO-792,\n Pros. Ex. 257_) concerning answer to Sievers\u2019 letter.\n\n Sievers\u2019 letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (_NO-793, Pros. Ex.\n 258_) concerning Dr. Hirt\u2019s treatises on intravital microscopy\n and Lost experiments.\n\n Sievers\u2019 letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (_NO-794, Pros.\n Ex. 259_) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on\n the results of Lost experiments.\n\n Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (_NO-097,\n Pros. Ex. 260_) concerning Dr. Hirt\u2019s report on Lost wounds.\n Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the\n front.\n\n Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (_NO-098,\n Pros. Ex. 263_).\n\n Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R.\n Brandt of 22 April 1943\u2014concerning release of Staff Physician\n Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work\n with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)\n\n Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to\n Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943\u2014concerning\n Dr. Wimmer\u2019s transfer. (_NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266._)\n\n Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of\n 8 November 1943\u2014concerning the sending of special rations of\n food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)\n\n Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost.\n (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._)\n\n Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr.\n Brandt of 9 February 1942\u2014concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt\u2019s\n report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which\n enables one to observe a living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex.\n 269._)\n\n Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the\n Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944\u2014concerning the transmission of a\n Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (_NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272._) The\n Fuehrer Decree mentioned\u2014of 1 March 1944\u2014has not been\n submitted.\n\n Letter of the Office \u201cA\u201d to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944\n concerning Sievers\u2019 report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt\n on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._)\n\n Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September\n 1942 (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_) concerning military scientific\n research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp.\n\n Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942\n concerning military scientific research in connection with the\n Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._)\n\n Sievers\u2019 memorandum concerning the carrying out of military\n scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17\n September 1942. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._)\n\nThe defense refers to the following evidence:\n\nLost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in\nBerlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy.\n(_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_; _Tr. p. 5679_; _Tr. pp. 8071-72_.) Professor\nDr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University\nof Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (_Tr. p.\n5731._) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself.\n(_Tr. p. 5733._) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to\nbe carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers.\nHimmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on\nhuman beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942\nHimmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had\nalso mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in\nwriting to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (_NO-793,\nPros. Ex. 258._) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where\nit was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of\nthe Reich Leader SS. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) The heading of this\nletter is remarkable: \u201cReport on the Lost experiments carried out by\norder of the Wehrmacht.\u201d Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the\nreport that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost\nexperiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time.\nFrom this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings,\nwith the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt.\nHowever, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business\nManager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich\nLeader SS on 27 August 1942. (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._)\n\nIn a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt\nshould carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Sievers set out for\nNatzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain\nwhether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt\u2019s report of\n19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of\nOberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the\nlaboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt\u2019s report\ncontinues:\n\n \u201cWe were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be\n experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are\n subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the\n L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards\u2019\n diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same\n conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case.\n To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the\n experiment.\u201d (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._)\n\nAs Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician\nto the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was\nasked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer,\nsurgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr.\nHirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr.\nWimmer\u2019s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (_NO-194, Pros.\nEx. 265._)\n\nIt was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory\nfinance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he\nwrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the\nadministration of the concentration camps. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481_;\n_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482_; _NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_.) They contain only\nadministrative matters.\n\nHow little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document\nNO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the\ncommandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice.\n\nAs for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of\nthe performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration\ncamp, the following can be stated:\n\nFerdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3\nJanuary 1947, said nothing about Sievers\u2019 taking part in any way in the\nperformance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration\ncamp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The\nwitness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS\nuniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost\nexperiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement,\nespecially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners\u2019\nguard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration\ncamp. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._)\n\nThe witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp\nhospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of\nSievers\u2019 presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any\nconnection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (_Tr. p. 1099 ff._)\n\nSievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also\nvisited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost\nexperiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the\nexperimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about\n10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One\nof the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and\nSievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a\nscab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other\nhand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found\nthat they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor\nHirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of\nthe experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a\nreport on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for\ntheir release. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The lecture which Hirt had\npreviously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by\nthe witness Holl. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) This was the only visit\nSievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After\n25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already\nknown from his diary entries.\n\nSievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a\nphysician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments\nand the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to\nbe prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt\nwhether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths\nwhich, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost\nexperiments. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._)\n\nThe statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April\n1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the\nexperimental subjects who had reported for the \u201cBurning Experiments\u201d\nwere _volunteers_. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers\u2019 statement of\n10 April 1947. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The witness admitted under\ncross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp\nphysician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the\nplanned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not\nprecisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may\ncertainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned\nexperiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed\nby the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the\nchoice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was\npresent neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr.\nHirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the\nquestion of volunteering.\n\n4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give\ninstructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments.\nNeither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost\nexperiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate\nadministrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the\nexperiments carried out by Dr. Hirt.\n\n5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or\nbecome inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of\nthe experiments.\n\nWe still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some\nreport or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments.\nAs a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer,\nthe \u201cProposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost\u201d was\nproduced. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) From this report nothing at all is\nto be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the\nexperimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness\nof Sievers\u2019 statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no\nmore of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at\nNatzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal\nexperiments.\n\nThis must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and\nNO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give\ninformation on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the\ninformation which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence\nsubmitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of\nthe experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under\nwhich they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that\nanyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the\nexperiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter\nto Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31\nMarch he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on\nthe research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The\ncontents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in\nhis examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only\nstated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to\nhim the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about\nbeing commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No\ndiscussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the\nperformance of the experiments. This was the \u201creport\u201d from which the\nprosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had\ndetailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 2365-66._)\n\nThe question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report\nmade by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of\ndeaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt\u2019s report did not\ndisclose anything from which one could conclude that a special\nendangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt\ndeclared that he could arrive at further results only through\nexperiments on animals. (_German Tr. p. 5734._)\n\nFinally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of\nthe prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy\nconstituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by\nDr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (_Tr. p. 5734._) Letter from the\nfirm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (_Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10_; _Tr. p.\n5879_; _Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51_.) That intravital microscopic\nexperiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not\ntestified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any\ndocument. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become\nknown to third parties through experimental subjects or records.\n\n6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost\nexperiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course\nof experiments against Himmler\u2019s order.\n\n7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of\ncriminal negligence either.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\n Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page\n NO-794 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 336\n June 1942, concerning mustard gas and\n its effect on human beings.\n NO-098 263 Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf 337\n Brandt, 3 November 1942, concerning\n research in the Natzweiler\n concentration camp.\n NO-193 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 340\n April 1943, regarding prevention of\n Dr. Wimmer\u2019s to active duty with the\n air force.\n NO-099 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the 341\n proposed treatment of poisoning caused\n by Lost gas.\n NO-005 279 Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 344\n November 1944, requesting prisoners\n for experiments.\n NO-1852 456 Extract from report on medical 345\n experiments addressed to Karl Brandt.\n NO-978 480 Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 349\n September 1942, concerning military\n scientific research work to be\n conducted at Natzweiler concentration\n camp.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n Karl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber 350\n Ex. 11 on his efforts to purchase\n experimental animals in Spain and\n bring them to Germany.\n Karl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 351\n Ex. 41 April 1947, concerning the\n urgency of experiments in the\n field of chemical-warfare agents\n and their countermeasures.\n Karl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 352\n Ex. 42 April 1947, concerning the\n assignment of Karl Brandt in\n connection with chemical warfare.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-794\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 259\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 27 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING MUSTARD\n GAS AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN BEINGS\n\nThe Ahnenerbe\n\nThe Reich Business Manager\n\n Berlin-Dahlem, 27 June 1942\n G/H/6, g/Sch/4, A/1/101 S/wo\n\nTo: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt\nPersonal Staff of the Reich Leader SS\n Berlin\nSubject: Use of mustard gas for exterminating rats.\nRe: Your letter of 13 July 1942\u2014A 19/95/1942\n\nDear Comrade Brandt!\n\nOn request SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg tells me:\n\n \u201cMustard gas in a dilution of 1:100 is dangerous to human beings\n if it contacts the body in an adequate amount. Above all,\n mustard gas is dangerously effective to clothing, as is known,\n even when greatly diluted, especially in connection with\n dampness. Mustard gas touching the skin even in a dilution of\n 1:100 causes reddening, possibly it causes little cysts without\n effecting necrosis. That is, the effect is much weaker than that\n of pure mustard gas. In spite of that, coming in contact with\n the clothes in sufficient quantities, especially in the regions\n of perspiration as the armpit, or the inguinal region, it can\n have exactly the same effect as concentrated mustard gas. For\n this, only a trace of it is frequently sufficient. This I\n experienced in a laboratory accident with a chemical student,\n who touched his armpit with one of the rabbits only for a second\n and a reddening ensued which spread over the entire body the\n following day, however, without further consequences. In my\n opinion, only a place which can be temporarily evacuated by\n human inhabitants can be used for gassing. The use of mustard\n gas in the vicinity of food stores, especially grain dumps, has\n to be absolutely excluded because one cannot know to what extent\n the rats carry the mustard gas there. Only gassing of rat holes\n would be possible with full application of precautionary\n measures. How this will work out technically, I cannot of course\n determine. Proper experts would have to judge that. Probably the\n case may be the same as with other poisons used for the\n extermination of rats (Phosphor-arsenic, strychnine, etc.)\u2014that\n means that the use of every type of poison has two sides. In\n spite of this, your idea to try the extermination of vermin by\n means of poison gas does not seem strange at all, but an expert\n on poison gas would have to determine if there are not other\n means of killing rats which are less harmful to human beings.\u201d\n\n With kind regards\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n\nP. S. I shall talk over this matter thoroughly with Professor Hirt one\nof these days, and I will see which poison gas expert we might consult\nfor the solution of the problem.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-098\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 263\n\n MEMORANDUM FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING\n RESEARCH IN THE NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION CAMP\n\nThe Ahnenerbe\nReich Business Manager\n Berlin-Dahlem, 3 November 1942\n S/Wo G/H/6\nPersonal Staff Reich Leader SS [Filing stamp]\nFile Room Document No. Secret/51/16 [shorthand notation]\n\n _Note_\n\n Re: Research order SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Professor Dr. August\n Hirt, Strasbourg, at the Institute for Military Scientific\n Research of the Ahnenerbe.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS [Himmler] ordered, in his letter of 13 July\n1942\u2014Journal number AR/48/7/42\u2014that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr.\nHirt carry out the research tasks assigned him, in conjunction with the\nNatzweiler concentration camp. It was determined at a conference, for\nwhich I drove, along with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, to\nNatzweiler on 31 August 1942, that the necessary conditions exist in\nNatzweiler. I reported on this orally on 9 September 1942, and\nafterwards in writing on 11 September 1942 to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks,\nwho agreed and promised his full support. In view of the urgency of\nthese research tasks, I asked SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt to\ngo to Natzweiler again because until then no report on the beginning of\nthe work had arrived. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt reported the\nfollowing, among other things, concerning this conference which took\nplace at Natzweiler on 19 October 1942:\n\n \u201cThe conference was due to the fact that until now nothing\n besides the detachment of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert had been\n accomplished. Nor had the installation of the laboratories been\n started to date.\n\n \u201cIt has now been decided to start with the laboratories this\n week.\n\n \u201cIt was further established that the camp for security suspects,\n Schirmeck, would erect the sheds. Its commander fortunately is\n ready, as he told us at once, to place the necessary people at\n our disposal free of charge; whereas Natzweiler would not have\n been in a position to do so owing to the overbearing and\n inconvenient demands of the workers.\n\n \u201cWe were furthermore informed that the prisoners who would later\n be used for experiments would have to be paid for by us during\n the period that experiments were being made upon them.\n\n \u201cWe are to request that the prisoners of the Lost experiment\n receive full rations (food for guards) to enable the experiments\n to be carried out under the same conditions as the troops would\n be under in a possible emergency. We intend for the time being\n to take 10 prisoners as subjects for experiments.\n\n \u201cHauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke said that he was refused the\n assistance of a second physician in supervising the experiments\n on patients, so that he probably would not have enough time to\n concern himself with the experiments.\n\n \u201cThe X-ray apparatus which I could procure here has not yet been\n definitely allocated by Berlin. We must get it immediately,\n otherwise we may lose it.\n\n \u201cThe installation of direct current causes difficulties. One,\n however, gets the impression that the building operators had not\n dealt with this problem at all. According to their opinion, a\n transformer should be procured which is able to transform 220\n volts alternating current into direct current. This is most\n likely quite improbable at this place.\n\n \u201cTo equip the laboratory, I would ship the needed things\n (freezing microtome, incubators, etc.) from the stocks of the\n Anatomical Institute to Natzweiler during the next week. They\n remain, of course, the property of the Anatomical Institute. The\n two prisoners trained in handling the microtome can then be put\n to work. According to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, both should\n be proficient at it.\u201d\n\nOn the basis of this report, I have the impression that not too much\ninterest in cooperative work exists at Natzweiler. As such cooperation\nis ordered by the Reich Leader SS and as SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks is\nwilling, the whole thing is not understandable to me. I was very much\nsurprised by the fact that the prisoners to be used for experiments\nshould be paid for. If we use only 10 prisoners for one experiment,\nwhich might under certain circumstances last 10 months, the cost for the\nprisoners alone would total approximately 4,000 RM. When I think of our\nmilitary research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I\nmust praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding\nway in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were\ngiven. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at\nNatzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this\nmatter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact,\nfor the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help\nto the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible\nemergency. The budget of the institute will be met, according to the\norder of the Reich Leader of the SS and as already discussed by me in\ndetail with SS Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen\nSS.\n\nUnder the supposition that the prisoners needed for experiments are in\nthe prescribed condition as regards nourishment by this time, the\nexperiments could start approximately on 10 November 1942.\n\nSpecial treatment in Dachau was never the subject of special\ninstructions but was understood to be necessary and issued without\nfurther ado. On the occasion of his personal inspection of the\nexperiments at Dachau, the Reich Leader SS also ordered special food as\nan additional measure. Just as the Reich Leader SS appeared one day at\nDachau to have a look at the experiments there, this is possible at\nNatzweiler too.\n\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n1. To SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt to read in reference to our\ndiscussion of today and with the request for help in comradely fashion\nin setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler.\n\n2. Documents.\n\n [Initials] SI\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-193\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 264\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 22 APRIL 1943, REGARDING\n PREVENTION OF DR. WIMMER\u2019S TRANSFER TO ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE AIR FORCE\n\n Copy\n\nAhnenerbe Society\n\nThe Reich Business Manager\n\n Berlin-Dahlem, 22 April 43\n G/H/6 S/No\nNote [Handwritten]\n Some information on W. is also in the files of Prof. Hirt\n Diary No. 41/8/43\n G. Mue.\nTo: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt\nPersonal Staff Reich Leader SS\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8.\n\nSubject: Dr. med. habil. Karl Wimmer, born on 24 October 1910, staff\n physician of the Luftwaffe, commanded by Air Gau Physician 7,\n Munich, for service with the Anatomical Institute of\n Strasbourg University. Co-worker at the Institute for Military\n Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe Society, Department SS\n Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg.\nRe: Your letter of 10.42. No. AR/48/7/42.\n Our letter of 25.7.42.\n\nDear Comrade Brandt!\n\nEffective immediately, Dr. Wimmer has been transferred to the XIth\nFliegerkorps [subordinate operational Command of an Air Fleet], and\naccording to information given by the Air Gau Medical Department 7 was\nto report today to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Jaeger, Berlin-Tempelhof, Manfred\nvon Richthofenstr. 6./II. As Jaeger is going to be absent until 27\nApril, Dr. Wimmer will have to wait for a decision, until that date. The\ntransfer of Dr. Wimmer means discontinuance of the gas experiments at\nNatzweiler and Strasbourg, as\u2014\n\n1. Replacement cannot be supplied due to the specialized knowledge\nnecessary.\n\n2. The practical knowledge gained by Dr. Wimmer through an extensive\nseries of experiments can only be used by him.\n\n3. On Dr. Wimmer\u2019s leaving, SS Hauptsturmfueherer Prof. Dr. Hirt will\nhave to take over his lectures and as he, considering his state of\nhealth, is already more than overworked, he can no longer go on with\nresearch work.\n\nInterim report on experiment results up to now will follow next week to\nbe submitted to the Reich Leader SS. The intensification of experiments\nand research, as well as the continuation of the work at all, as ordered\nby the Reich Leader SS on the basis of our discussion on 7 April, is out\nof the question, if the small staff of co-workers at the disposal of\nProf. Dr. Hirt, especially Dr. Wimmer, is withdrawn. The problems to be\nsolved constantly demand scientists with long years of experience and\nspecialized knowledge. Dr. Wimmer would now be employed only as an army\ndoctor, which is totally uneconomical considering his knowledge and\nabilities, as his services as an army doctor will never be of vital\nimportance as regards the war, while this may well be said of his\nscientific activities. Obviously the Recruiting Office of the Waffen SS\nat that time contented itself with the information of the Reich Air\nMinister and Supreme Commander of the German Luftwaffe, without\nconcluding a definite agreement. I request immediate steps for this to\nbe remedied; the best would be to order Dr. Wimmer to the Waffen SS at\nleast until 31.13.43 [sic] and if necessary the Reichsarzt SS should\nsend an army doctor in his place to the Luftwaffe for the time Dr.\nWimmer is assigned to the Waffen SS.\n\n With best regards\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n [Signed] SIEVERS [typewritten]\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-099\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 268\n\nREPORT BY HIRT AND WIMMER ON THE PROPOSED TREATMENT OF POISONING CAUSED\n BY LOST GAS\n\n Top Secret\n\n [Handwritten] Enclosure of Top Secret Z. I. A. H. No. 36\n G. Tgb. S. 19, No. 170\n\nFrom the Institute for Military Scientific Research Department H of the\nResearch and Instruction Society Ahnenerbe (Reich Leader SS Personal\nStaff, Office \u201cA\u201d) Strasbourg, Anatomical Institute.\n\n _Proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost [Gas]_\n\n (By Professor Dr. A. Hirt, and Staff Surgeon of the Luftwaffe,\n Professor Dr. Wimmer, Strasbourg, 1944)\n\n _General Observations_\n\nThe effect of Lost as a poison gas is immediate and, by causing other\npathological reactions within the cells and organs, it damages the\nentire efficiency of the individual cell as well as that of the organs.\nThe organism stands the best chance of absorbing the damage caused by\nLost if there is a large vitamin reserve in the body. In administering\nthe vitamin treatment after Lost damage has been inflicted, care must be\ntaken that the medicaments are not administered indiscriminately. The\nvitamin combinations (A, B complex, C) taken orally or vitamin B_{1}\nadministered intravenously in glucose suspension have proved most\neffective. Both methods aim at raising the resistance of the\nreticuloendothelial system, while simultaneously introducing therapeutic\nmeasures to protect the liver which can be further strengthened by food\nwith a high carbohydrate and vitamin content. When definite damage to\nthe organs (liver, cardiac muscles, kidneys) manifests itself, vitamin\ntreatment has to be discontinued and injections of B_{1} glucose\nsubstituted, as the excretion of the surplus quantity of vitamins\nresults in a temporary additional overstimulation of the cells of the\nexcretory organs.\n\nIn addition the inter-connection between the effect of sulfanilamide and\nvitamin B complex should be noted. In the case of pulmonary\ncomplications (bronchial pneumonia, pulmonary abscess) which are treated\nwith sulfanilamides, the administration of yeast is definitely not\nindicated.\n\nThe general treatment, as set forth, especially the administration of\nvitamin B_{1} glucose, also has a salutory effect on the healing of\ncutaneous necrosis. In average and serious cases, the length of the\nhealing process can thereby be considerably decreased. Supporting\nmeasures to be taken are bandaging the affected limb in splints until\nthe appearance of clean granulation or placing the patient in a suitable\nrecumbent position as well as vigorous, systematic psychotherapy. The\npsychological influencing of the largely apathetic Lost patient\nconstitutes an essential part of the treatment, due to the possibility\nof thereby influencing the parasympathetic system (circulation,\ncirculatory system).\n\n _Outline of treatment_\n\n1. All the directions given for the elimination of the Lost poison are\nto be followed carefully. Only _after_ elimination of the poison has\nresulted may Lost patients be treated and accommodated together in\nenclosed rooms. (Inhalation of Lost vapors!)\n\n2. Damp dressings with Rivanol (0.1-0.05 percent) and Trypaflavin (0.1\npercent) have proved to be a successful treatment of the _skin symptoms_\n(reddening, swelling, blisters) of the first to fourth day. If\nnecessary, ointment dressings (10 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment,\nboric acid ointment, etc.) may be applied. With the opening of the\nblisters, the exposed corium of the skin becomes extremely sensitive to\nthe drying reflex. Introductory treatment; daily bathing with a\npotassium permanganate solution, constant damp dressings of\nRivanol-Trypaflavin solution; later on ointment dressings (5 percent cod\nliver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment). With the development of\n_cutaneous necrosis_ and increasing disinfection of the affected parts\nof the skin, the damp dressings are to be substituted\u2014if only for\nnursing reasons\u2014by ointment dressings, after bathing with a potassium\npermanganate solution at body temperature, which are to be changed\ndaily. Usually after the 17th day, the necrotic spots on the skin can be\nremoved by drying them up or better still by brushing them off (under\nnarcosis if necessary) with a potassium permanganate solution. In this\nway the local healing process is considerably shortened.\n\nWith the beginning of the knitting of the skin granulation stimulating\nointment dressings (alternately cod liver oil ointment, boric acid\nointment, unguentine, etc.) are sufficient. Lexer\u2019s cod liver ointment\n(only 2 hours, painful!) can provide a strong _stimulus_ should\ngranulation formation be slow and drag itself out.\n\n3. General treatment of average and serious Lost damage begins with\nadministering a vitamin mixture compounded as follows:\n\n Vitamin A (in the form of Vogane oil) increasing from 4 to 10\n drops daily.\n\n Vitamin C (Cantan\u2014Cebion tablets) 2 tablets 3 times daily.\n\n Yeast powder 3 teaspoonfuls daily.\n\nOne should consider whether a vitamin compound of similar\npreparation\u2014if need be with the addition of glucose\u2014should be produced\nfor the combat troops. Such a powder mixture would have to be\nadministered in increasing quantities as well. In all cases of absorbed\nLost damage (liver damage indicated by increased secretion of\nurobilinogen in the urine, later icteric skin coloring, cardiac muscle\ndamage with tachycardiacs, kidney damage with albumin secretion in the\nurine) treatment with vitamin mixtures is to be discontinued and to be\nsubstituted by injections of vitamin B_{1} glucose. (Betaxin\u2014Betabion 2\ncc.\u2014also in larger dosages\u2014intravenously with 10 cc. 20 percent\nglucose solution.) Injections are to be given slowly, since at the\nheight of Lost damage the veins of the arms incline to thrombosis! In\nthe latter case glucose has to be administered orally and vitamin B_{1}\nintramuscularly. There exists the possibility, in every case of\nconsiderable Lost damage, of a sudden failure of circulation (frequently\nbetween the 7th and 17th day) indicated by a weak response to heart and\ncirculatory stimulants. Heart stimulants (strophanthin, caffeine,\ndigitalis) and circulatory stimulants (sympatol, priscol, camphor,\ncardiazol) have therefore to be administered with care in serious cases.\nThe therapeutic routine valid for all clinical treatment is particularly\nvalid for cases of organic damage.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-005\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 279\n\n LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 22 NOVEMBER 1944, REQUESTING PRISONERS\n FOR EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nReich Physician SS and Police\n_Diary No. 39/44 Top Secret_\n\n Berlin W. 15, 22 November 1944\n Knesebeckstrasse 50/51\n Telephone: 924249.924374.924351.924406.\n\n Top Secret\n\nSubject: Experiment with N-substance.\nReference: Order of Reich Leader SS of 15 May 1944\n 2 copies, 1st copy\nTo: Reich Leader SS H. Himmler\nField H. Q.\n\nReich Leader:\n\nThe Chief of the Technical Office in the SS Administrative Main Office,\nSS Gruppenfuehrer Schwab, contacted me in September of this year with\nthe request to furnish him with two doctors, who as medical experts were\nto witness experiments with N-substance, which he was carrying out at\nthe time by order of the Fuehrer. This was above all a matter of the\nclarification of the question whether N-substance was to be considered\nfor chemical warfare or not.\n\nFor this purpose I have furnished my leading pathologist, SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Sachs, as well as the doctor\nworking on the Ahnenerbe, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr.\nPloetner.\n\nIn accordance with the experiments carried out on 25 September 1944, the\nnecessity has now arisen to carry out several experiments on human\nbeings for the final clarification of the physiological effect of\nN-substance on and through the human skin. Five prisoners are necessary\nfor the execution of these experiments. It is highly improbable that the\nexperiments will cause any permanent damage.\n\nIn accordance with your order of 15 May 1944, Reich Leader, I have\nobtained the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt, SS\nGruppenfuehrer Gluecks, and SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger. They read as\nfollows:\n\n_1. SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt_\n\n \u201cI am certainly in agreement with suggestion, and request that\n the directions for the supervision of the experiments be issued\n directly by the Reich Physician SS and Police.\u201d\n\n_2. SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks_\n\n \u201cI have received your letter of 7 November 1944 with regard to\n the procurement of five prisoners for the experiments which are\n to be carried out with N-substance.\n\n \u201cFor this purpose I have had five prisoners in the Sachsenhausen\n concentration camp who have been condemned to death placed in\n readiness, on whom these experiments can be carried out.\u201d\n\n_3. SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger_\n\n \u201cFrom the point of view of the criminal police the experiments\n to be carried out there are to be welcomed. Therefore, no\n misgivings exist against the handing over of prisoners for\n inoculation.\n\n \u201cIf political prisoners should be considered, the Chief of\n Office IV, SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller would still have to be\n consulted, but he will certainly also grant permission.\u201d\n\nI respectfully request the permission so that the experiments can be\ninitiated.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] GRAWITZ\n\n [stamp]\nPersonal Staff of Reich Leader SS\nReceived: 26 November 1944\nNo. 1991/44\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1852\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 456\n\n EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ADDRESSED TO KARL BRANDT\n\n _Contents_\n\n Report. (2d copy)\n 2 and 3 Phosgene experiments Ruehl\n 4 and 5 T-experiments Letz\n 6 Aerosol experiment Letz\n 7 Natzweiler (3d copy)\n\n 6. 1st copy\n 7. 1st copy\n\n * * * * *\n\n Top Secret\n 3 copies\u20143d copy\n\nTo the\nFuehrer\u2019s Plenipotentiary General\nfor Health and Medical Services,\nSurgeon-General Professor Dr. Brandt,\nBerlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9\nSurgical Clinic at the University\n\n _7th Report_\n\nOn the protective effect of hexamethylentetramine in phosgene poisoning.\n\nExperiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect\nof hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those\nwere protected orally, twenty intravenously, and eight were used as\ncontrols.\n\n _The method_\n\nThe chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiments I to XIV the\nchamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating\neffect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after\nexperiment XI; the curves are shown on chart I [not reproduced].\n\nThe greatest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations\nof the average concentration for experiments I to XI. In experiments XII\nto XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured\nseparately in each case. In the tables II and III, c_{o} stands for the\nquantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, c_{m} for the\ncalculated average concentration, _t_ for the time of reaction. c_{m}\nwas measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the\ncurve values obtained through interpolation.\n\nB. The experimental subjects were all persons of middle age, almost all\nin a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were\nused as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally\nprotected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic\nproductive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary\ndisease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g\nhexamethylentetramine were given orally, later despite the much higher\nconcentrations 0.06 g/kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously.\n\n _Results_\n\nThe intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception,\nall survived the phosgene poisoning with a c. t. of 247 to 5,400. There\nwere no symptoms of pulmonary oedema after intravenous protection even\nwith a c. t. of 2,970. Only experiment No. 10 with a c. t. of 3,960\nsuffered pulmonary oedema of the first degree, which was overcome\nwithout any therapy and in experiment No. XIV the intravenous protection\nwas penetrated to an extent to cause pulmonary oedema of the 3d degree,\nwhich however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental\nsubject recovered.\n\nAll control subjects fell ill. With a c. t. of 768 and 1,180 a first\ndegree pulmonary oedema resulted which was overcome. With a c. t. of\n2,275, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree\npulmonary oedema but recovered. A c. t. of 5,400 killed one control\nsubject after 4 hours, the other after 14 hours.\n\nAfter oral protection, a c. t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any\noedema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramine was\ndrunk only 2-3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. Two\ncontrol subjects showed a marked oedema with a c. t. of 768. With a c.\nt. of 1,485 one protected subject fell seriously ill with a second\ndegree oedema, a second subject likewise protected, having breathed the\nsame phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking\ndifference must be sought in the different resorption of the\nhexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and\nthe different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the\nother hand.\n\nEven a c. t. of 2,275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary oedema in an\norally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4\nhours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema. The\noral protection was penetrated by a c. t. of 5,400, the protected test\nsubject died, as did the two control subjects.\n\nExperiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results,\nand will therefore again be specially described. Of four test subjects,\nthe first was protected orally, the second intravenously, the third\nreceived an intravenous injection of hexamethylentetramine after the\npoisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic\ntreatment, the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were\nplaced in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grams of phosgene\nwas smashed. The test subjects remained in this concentration for 25\nminutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the\ninhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg. per\ncbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy, and did not\nshow the least signs of difficulties or symptoms, the orally protected\nsubject contracted a slight pulmonary oedema, subsequently\nbronchopneumonia and pleurisy, from which he recovered. One control\nsubject also survived his pulmonary oedema; the second died a few hours\nlater, and the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious\npulmonary oedema.\n\n _Summary_\n\nThe conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varying\nconstitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of\nthe experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the\ndifferent volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas,\nwhich was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gave\nthe following decisive conclusions:\n\n1. A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of hexamethylentetramine\ncompletely prevents serious toxic and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c.\nt. of 2,275.\n\n2. An endurable quantity of hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactically\nweakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome\nwithout treatment. c. t.=2,275.\n\n3. Nonfatal but nevertheless oedema-producing poisonings are made\npositively ineffective by intravenous application, and are weakened by\noral application, c. t. 250 to 1,980.\n\n4. The oral application of hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective\nagainst phosgene poisoning of a c. t.=5,400, the intravenous injection,\nhowever, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject\nis able to overcome a lung oedema.\n\n5. The _dosis letalis minima_ (minimum lethal dose) based on these\nexperiments cannot yet be determined with certainty. One c. t. of 2,275\nresulted in the death of one experimental subject, and the second\ndeveloped second degree oedema of the lungs which was cured.\n\n6. Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop\noedema of the lungs remained completely healthy, others suffered from\nslight bronchitis with a brief fever. In every case they recovered\nwithout treatment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-978\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 480\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GLUECKS, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942, CONCERNING MILITARY\n SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORK TO BE CONDUCTED AT NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION\n CAMP\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff\nThe Chief of the Office Ahnenerbe\n\n Berlin-Dahlem, 11 September 42\n Puecklerstr. 16\n\n [handwritten] secret\n G/W/12\n\nTo: SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks\nBerlin-Oranienburg\n\nSubject: Military Scientific Research in Connection with the Natzweiler\n Concentration Camp.\nReference: Personal discussion of the 9th inst.\n\nBrigadefuehrer,\n\nBased on my report that, as proposed by the Reich Leader SS, there is a\ngood possibility for carrying out our military scientific research work\nin the Natzweiler concentration camp, I hereby summarize what awaits\nyour approval:\n\n1. Information to the commander\u2019s office, Natzweiler concentration camp:\nSS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr.\nKieselbach are authorized to enter the Natzweiler concentration camp.\nDuring their activity in the Natzweiler concentration camp, they are to\nbe provided with accommodations and board.\n\n2. SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, at present supply sergeant in the\nadministration of the Natzweiler concentration camp, is to be detached\nfor service with the Institute for Military Scientific Research,\nPersonal Staff Reich Leader SS, Strasbourg-Natzweiler section. Walbert\nwill have to tend the animals under the supervision of SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. It is requested that another man\nbe assigned to the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp\nin order to replace SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert.\n\n3. The transfer of two prisoners from the group which has been trained\non the microtome for pathological research in the Buchenwald\nconcentration camp is requested.\n\n4. It is furthermore requested, that a younger physician be assigned to\nassist the camp medical officer, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, in the\nNatzweiler concentration camp.\n\n5. The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be\ncarried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only\nslight changes in the construction of the building are required, in\nparticular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very\nlittle material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction\nmanagement at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to\nsame to carry out the reconstruction.\n\n6. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be\ncovered by this office. I have already discussed the accounting\nprocedure with the administrative leader, SS Obersturmfuehrer\nFaschingbauer.\n\nIn conclusion I would be very grateful to you, my dear Brigadefuehrer,\nif you would inform the commander of the Natzweiler concentration camp,\nthat you have approved the execution of the work at Natzweiler, just as\nit was discussed with me there, and about which I reported to you in\ndetail, and that you desire that we be given assistance in fulfilling\nthe duties with which we have been entrusted by the Reich Leader SS.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] SIEVERS\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n2. To SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 12\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTHER SCHIEBER ON HIS EFFORTS TO PURCHASE\n EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS IN SPAIN AND BRING THEM TO GERMANY\n\n _Affidavit 111_\n\nI, Dr. Walther Schieber, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, have\nbeen duly warned that I am liable to punishment if I make a false\nstatement. I affirm under oath that my deposition corresponds to the\ntruth and was made to be offered in evidence before Military Tribunal\nNo. I at the Palace of Justice, at Nuernberg, Germany. During the summer\nof 1944, Professor Karl Brandt informed me during discussions concerning\nthe execution of the especially urgently operated Brandt\u2014and\ndefense\u2014program against chemical warfare agents that he was having\nconsiderable difficulties in procuring animals which were needed for\ntest purposes concerning the effect of the top chemical warfare agents\nand for which he had requests from testing office.\n\nAt that time the problem was how to convert the production of chemical\nwarfare agents on account of raw material shortage to the production of\nthe top chemical warfare agent Sarin, the effect of which would not yet\nbe finally determined.\n\nTo carry out these tests, an action to procure animals was started by me\nin Spain, instigated by Professor Karl Brandt; because of the biological\nreaction parallels to human beings, apes resembling men were allegedly\nneeded. An assistant was sent there especially for this purpose. For\nthis, the armament office offered approximately 200,000 Swiss francs,\nand after my resignation as Chief of the Armament Supply Office in\nOctober 1944 from the Speer Ministry I made strenuous efforts, together\nwith Professor Karl Brandt, to have a large number of animals brought by\nextremely difficult air transportation from Spain to Germany. These were\nput at Professor Karl Brandt\u2019s disposal for the testing offices.\n\n [Signed] WALTHER SCHIEBER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 101\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 41\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF DR. OTTO AMBROS,[39] 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE URGENCY\n OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND THEIR\n COUNTERMEASURES\n\nI, Dr. Otto Ambros, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, having been\nduly informed that I shall render myself punishable if I submit a false\naffidavit, declare under oath that my statement is true and was made for\npresentation in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I in the Palace of\nJustice, Nuernberg, Germany.\n\nDuring the war I was a director of I. G. Farben and had to work on\nchemical warfare agents and protective agents, and can therefore state\nthe following:\n\nI got into touch with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt during 1944. On that\noccasion Professor Brandt told me he had to take an interest in chemical\nwarfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed me a\nletter from Adolf Hitler referring to this subject. Furthermore, he\nstated that he did not understand very much about chemical warfare, as\nhe was not an analytical chemist. His primary concern in this field was\nthe question of the supply of materials for gas masks, i. e., activated\ncharcoal and the synthetic materials and textiles which are necessary\nfor these.\n\nProfessor Brandt visited two poison gas plants at Dyherrnfurth and\nGendorf, to become generally acquainted with the nature of poison gas\nitself.\n\nThere was the greatest uneasiness at that time regarding protection\nagainst chemical warfare, as it was thought that the Allies would use\npoison gas. It was said that they had brought poison gas over with them\nwhen they landed at Tunis.\n\nIt was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed\nto the possibility of the use of a new kind of poison gas.\n\nOn the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical\nwarfare protective equipment, as not even the most urgently needed gas\nmasks were available, nor was it even possible to produce the required\nnumber.\n\nNuernberg, 21 April 1947.\n\n [Signature] DR. OTTO AMBROS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 103\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 42\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTER MIELENZ, 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE\n ASSIGNMENT OF KARL BRANDT IN CONNECTION WITH CHEMICAL WARFARE\n\nI, Dr. Walter Mielenz, born 20 November 1888 in Berlin, residing in\nBerlin-Friedenau, Ceciliengaerten 45 (business address:\nBerlin-Lichterfelde W, Kadettenweg 67, Telephone 245218), have been duly\nadvised that I shall render myself liable to punishment if I give a\nfalse affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was\nmade to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I, at the\nPalace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.\n\nFrom 1933 to 1945 I worked at the Reich Air Ministry as an analytical\nchemist, technical advisor on the question of the protection of the\ncivilian population against gas.\n\nI am familiar with the decree of 1 March 1944 in which special tasks\nwere assigned to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in connection with chemical\nwarfare. As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as\nfollows:\n\n \u201cI have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and\n Health Service (Professor Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in\n all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of\n the army and the civilian population) and to issue orders to the\n stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose.\n In questions of the protection of the civilian population\n against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval\n of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the\n Luftwaffe.\u201d\n\nThe decree certainly did not contain any order for research in\nconnection with chemical warfare agents.\n\nThe reason for the appointment of Professor Karl Brandt was the\nassumption that the initiation of chemical warfare by the enemy was\nshortly to be expected. This assumption was based on the fact that\nintelligence was accumulating, according to which gas was being prepared\nin large quantities by the enemy. Thus confidential agents reported that\npoison gas ammunition was being stored at Tunis and Dakar, and these\nreports were constantly being confirmed.\n\nThe greatest alarm was caused by the examination of captured Russian gas\nmasks, which showed that they afforded protection against far stronger\nconcentrations of poison gas than it had so far been believed possible\nto achieve at the front. Their protective capacity far surpassed that of\nthe German Army and civilian gas masks. From this fact, it could be\nconcluded that the scientists and technicians of the Red Army had\nsucceeded in developing new and particularly effective methods of attack\nin chemical warfare for known or new chemical warfare agents.\n\nThe German measures for gas defense were totally inadequate in number,\ntoo. The civilian population in particular was exposed almost without\ndefense to gas attacks because the issue of civilian and infants\u2019 gas\nmasks in many town and country districts was seriously behind schedule.\nThe relevant figures for civilian gas masks in the different supply\nareas were between 10 and 70 percent of the population to be equipped,\nthe average figure being about 32 percent, and for infants\u2019 gas masks,\nabout 7 percent. This estimate is based on the total number of civilian\nand infants\u2019 gas masks manufactured up to that date, in relation to the\ntotal number of persons entitled to supply. This estimate did not take\ninto consideration the fact that, without doubt a large part of the\nequipment which, in some cases had been in the hands of the population\nfor years, was no longer completely fit for use on account of faulty\nunsuitable storage, or had been rendered useless by air raid damage,\nevacuation of the owners, and other reasons, or lost completely. The\nlosses in civilian gas masks were estimated at about 15,000,000 (almost\n50 percent of the total output up to that date) so that for the\ncompletion of the initial equipment (without reserves) the manufacture\nof 45,000,000 gas masks had to be planned.\n\nIn view of these facts, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was assigned the task\nof providing with the utmost speed for the improvement of gas defense to\navert the danger which threatened.\n\nThrough the initiative of Professor Brandt, the gas defense program was\nfinally given the highest priority and had an equal standing with the\nprogram for the construction of fighter planes and tanks.\n\nI know that Professor Dr. Brandt was most strongly opposed to the\npropaganda demand spread by extreme Party circles for the initiation of\nchemical warfare by Germany.\n\nI regularly had to work with Professor Karl Brandt on gas defense and I\nknow that in view of their importance and urgency, he dispatched all\nmatters himself. The Department of Science and Research and its chief,\nProfessor Rostock, were not concerned with these matters.\n\nThe N-agent was not one of the chemical warfare agents. It is an\nincendiary agent composed of chlorine and fluorine (ClF_{3}); this\nN-agent has never been mentioned in connection with gas defense.\n\nI know that there existed in the Armament Ministry a special commission\nfor the decontamination of drinking water; this had neither been\nestablished by Professor Brandt nor was it under his command. The task\nof this commission was the production of decontamination equipment but\nnot the development of such equipment, and especially not the\ndevelopment of new processes for the decontamination of water. The\nrepeated suggestions made by Professor Haase in this context were\ntherefore beyond the field of activity of the commission. They were\ndiscussed, however, at a meeting in December 1944, at which I was\npresent.\n\nAt this meeting the representatives of the army and the air raid\nprotection service stated that for their sphere, i. e., for the gas\ndefense of the troops and the civilian population, there was no need to\ncontinue this work. Professor Brandt who was present at the meeting had\nalready agreed in advance with the general opinion that the efforts of\nHaase did not admit of the expectation of any improvement on the\nexperiences presented for consideration, and that they should therefore\nbe rejected. He therefore asked me to work towards this end.\n\nAs far as I know, the commission was never concerned with sea-water\nexperiments. In particular, to my knowledge, the commission had no\nknowledge of human experiments for the testing of agents designed to\nrender sea-water potable.\n\nI can state with certainty that the undertaking of gas experiments on\nhuman subjects was never spoken of by Professor Brandt and myself.\nMoreover, during discussions with army experts concerned with gas\ndefense and chemical warfare, I never heard that Professor Brandt in any\nway suggested human experiments or otherwise spoke of such experiments.\n\nNuernberg, 21 April 1947\n\n [Signature] DR. WALTER MIELENZ\n\n-----\n\n[39] Defendant in case of United States vs. Carl Krauch, et al. See\nVols. VII and VIII.\n\n 5. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants, Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken,\nGebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng,\nOberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and\nparticipation in criminal conduct involving sulfanilamide experiments\n(par. 6 (E) of the indictment). During the trial the prosecution\nwithdrew this charge in the cases of Schroeder, Blome, and\nBecker-Freyseng. On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,\nGebhardt, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the\ndefendants Rostock, Genzken, and Poppendick were acquitted. Regarding\nthe defendant Rudolf Brandt, the judgment makes no reference to this\ncharge.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the sulfanilamide\nexperiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant\nGebhardt. An extract from that brief is set forth below on pages 355 to\n364. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant\nGebhardt. It appears below on pages 364 to 370. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 371 to 391.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\nA. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\nExperiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on infections\nwere conducted in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp from 20 July 1942\nuntil August 1943. These experiments were performed by the defendants\nGebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)\n\nGebhardt personally requested Himmler\u2019s permission to carry out the\nsulfanilamide experiments and their execution was his responsibility.\n(_Tr. pp. 4024-5._) He himself carried out the initial operations. (_Tr.\np. 4032._)\n\nThe experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp\ninmates, who were used during the preliminary experiments in July 1942,\nand 60 Polish women who were experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects\neach.\n\nThe purpose of the experiments was stated in a preliminary report by\nGebhardt dated 29 August 1942, in which he stated:\n\n \u201cBy order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at\n Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of\n clinical experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness\n known as gas gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and\n to test the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.\n\n \u201cIn addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as\n symptoms in war surgery had also to be tested; and a new\n chemo-therapeutic treatment, apart from the known surgical\n measures, had to be tried out.\u201d (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._)\n\nThe sulfanilamide experiments, as substantially all of the experiments\nwith which the case is concerned, were directly related to the German\nwar effort. Allied propaganda about the \u201cmiracle drug\u201d sulfanilamide was\nhaving considerable effect on the confidence of the German soldiers in\ntheir medical officers. Heavy casualties had been sustained from gas\ngangrene on the Russian front in the winter of 1941-42. The theoretical\nquestion to be answered by these experiments was whether the wounded\nshould be treated surgically in the front line hospitals or should be\ntreated by field medical officers with sulfanilamide and then sent down\nthe long lines of communication to a base hospital for further\ntreatment. (_Tr. pp. 4010-14._)\n\nThe same report cited above states that the defendant Fischer was\nappointed by Gebhardt as his assistant; Dr. Blumenreuter, a subordinate\nof the defendant Genzken, made available the surgical instruments and\nmedicines; the defendant Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at\nthe disposal of Gebhardt; and Dr. Lolling, chief medical officer of all\nconcentration camps, assigned Dr. Schiedlausky and the defendant\nOberheuser as co-workers.\n\nThis preliminary report concerns itself with the early experiments on 15\nmale subjects to determine a mode of infection with gangrene. Gebhardt\nwas assisted by the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which made\navailable the bacteria and gave advice on the method of bringing about\ngangrene infection artificially. The experimental technique was\ndescribed in the report as follows:\n\n \u201cThe point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged\n muscle tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and\n humoral oxygen supply, and to subject it to internal tissue\n pressure. The inoculation procedure was as follows: a\n longitudinal cut of 10 centimetres over the musculus peroneus\n longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up\n with forceps in an area the size of a five-Mark piece; an\n anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc.\n adrenalin and in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation\n material (a gauze strip saturated with bacteria) was imbedded\n under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skin sutured\n in layers.\u201d (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._)\n\nIn the first series of experiments the subjects were infected with\nstaphylococci, streptococci, para oedema malignum, bacteria Fraenkel,\nand earth. The resulting infections were not considered serious enough,\nand a conference was held with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\nand the bacteria used in bringing about the infections were changed. Six\nadditional male subjects were then infected, but again the results were\nnot considered serious enough. After further consultation with the\ncollaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the infectious\nmaterial was changed by adding wood shavings. During the course of these\nexperiments the subjects were treated with various types of\nsulfanilamides, including catoxyn and marfanil-prontalbin, the latter\nbeing strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Efforts\ncontinued to make the gangrene infection more serious, and the report\nconcluded with the following paragraph:\n\n \u201cWe are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in\n the present cases did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring\n of the tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation\n of the blood were undertaken during a separate operating\n session, _and the large-scale necrosis resulting therefrom, was\n to be inoculated with bacteria strain which had already had one\n human passage_. For it is only when the really definite clinical\n picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions may be\n drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with\n surgical operations.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex.\n 473._)\n\nThis report was certified as a correct copy by the defendant Poppendick.\n\nIn his zealousness to protect his fellow defendants, Gebhardt testified\nthat neither the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS nor the defendant\nMrugowsky played any part in these experiments, and that the infectious\nmaterial was sent to him by Grawitz. (_Tr. p. 4179._) This is clearly\ncontradicted by his own report cited above.\n\nFollowing the conclusion of the preliminary experiments on the male\nprisoners, experiments were continued on female Polish inmates. The\naffidavit of the defendant Fischer states that three series of\noperations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the\nbacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial\nculture and fragments of glass, and the third using culture plus glass\nand wood. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) These experiments were undertaken\nduring the month of August 1942. While Fischer speaks of experimental\ngroups of 10 persons each, the defendant Gebhardt testified that the\ngroups were composed of 12 experimental subjects. (_Tr. p. 4056._) On 3\nSeptember 1942, after 36 women had been experimented on, Reich Physician\nSS Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck and inspected the experimental subjects.\nHe asked Gebhardt how many deaths had occurred, and when it was reported\nthat there had been none, he stated that the experiments did not conform\nto battlefield conditions. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 4057_.) In\norder to make the gangrene infections still more severe, a new series of\nexperiments involving 24 Polish female inmates was carried out. In this\nseries the circulation of blood through the muscles was interrupted in\nthe area of infection by tying off the muscles on either end. This\nseries of experiments resulted in very serious infections and a number\nof deaths occurred. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)\n\nGebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser all admit that three of the\nexperimental subjects died as a result of the experiments. (_NO-228,\nPros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. pp. 4059, 5492_.) Other evidence, however, proves\nthat five died as a direct result of the experiments and six were\nexecuted by shooting at a later date. (_Tr. pp. 1438, 1449, 797, 845,\n863._)\n\nFour of the Polish women who were subjected to these experiments\ntestified before the Tribunal. Most of the women who were used as\nsubjects had been active in a resistance movement. (_Tr. pp. 787, 816,\n840, 857._) Only healthy inmates were used. (_Tr. pp. 786, 815, 836,\n856, 860-1._) None of them volunteered for the experiments. (_Tr. pp.\n789, 819, 842, 844-5, 861._) On the contrary, they protested against the\nexperiments both orally and in writing. (_Tr. pp. 789, 794, 823-5._)\nThey stated that they would have preferred death to continued\nexperiments, since they were convinced that they were to die in any\nevent. (_Tr. pp. 795, 824, 863._) They testified that 74 Polish women, 1\nGerman, and 1 Ukrainian woman were experimented upon. (_Tr. pp. 1438,\n796, 818, 862._) Since Gebhardt placed the total number of Polish female\nexperimental subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments at 60, the\nadditional 16 women mentioned by the witnesses may well have been\nsubjects in the bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments. (_Tr.\np. 1462._)\n\nThe witness Kusmierczuk was one of the subjects in the sulfanilamide\nexperiments. She is a Polish national and arrived in the Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp in the fall of 1941. (_Tr. p. 857._) She was operated\non in October 1942 and a severe infection developed in her case. (_Tr.\np. 858._) She remained in the hospital from October 1942 until April\n1943, but her wound was still not healed at the time she was discharged\nfrom the hospital. Her condition deteriorated and she was readmitted to\nthe hospital on 1 September 1943. (_Tr. p. 860._) She left the hospital\nthe second time in February 1944, but her wound did not finally heal\nuntil June 1944. (_Tr. p. 861._) She identified the defendants Gebhardt,\nFischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiment upon\nher. (_Tr. p. 860._) Kusmierczuk suffered permanent injuries as a result\nof this experiment, and her condition was described by the expert\nwitness Dr. Leo Alexander. (_Tr. pp. 864-9._) The post-operational care\nof this woman was not handled by Gebhardt and Fischer, but by the camp\ndoctors. On the occasion of her second admission to the hospital in\nSeptember 1943, Kusmierczuk was operated on by Dr. Treite in an effort\nto cure the deep-seated infection. (_Tr. p. 861._) [See photographs, pp.\n898 to 908.]\n\nThe expert witness Maczka, who worked as an X-ray technician in the\nRavensbrueck concentration camp during the course of the experiments,\ntestified concerning deaths of the five Polish experimental subjects\nresulting from the sulfanilamide experiments. Weronica Kraska developed\ntypical tetanus symptoms a few days after the experimental operation was\nperformed on her. After a brief illness she died under cramps caused by\ntetanus. (_Tr. p. 1438._) Kazimiera Kurowska was artificially infected\nwith gangrene bacillus. She was a healthy Polish girl of 23 years. From\nday to day her leg became blacker and more swollen. She was given care\nfor only the first few days. After that she was taken to Room 4 in the\nhospital where she lay for days in unbelievable pain and finally died.\nMaczka was able to observe this case personally and in her opinion\nimmediate amputation would have saved her life. (_Tr. pp. 1439-40._) It\nis quite clear that if a German soldier\u2019s life had been endangered by\ngangrene infection, an amputation would have been undertaken\nimmediately. In this experiment, where the very effort was to develop a\nserious gangrene infection and to test the effects of sulfanilamide\npreparations, it is equally clear why the leg of Kurowska was not\namputated. Aniela Lefanowicz was infected with oedema malignum. Her leg\nkept swelling more and more, the blood vessels eroded, and she died from\nbleeding. Maczka testified that the blood vessels should have been tied\noff and an amputation carried out in order to save her life. She was\ncompletely neglected after the first 2 or 3 days. (_Tr. pp. 1440-1._)\nZofia Kiecol died under similar circumstances. (_Tr. p. 1441._)\n\nAlfreda Prus was infected with oedema malignum the same day as the\nwitnesses Kusmierczuk, Kiecol, and Lefanowicz. She was a beautiful,\nyoung 21-year-old girl, and a university student. She proved to be\nstronger than Kiecol and Lefanowicz and for that reason she lived a few\ndays longer. She suffered terrible pain and finally died of hemorrhage.\n(_Tr. pp. 1142-3._) Kusmierczuk was the only subject to survive that\nseries of experiments. (_Tr. p. 1443._)\n\nIt is hardly necessary to point out that all of the experimental\nsubjects suffered severe pain and torture. (_Tr. pp. 790-1, 802, 820,\n842, 859_; _NO-876, Pros. Ex. 225_; _NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227_; _NO-877,\nPros. Ex. 228._) The Tribunal was able to observe for itself the\nmutilations to which the Polish witnesses were subjected, and pictures\nof their scars were introduced to form a permanent part of the record.\n(_NO-1079a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 209_; _NO-1081a, and b, Pros. Ex. 211_;\n_NO-1082a, b, and c, Pros. Ex. 214_; _NO-1080a-g, Pros. Ex. 219._)\n\nThe post-operational care of the experimental subjects was entirely\ninadequate. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226._) Many of the subjects were given\nneither medicine nor morphine by order of defendant Oberheuser.\n(_NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228._) They were given bandages from time to time\nwhen the doctors felt like it. Sometimes they waited 3 days, sometimes 4\ndays. There was a terrible odor of pus in the rooms. The girls were\nforced to help each other. (_Tr. p. 1444._) Post-operational care, such\nas it was, was administered by the camp doctors. The witness\nBroel-Plater testified that:\n\n \u201cMy leg pained me; I felt severe pain, and blood flowed from my\n leg. At night we were all alone without any care. I heard only\n the screaming of my fellow prisoners, and I heard also that they\n asked for water. There was nobody to give us any water or bed\n pans.\u201d (_Tr. p. 790._)\n\nThe witness Karolewska testified that:\n\n \u201cI was in my room and I made the remark to fellow prisoners that\n we had been operated on under very bad conditions and were left\n here in this room, and that we were not given even the\n possibility to recover. This remark must have been heard by a\n German nurse who was sitting in the corridor because the door of\n our room leading to the corridor was open. The German nurse\n entered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered\n that we could not follow her order because we had great pains in\n our legs and could not walk. Then the German nurse came into our\n room with Dr. Oberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and go\n to the dressing room. We put on our dresses; and, being unable\n to walk, we had to hop on one leg going to the operating room.\n After one hop we had to rest. Dr. Oberheuser did not allow\n anybody to help us. When we arrived at the operating room quite\n exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us to go back\n because a change of dressing would not take place that day. I\n could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I do not\n remember, helped me to get back to the room.\u201d (_Tr. p. 822._)\n\nAt least five human lives were sacrificed in the sulfanilamide\nexperiments, while an additional six were shot after having survived the\noperations. All the surviving victims suffered terrible pains and were\ncrippled for life. Nevertheless, the experiments were not even\nscientifically successful. The results, as reported by Gebhardt and\nFischer at the Third Conference of the Consulting Physicians of the\nWehrmacht at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943, were\nnot adopted, and medical directives were issued which required the\ncontinued use of sulfanilamide. (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3,\nGebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10._) The sulfanilamide experiments\nwere entirely unnecessary, since similar results could have been\nachieved by the treatment of wound infections of German soldiers\nnormally contracted during the course of the war. (_Tr. pp. 3334,\n3338._)\n\nGebhardt does not seriously contend that the experimental subjects were\nvolunteers. He admitted that he did not know whether the women\nconsented. He testified he was not interested in that. He left it to the\n\u201clegal authorities.\u201d He did not discuss this matter with Himmler. (_Tr.\np. 4214._) By legal authorities, Gebhardt meant Himmler who, as he said,\n\u201chad the power to execute thousands of people by a stroke of his pen.\u201d\n(_Tr. p. 4025._) Gebhardt, however, showed no interest whatever in the\nmoral or legal character of that power. At one point in his testimony,\nhe stated that the subjects were nonvolunteers forced to submit to the\nexperiments by the State. (_Tr. p. 4064._) At still another point, they\nwere \u201cmore or less volunteers, condemned persons.\u201d (_Tr. p. 4021._)\n\nGebhardt\u2019s defense, if it can be dignified with that word, is rather\nthat the Polish women had been condemned to death for participation in a\nresistance movement and that by undergoing the experiments, voluntarily\nor otherwise, they were to have their death sentences commuted to some\nlesser degree of punishment whereby they would at least not be executed.\nThis was no bargain reached with the experimental subjects; their wishes\nwere not consulted in the matter. It was, according to Gebhardt, left to\nthe good faith of someone unnamed to see to it the death sentence was\nnot carried out on the survivors of the experiments. Certainly Gebhardt\nassumed no responsibility, or even interest, in this matter.\n\nThe prosecution points out, in connection with this alleged defense,\nthat the proof shows that the experimental subjects who testified before\nthis Tribunal were never so much as accorded a trial; they had no\nopportunity to defend themselves against whatever crimes they were said\nto have committed. They were simply arrested and interrogated by the\nGestapo in Poland and sent to a concentration camp. They had never so\nmuch as been informed that they had been _marked for_, not sentenced to,\ndeath. (_Tr. p. 831._) Article 30 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws\nand Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention expressly\nprovides that even a spy \u201cshall not be punished without previous trial.\u201d\nThe alleged defense of Gebhardt is accordingly without merit.\n\nGebhardt would have the Tribunal believe that _but for_ the experiments\nall these Polish girls would be dead; that he preserved the evidence now\nbeing used against him. Nothing could be further from the truth. There\nis no proof in the record that these women would have been executed if\nthey had not undergone the experiments. The witness Maczka is living\nproof of the contrary. She was arrested for resistance activities on 11\nSeptember 1941, and shipped to Ravensbrueck on 13 September. (_Tr. p.\n1433._) She was not an experimental subject yet she lives today.\nSubstantially all the Polish experimental subjects arrived in\nRavensbrueck in September 1941. (_Tr. pp. 788, 817, 840._) These girls\nhad not been executed by August 1942 when the experiments began. Indeed,\nit was a surprise to Gebhardt, according to his testimony, that they\nwere used at all since during July 1942 the experiments were conducted\non men. There were some 700 Polish girls in that transport. (_NO-877,\nPros. Ex. 228_; _Tr. p. 4216._) There is no evidence that a substantial\nnumber were ever executed even though most of them were not experimented\non.\n\nNo, the proof has shown beyond controversy that these Polish women\n_could not have been legally executed_. The right to grant pardons in\ncases of death sentences was exclusively vested in Hitler by a decree of\n1 February 1935, Reich Law Gazette [RGBl], I, page 74. (_NO-3070, Pros.\nEx. 531._) On 2 May 1935, Hitler delegated the right to make _negative_\ndecisions on pardon applications to the Reich Minister of Justice.\n(_NO-3071, Pros. Ex. 532._) On 30 January 1940 (_RGBl, I, p. 399_),\nHitler delegated to the Governor General for the occupied Polish\nterritories the authority to grant pardons and to make denying decisions\nin pardon matters for the occupied Polish territories. (_NO-3072, Pros.\nEx. 533._) By edict, dated 8 March 1940, VOB1 GGP I p. 99, the Governor\nGeneral of occupied Poland ordered with reference to the execution of\nthe right to pardon in the case of death sentences that:\n\n \u201cThe execution of a death sentence pronounced by a regular\n court, a special court or a police court martial _shall take\n place only when my decision has been issued not to make use of\n my right to pardon_.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-3073, Pros. Ex.\n 534._)\n\nAssuming _arguendo_ that the experimental subjects had all committed\nsubstantial crimes, that they were all properly tried by a duly\nconstituted court of law, that they were legally sentenced to death, it\nis still clear from the decrees set forth above that these women could\nnot have been legally executed until such time as the Governor General\nof occupied Poland had decided in each case not to make use of his\npardon right. There has been no proof that the Governor General had ever\nacted with respect to pardoning the Polish women used in the\nexperiments, or, for that matter, any substantial number of those not\nused in the experiments.\n\nThe only reason these 700 Polish women were transported from Warsaw and\nLublin to Ravensbrueck was because the Governor General had not approved\ntheir execution. Otherwise they would have been immediately executed in\nPoland. At the very least, these women were entitled to remain\nunmolested so long as the Governor General took no action. He may never\nhave acted or, when he did, he may have acted favorably on the pardon.\n\nThe affidavit of Schiedlausky, the camp doctor at Ravensbrueck, shows\nthat the Governor General had not turned down a pardon when the\nexperiments started. He said on page four of the original:\n\n \u201cPolish women who had been sentenced to death by court martial\n and who were awaiting execution, after their sentences had been\n approved by the Governor General, were chosen as subjects.\u201d\n (_NO-508, Pros. Ex. 224._)\n\nAt still a later point, on page 15 of the original, he said:\n\n \u201cDuring my tour of duty at Ravensbrueck, I estimate that about\n 25 women were executed by shooting. They were exclusively Polish\n women, who were already prisoners, _whose sentences were only\n approved after a long time by the Governor General_.\u201d [Emphasis\n added.]\n\nSchiedlausky was in Ravensbrueck from December 1941 until the middle of\nAugust 1943. During that long period of time only 25 of over 700 Polish\ninmates were made eligible for execution by action of the Governor\nGeneral. Who is to say that the majority of these 700 Polish women did\nnot live through the war even though they did not undergo the\nexperiments? Certainly it was incumbent on the defense to prove the\ncontrary by a preponderance of the evidence. This it did not do by any\nevidence.\n\nThe defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser cannot claim that they\nbelieved in good faith that the Polish women could have been legally\nexecuted. Even the camp doctor Schiedlausky knew that the Governor\nGeneral had to approve the execution. Moreover, the large number of 700\nwomen being sentenced to death at this early stage of the war was enough\nto put any reasonable person on notice that something was wrong.\n\nAdditionally, the uncontradicted evidence proves that survival of the\nexperiments was no guarantee whatever of avoiding execution in any\nevent. _At least six of the experimental subjects were executed after\nhaving survived the experiments._ (_Tr. pp. 1449, 797, 845, 863._) The\nnames of the Polish girls who were shot were Pajaczkowska, Gans,\nZielonka, Rakowska, Sobolewska, and Gutek. (_NO-873, Pros. Ex. 226_;\n_NO-861, Pros. Ex. 232_.) It was not a question of experimentation _or_\nexecution but experimentation _and_ execution.\n\nIndeed, in February 1945, an effort was made to execute all the\nexperimental subjects. They were ordered to report to one block and\nremain there. They were informed that they would be transferred to the\nGross-Rosen concentration camp, but it was common knowledge that\nGross-Rosen was already in the hands of the Allies. They, therefore,\nknew that they were going to be executed and so took different\nidentification numbers and hid themselves. This was possible because of\ndisorganization in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1450-1, 862-3_; _NO-876, Pros.\nEx. 225_; _NO-877, Pros. Ex. 228_.)\n\nIf one takes the case of the defense at its face value, the Tribunal is\nin effect asked to rule that it is legal for military doctors of a\nnation at war to experiment on political prisoners of an occupied\ncountry who are condemned to death, to experiment on them in such a way\nthat they may suffer death, excruciating pain, mutilation, and permanent\ndisability\u2014all this without their consent and in direct aid of the\nmilitary potential of their enemy. There is no valid reason for limiting\nsuch a decision to civilian prisoners; the experiment would certainly\nhave been no worse had it been performed on Polish or American prisoners\nof war. It is impossible to consider seriously the ruling being sought\nfor by the defense.\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Sulfanilamide Experiments_\n\nOf all medical experiments forming the subjects of the indictment, the\nexperiments for testing sulfanilamides were undoubtedly the most\ndirectly connected with the war. The problem of wound infection is one\nwith which every nation at war must concern itself especially in modern\nwarfare. This problem is not only one of great importance to the life\nand health of the individual wounded soldier, but it may have a decisive\neffect on the strategical position and on the outcome of the war itself\nthrough the resultant gaps in the ranks. Already the First World War\nshowed that the majority of soldiers do not die on the battlefield\nitself and that in most cases death is not the direct result of a wound,\nbut that the heavy losses must be attributed to infection of wounds\nreceived. These experiences have been confirmed in the Second World War\nand the special conditions prevailing in Russia and the climatic\nconditions due to the winter there have shown even more than in the\nFirst World War that wound infection was a medical and tactical problem\nof the highest importance for the troops and their health. As regards\ndetails, I refer to statements made in this connection on the witness\nstand by several defendants in these proceedings.\n\nConsequently, it could not come as a surprise that in this war, too,\nefforts were made to deal with wound infection not only by using\nsurgical measures, but that a way was sought to prevent the formation\nand spreading of bacterial infections or at least to confine them within\nreasonable limits by using chemical preparations.\n\nSuch efforts seemed the more called for as the war in the East not only\nmeant an immense strain on the resources in material and personnel in\ngeneral, but also in view of the fact that especially the supply of the\narmy troops and the Waffen SS with medical officers and, above all, with\ntrained field surgeons became more and more difficult. Had it been\npossible to assist the field medical officers at the front and at the\nmain dressing stations with a reliable and effective chemo-therapeutic\npreparation against bacterial wound infection, progress of vast\nimportance would have been achieved.\n\nOn the other hand, however, it was impossible to overlook the fact that\nthe introduction of a chemo-therapeutic preparation which did not\noperate safely involved a certain amount of danger to an effective\nmedical care of the wounded and consequently to the war potential of the\nwounded and consequently to the war potential of the German Wehrmacht\nand its striking power. In his lecture on the chemo-therapy of wound\ninfection as delivered before the First Conference East of the\nConsulting Specialists on 18 May 1943, which I submitted as part of the\nreport dealing with this conference, (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1,\nGebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) Professor Dr. Rostock referred to\nthe great danger of chemo-therapy, i. e., the possibility \u201cof making\nnegligent physicians careless in the surgical aspect of wound dressing,\nsince they may place a certain trust in chemo-therapy.\u201d\n\nThis warning was all the more in order since, at that time there was not\nonly complete uncertainty as regards the effects of sulfanilamides, but\nalso because there was a divergence in opinions as to the efficacy of\nthis preparation. It has been clearly shown by the evidence that, in\nspite of close observation of the effects of sulfanilamides in peace\ntime and in war, it was impossible to answer this question. Opinions\nwere very much divided. While some were convinced of the efficacy of\nthese preparations in connection with wound infections, and ascribed\nextraordinarily good results to them, others were of the opinion that\nthese chemical preparations could at the best be used as a supplement\nand that if used by themselves, they did not have the properties to\nprevent bacterial infection resulting from combat wounds. With regard to\nthe details I refer to the statements of the defendants Karl Brandt,\nHandloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Fischer and to Gebhardt Exhibits 6, 7,\nand 10 as submitted by me during the hearing of the evidence.\n\nIn this respect, it is highly interesting to review the scientific\ndiscussions of the consulting specialists as contained in the report on\nthe First Conference East on 18 and 19 May 1942. (_Gebhardt, Fischer,\nOberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6._) These discussions\nwhich took place prior to the sulfanilamide experiments comprising the\nsubject of the indictment give a true picture of the situation as it was\nat that time with regard to the efficacy of sulfanilamides.\n\nIn this respect we are able to distinguish three sharply defined groups.\nIn the group which rejected the chemo-therapeutic treatment of wound\ninfection, Geheimrat Professor Sauerbruch was the leader. He\nemphatically voiced the opinion that these chemical preparations tend to\nobscure surgical work and to lead to perfunctory treatment. He requested\nthat the preparations should be critically tested, that is to say, the\ntest should be made by surgeons experienced in general surgery.\n\nIn the other camp there were surgeons who claimed to have obtained\nextraordinarily favorable results in the chemo-therapeutical treatment\nof bacterially infected wounds. Among them was Dr. Krueger, the Berlin\nprofessor of surgery, who claimed to have observed a favorable effect of\nsulfanilamide in as many as 5,000 cases.\n\nTo the third group belonged the surgeons, bacteriologists, and\npathologists who took the view that nothing definite could be said as\nyet as to the effects and the efficacy of sulfanilamides as agents in\nthe fight against bacterially infected wounds and that further tests\nalong these lines would have to be made.\n\nThus it can be said that after the experiences of the Russian winter\ncampaign of 1941-1942, the fight against bacterial wound infections, and\nthe question of the efficacy of the sulfanilamides had become a\nmilitary-medical and medical-tactical problem of the first importance,\nabout which opinions differed widely. A solution of this problem was the\nmore urgent as an answer had to be found quickly, and on the other hand\nthe fact was not to be disregarded that the experiences gained during\nnearly 10 years of peace and war in clinics as well as in laboratories\nwere insufficient to answer this question.\n\n _The Order for the Execution of these Experiments_\n\nThe evidence has shown that the order to ascertain the effectiveness of\nthe sulfanilamides by experiments on human beings was given directly by\nthe Head of State and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht. Hitler\u2019s order\nwas not at first submitted by Himmler to the defendant Gebhardt, but to\nDr. Grawitz, Reich Physician of the SS and police.\n\nHowever, the evidence showed further that another circumstance arose\nwhich from the point of view of time at least caused the order for these\nexperiments to be given, viz, the death of the Chief of the Reich\nSecurity Main Office, General of the Waffen SS Reinhardt Heydrich, who\nin May 1942 was assassinated in Prague. For the details I refer to the\ntestimony of Gebhardt in the witness box on this matter. Heydrich\u2019s\ndeath is connected with the experiments themselves only insofar as, at\nthat time, the charge was leveled that Heydrich\u2019s life could have been\nsaved if sulfanilamides, and especially a certain sulfanilamide\npreparation, had been administered to the wounded man in sufficient\nquantities. The whole problem of sulfanilamide therapy came to the fore\nonce more in this one case, and then in such an obvious manner that the\nHead of State himself gave the order to clarify by way of all-out\nexperiments the question which for a long time had been of general\nimportance for the fighting troops at the front.\n\nWithin the scope of this evaluation of evidence, it is irrelevant to\nenter into the details which resulted in the experiments being carried\nout by the defendant Gebhardt himself. Against the strict order of the\nReich Physician SS Grawitz, Gebhardt carried out the experiments not by\ndeliberately inflicting bullet wounds but by causing an infection while\nobserving all possible precautionary measures.\n\nIt was further shown by the evidence that the experiments were started\nwith 15 habitual criminals who had been sentenced to death and who had\nbeen transferred from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen to\nRavensbrueck. In view of the fact that this part of the experiment is\nnot a subject of the indictment, it seems to be unnecessary to enter\ninto this matter. It should, however, be kept in mind that at the\nconference on 1 June 1942, at which the conditions for the experiments\nwere determined in detail\u2014the defendant Gebhardt has described this\nconference in detail and I am referring to this\u2014it was understood that\nthe experiments should be carried out with the male habitual criminals\nwho had been sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned in case of\nsurvival.\n\n _The Experimental Arrangements for the Sulfanilamide Experiments_\n\nIt was shown by the evidence that the experiments for testing the\neffectiveness of the sulfanilamides were carried out in three groups.\nThe first group included 15 men (habitual criminals). This group has\nnothing to do with the charges of the indictment and it is therefore\nsuperfluous to enter into this matter more closely.\n\nThe second group included 36 female prisoners who had been members of\nthe Polish Resistance Movement and who, for this reason, had been\nsentenced to death by the German court martial in the General\nGovernment. This second group was divided into 3 subgroups of 12\nexperimental persons each. As to the particulars of the provisions for\nthe experiments, I refer to the testimony of the defendants Gebhardt and\nFischer in the witness box. Contrary to the first group, contact\nsubstances were used in this second group to accelerate the process of\ninfection. The contact substances were inserted into the open wound\ntogether with the germs. Sterile and pulverized glass and sterile wood\nparticles were used as contact substances. These contact substances took\nthe place of earth and uniform particles and were to produce war-like\nconditions for the wounds, without, however, producing at the same time\nthe general dangers created by infection of the wound by earth and parts\nof clothing.\n\nAs in the case of the first group, staphylococci, streptococci, and gas\ngangrene bacilli were used as agents. But the contention of the\nindictment that tetanus germs were also used is incorrect. On the\ncontrary, the evidence has proved that the treatment of tetanus did not\ncome within the scope of these experiments. There was all the less\nreason for this as it was realized long ago by German military surgery\nthat the sulfanilamide preparations are not suitable for the effective\nprevention of traumatic tetanus. Here I refer to the directives for the\nchemo-therapeutical treatment of wound infection which were issued at\nthe First Working Conference East of the Consulting Specialists in May\n1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser\nEx. 6_)\u2014that is prior to the performance of the sulfanilamide\nexperiments charged in the indictment. In these directives it is\nexpressly pointed out that the outbreak of traumatic tetanus cannot be\nprevented by means of the sulfanilamides and that tetanus anti-toxin has\nto be administered as usual.\n\nDuring the presentation of evidence, only the witness Dr. Maczka\nmaintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This\nwitness did not make her own observations of the case but drew\nconclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture presented by\none of the experimental subjects according to her statements. In view of\nthe fact that even according to the testimony of this witness tetanus\nbacilli were employed only in one individual case, the assertion of this\nwitness can hardly be taken as a true representation of the facts, for\nif it had really been the intention of the defendant Gebhardt to\ndetermine the effect of sulfanilamides on tetanus too, one experimental\nsubject would certainly not have been sufficient, and more experiments\nwould have been necessary before a final decision regarding this\nquestion could possibly have been made.\n\nThe third group consisted of 24 experimental subjects who were not\ntreated with any sort of contagion\u2014unlike the procedure applied to the\nsecond group\u2014but only had part of the muscle ligatured. The defendants\nGebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new\nexperimental arrangements, how they originated, what considerations had\nto be regarded, and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr.\nGrawitz. With regard to these details I refer to the testimony of the\ndefendants in the witness box.\n\nThe experimental subjects were treated with sulfanilamides as described\nby the defendants in the witness box. A few persons were not treated\nwith sulfanilamides but were used as control subjects. But that did not\nmean that these persons were not treated at all. As the evidence has\nproved, all experimental subjects were treated, namely by surgical\nmeasures if the sulfanilamides did not prove effective against the\ninflammation. For this reason too the experimental subjects to whom\nsulfanilamides were applied, and where the inflammation did not pass\naway by itself, were given direct surgical treatment under observance of\nthe generally recognized principles of surgery, particularly as\ndeveloped in Germany by Gebhardt\u2019s teacher Professor Dr. Lexer. This\ndirect surgical treatment resulted in the scars which the court has seen\non the experimental subjects questioned as witnesses. As explained by\nProfessor Dr. Alexander, the expert produced by the prosecution, these\nscars are the result not of the bacteriological infection but of the\noperations performed in order to eliminate this infection. In the\nprosecution case, four experimental subjects were called to give\nevidence. In addition, the prosecution submitted a series of affidavits\ngiven by other persons used as experimental subjects. The statements of\nthe four witnesses questioned in court coincide largely with the\ntestimony given by the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer\nthemselves in the witness box. For this reason alone it appears\nexpedient and sufficient for the pronouncement of a just sentence and\nfor the establishment of the true facts to base the sentence exclusively\non the testimony of these four witnesses together with the statements of\nthe defendants themselves. This is not only in accordance with the\nprinciple of direct and oral proceedings in court prevailing in any\nmodern criminal procedure and which should not be departed from without\nurgent reason, but also such handling of the case seems suitable because\nthe statements of the four witnesses are identical essentially so that\nthey themselves, together with the statements given by the defendants,\ncan be regarded as a safe basis for a finding\u2014apart from one point\nwhich I shall go into later. In addition, the affidavits submitted by\nthe prosecution not only differ in essential points from the statements\nmade by the witnesses in court, but are inconsistent and contradictory\nin themselves as well. This is shown, above all, by the fact that in\nseveral of these affidavits contentions are quite obviously made which\nare not based on personal and factual observation, but have become known\nto these witnesses by hearsay. The affidavits, moreover, fail to\nrepresent the circumstances in clear chronological order, which makes\nthe whole matter all the more doubtful, as it was proved by the evidence\nthat in the Ravensbrueck camp experiments were obviously also performed\nby other physicians with whom the defendant in this case had no\nconnection.\n\nConsiderable doubts also exist regarding the statements made by the\nwitness Dr. Maczka. The prosecution has submitted two affidavits given\nby this witness as part of its evidence. When questioned in court, this\nwitness could not maintain the most incriminating contentions which\nappeared in the two affidavits. Under these circumstances, the court has\nto consider whether it regards the statements of this witness as\nsufficiently reliable to enter into the judgment. I would answer this\nquestion in the negative, not only because she had to revoke the most\nessential points of her previous affidavits, but because a large part of\nher testimony was based not on her own observations, but either on\ninformation obtained from other prisoners or on conclusions drawn by\nher.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-228 206 Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 371\n 19 November 1946, concerning\n sulfanilamide experiments\n conducted in the concentration\n camp Ravensbrueck.\nNO-472 234 Affidavit of the defendant 376\n Fischer, 21 October 1946,\n supplementing his affidavit\n concerning sulfanilamide\n experiments.\nNO-1080 A, E, F 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901\n Kusmierczuk who underwent\n sulfanilamide and bone\n experiments while an inmate of\n the Ravensbrueck concentration\n camp. (_See Selections from\n Photographic Evidence of the\n Prosecution._)\nNO-1082 A, C 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga 903\n Dzido who underwent\n sulfanilamide and bone\n experiments while an inmate of\n the Ravensbrueck concentration\n camp. (_See Selections from\n Photographic Evidence of the\n Prosecution._)\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 377\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14\n Oberheuser 21 March 1947.\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from report on the First 377\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6 Conference East of Consulting\n Oberheuser 1 Specialists on 18 and 19 May\n 1942 at the Military Medical\n Academy, Berlin.\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from report on the 378\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10 Third Conference East of\n Oberheuser 3 Consulting Specialists on 24\n to 26 May 1943 at the Military\n Medical Academy, Berlin.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Jadwiga Dzido 381\nExtracts from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. 386\n Leo Alexander\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 388\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-228\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 206\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT FISCHER, 19 NOVEMBER 1946, CONCERNING\n SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP\n RAVENSBRUECK\n\n AFFIDAVIT\n\nI, Fritz Ernst Fischer, having been duly sworn, depose and state under\noath:\n\nI am a doctor of medicine, having been graduated from the University of\nHamburg. I passed my state examination in 1936. On 13 November 1939 I\nwas inducted into the Waffen SS and after having served with a combat\ndivision as medical officer, I was hospitalized and then assigned to the\nSS hospital at Hohenlychen, as assistant surgeon.\n\nIn addition to my normal duties as surgeon at the SS hospital at\nHohenlychen, I was ordered by Professor Gebhardt to begin medical\nexperiments in my capacity as assistant surgeon to Professor Gebhardt on\nor about 12 July 1942. The purpose of the proposed experiments was to\ndetermine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide, which I was informed at\nthat time was a matter of considerable importance to military medical\ncircles.\n\nAccording to the information which I received from Professor Gebhardt,\nthese experiments were directed initially by the Reich Leader SS and the\nReich Physician Dr. Grawitz.\n\nProfessor Gebhardt instructed me, before the operations were undertaken,\non the techniques to be followed and the procedure to be employed. The\npersons who were to be the subjects of these experiments were inmates of\nthe concentration camp at Ravensbrueck who had been condemned to death.\n\nThe administrative procedure which was followed in obtaining the\nsubjects for the experiments was established by Professor Gebhardt with\nthe camp commandant at Ravensbrueck. After the initial arrangements had\nbeen made, it was the general practice to inform the medical officer at\nRavensbrueck as to the date on which a series of experiments was to be\nbegun and the number of patients who would be required, and then he took\nthe matter up with the commandant of the camp, by whom the selections of\nsubjects were made. Before an operation was undertaken, the persons who\nhad been selected in accordance with this procedure were given a medical\nexamination by the camp physician to determine their suitability for the\nexperiments from a medical standpoint.\n\nThe first of the series of experiments involved five persons. The\ngangrenous bacterial cultures for use in the experiments were obtained\nfrom the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The procedure followed in\nthe operations was as follows: The subject received the conventional\nanesthetic of morphine-atropine, then evipan ether. An incision was made\n5 to 8 centimeters in length and 1 to 1\u00bd centimeters in depth, on the\noutside of the lower leg in the area of the peronaeus longus.\n\nThe bacterial cultures were put in dextrose, and the resulting mixture\nwas spread into the wound. The wound was then closed and the limb\nencased in a cast, which had been prepared, which was lined on the\ninside with cotton so that in the event of swelling of the affected\nmember the result of the experiment would not be influenced by any\nfactor other than the infection itself.\n\nThe bacterial cultures used on each of the five persons varied both as\nto the type of bacteria used and the amount of culture used.\n\nAfter the initial operations had been performed, I returned to\nRavensbrueck each afternoon to observe the progress of the persons who\nhad been operated on. No serious illnesses resulted from these initial\noperations. I reported the progress of the patients to Professor\nGebhardt each night.\n\nWhen the five persons first operated on were cured, another series of\nfive was begun. The surgical procedure and the post-operative procedure\nwas the same as in the initial experiments, but the bacterial cultures\nwere more virulent. The results from this series were substantially the\nsame as in the first and no serious illnesses resulted.\n\nSince no inflammation resulted from the bacterial cultures used in the\nfirst two series of operations, it was determined, as a result of\ncorrespondence with Dr. Mrugowsky, the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of\nthe Waffen SS, and conversations with his assistant, to change the type\nof bacterial culture in the subsequent operations. Using the new\nculture, two more series of operations were performed, each involving\nfive persons.\n\nThe difference between the third and fourth series was in the bacterial\ncultures used. The Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS prepared them from\nseparate combinations of the three or four gangrene cultures which were\navailable. In the third and fourth series, more pronounced infection and\ninflammation were discernible at the place of incision. Their\ncharacteristics were similar to a normal, local infection, with redness,\nswelling, and pain. The circumference of the infection was comparable in\nsize to a chestnut. Upon the completion of the fourth series, the camp\nphysician informed me that the camp commandant had instructed him that\nmale patients would no longer be available for further experiments, but\nthat it would be necessary to use female inmates.\n\nAccordingly, five women were prepared for the operation, but I did not\noperate on them. I reported the change of situation to Professor\nGebhardt and suggested that in view of these circumstances, it would be\ndesirable to stop the experiments. He did not adopt this suggestion,\nhowever, and pointed out that it was necessary for me as an officer to\ncarry out the duties which had been assigned to me.\n\nThe experiments, however, were interrupted for a period of 2 weeks,\nduring which Professor Gebhardt told me he had discussed the matter in\nBerlin and had been instructed to carry on the experiments, using Polish\nfemale prisoners who had been sentenced to death. In addition, he\ninstructed me to speed up the experiments since the Reich Physician, Dr.\nGrawitz, intended to go to Ravensbrueck soon to test the results of the\nexperiments. Accordingly, I went to Ravensbrueck and operated on the\nfemale prisoners.\n\nSince the infections which resulted from the first four series of\nexperiments were not typical of gangrenous battlefield infections, we\ncommunicated with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS to determine\nwhat steps could be taken more nearly to simulate infections caused by\nbattle. As a result of this correspondence and a conference at\nHohenlychen presided over by Professor Gebhardt, it was decided to add\ntiny fragments of wood shavings to the bacterial cultures, which would\nsimulate the crust of dirt customarily found in battlefield wounds.\n\nAs a result of this conference, three series of operations were\nperformed, each involving 10 persons, one using the bacterial culture\nand fragments of wood, the second using bacterial culture and fragments\nof glass, and the third using the culture plus glass and wood.\n\nAbout two weeks after these new series were begun, Dr. Grawitz visited\nRavensbrueck. Professor Gebhardt introduced him to me and explained to\nhim the general nature of the work. Professor Gebhardt then left, and I\nexplained to Dr. Grawitz the details of the operations and their\nresults. Dr. Grawitz, before I could complete my report on the\nprocedures used and the results obtained, brusquely interrupted me and\nobserved that the conditions under which the experiments were performed\ndid not sufficiently resemble conditions prevailing at the front. He\nasked me literally, \u201cHow many deaths have there been?\u201d and when I\nreported that there had not been any, he stated that that confirmed his\nassumption that the experiments had not been carried out in accordance\nwith his directions.\n\nHe said that the operations were mere flea bites and that since the\npurpose of the work was to determine the effectiveness of sulfanilamide\non bullet wounds it would be necessary to inflict actual bullet wounds\non the patients. He ordered that the next series of experiments to be\nundertaken should be in accordance with these directions. That same\nevening, I discussed these orders of Dr. Grawitz with Professor Gebhardt\nand we both agreed that it was impossible to carry them out, but that a\nprocedure would be adopted which would more nearly simulate battlefield\nconditions without actually shooting the patients.\n\nThe normal result of all bullet wounds was a shattering of tissue, which\ndid not exist in the initial experiments. As a result of the injury, the\nnormal flow of blood through the muscle is cut off. The muscle is\nnourished by the flow of blood from either end. When this circulation is\ninterrupted, the affected area becomes a fertile field for the growth of\nbacteria; the normal reaction of the tissue against the bacteria is not\npossible without circulation.\n\nThis interruption of circulation usual in battle casualties could be\nsimulated by tying off the blood vessels at either end of the muscle.\n\nTwo series of operations, each involving 10 persons, were begun\nfollowing this procedure. In the first of these, the same bacterial\ncultures were used as were developed in the third and fourth series, but\nthe glass and wood were omitted. In the other series, streptococci and\nstaphylococci cultures were used. In the series using the gangrenous\nculture a severe infection in the area of the incision resulted within\n24 hours.\n\nEight patients out of ten became sick from the gangrenous infection.\nCases which showed symptoms of an unspecific or specific inflammation\nwere operated on in accordance with the doctrine and manner of septic\nsurgery. The Lexer doctrine formed the basis of the procedure. The\ntechnique is that an incision in the area of the gangrene is made, from\nhealthy tissue to healthy tissue on either side. The wound and fascian\ncorners were laid open, the gangrenous blisters swabbed, and a solution\nof H_{2}O_{2} (hydrogen peroxide) was poured over them. The inflamed\nextremity was immobilized in a cast. With most patients it was possible\nto improve the gangrenous condition of the entire infected area in this\nmanner.\n\nIn the series in which banal cultures of streptococci and staphylococci\nwere used, the severe resultant infection with accompanying increase in\ntemperature and swelling did not occur until 72 hours later. Four\npatients showed a more serious picture of the disease. In the case of\nthese patients, the normal professional technique of orthodox medicine\nwas followed as outlined above, and the inflamed swelling split. Due to\nthe slight virulence of the bacteria it was possible in the case of all\npatients except one to prevent the threatened deadly development of the\ndisease.\n\nThe incisions were made on the lower part of the leg only in all series\nto make an amputation possible. It was not made on the upper thigh\nbecause then no area for amputation would remain. However, in this\nseries the inflammation was so rapid that there was no remedy and no\namputations were made.\n\nSince after the tying up of the circulation of the muscles, a very\nsevere course of infection was to be expected, 5 grams of sulfanilamide\nwere given intravenously in the amount of 1 gram each, beginning 1 hour\nafter the operation. After the wound was laid open to expose all its\ncorners, sulfanilamide was shaken into the entire area and the area was\ndrained by thick rubber tubes.\n\nThe infection normally reached an acute stage over a period of 3 weeks,\nduring which time I changed the bandages daily. After the period of 3\nweeks the condition was normally that of a simple wound which was\ndressed by the camp physicians rather than by me.\n\nThe procedure prescribed for the post-operative treatment of the\npatients was to give them three times each day 1 cc. of morphine, and\nwhen the dressings were changed, to induce an esthesia by the use of\nevipan.\n\nIn all the series of experiments, except the first, sulfanilamide was\nused after the gangrenous infection appeared. In each series two persons\nwere not given sulfanilamide as a control to determine its\neffectiveness. When sulfanilamide and the bacteria cultures together\nwere introduced into the incision no inflammation resulted.\n\n * * * * *\n\nMy behavior towards all patients was very considerate, and I was very\ncareful in the operations to follow standard professional procedure.\n\nIn May 1943, on the occasion of the Fourth Conference of the Consulting\nPhysicians of the Wehrmacht, a report was made by Professor Gebhardt and\nmyself as to these operations. This medical congress was called by\nProfessor Handloser, who occupied the position of Surgeon General of the\nArmed Forces, and was attended by a large number of physicians, both\nmilitary and civilian.\n\nIn my lecture to the meeting I reported on the operations frankly, using\ncharts which demonstrated the technique used, the amount of\nsulfanilamide administered, and the condition of the patients. This\nlecture was the focal point of the conference. Professor Gebhardt spoke\nabout the fundamentals of the experiments, their performance and their\nresults, and then asked me to describe the technique. He began his\nlecture with the following words: \u201cI bear the full human, surgical, and\npolitical responsibility for these experiments.\u201d\n\nThis lecture was followed by a discussion. No criticism was raised. I am\nconvinced that all the physicians present would have acted in the same\nmanner as I.\n\nSubsequent to my repeated urgent requests, I went to the front as\nsurgeon immediately after this conference. Only after I was wounded did\nI return as a patient to Hohenlychen. I never entered the Ravensbrueck\ncamp again. I protested vigorously against these experiments on human\nbeings, endeavored to prevent them, and to limit their extension after\nthey had been ordered. In order not to be forced to participate in these\nexperiments, I repeatedly volunteered for front-line service. Insofar as\nit was in my power, I tried to dissuade Doctor Koller and Doctor\nReissmayer from performing these experiments. I declined habilitation at\nthe University of Berlin because I felt that it might result in my being\nobliged to carry on additional experiments at Ravensbrueck. After I\nsucceeded in scientific discoveries of the highest practical importance,\nthat is, the solution of the cancer problem and its therapy, I did not\ncommunicate this fact to Professor Gebhardt and did not publish this\nwork in order not to be ordered again to carry out experiments.\n\n FRITZ ERNST FISCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-472\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 234\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF THE DEFENDANT FISCHER, 21 OCTOBER 1946, SUPPLEMENTING HIS\n AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS\n\n * * * * *\n\n3. At the conference of May 1943, which I described on page 12 of my\naffidavit (last paragraph) the following officials were present to the\nbest of my recollection: Dr. Paul Rostock as chairman of the conference;\nDr. Siegfried Handloser, who was then the Chief of the Medical Service\nof the German Armed Forces, who had sent out the invitations to the\nmeeting; Professor Karl Brandt, who sat in the center of the front row;\nDr. Leonardo D. Conti, the Reich Health Leader; Professor Dr.\nSauerbruch; Dr. Frey; and Professor Heubner. The Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe was represented by Dr. Hippke, who was the Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe; and by Dr. Oskar Schroeder. The\nMedical Service of the Waffen SS was represented by its chief, Dr. Karl\nGenzken. Dr. Helmut Poppendick, who was the Chief of Staff of the Reich\nPhysician SS and Police, and Dr. Grawitz were also present.\n\n * * * * *\n\n5. It was made perfectly clear during the speeches made by Dr. Gebhardt\nand myself that the experiments were conducted on inmates of a\nconcentration camp.\n\n6. Six months after this, the 10th anniversary of the hospital at\nHohenlychen was celebrated. Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Siegfried Handloser,\nDr. Leonardo D. Conti, and Professor Dr. Sauerbruch were invited to the\ncelebrations.\n\n7. When the sulfanilamide experiments started, I was told by Professor\nGebhardt, my military and medical superior, that these experiments were\nbeing carried out by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the\nWehrmacht and the Chief of the State Medical Office, with the initial\norder from Hitler, and I must therefore carry out these orders.\n\n8. Dr. Herta Oberheuser and Dr. Schiedlausky assisted me in the\nsulfanilamide experiments.\n\n9. As a result of these experiments, three people died.\n\n [Signed] FRITZ ERNST FISCHER\n\n TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER\n DOCUMENT 21\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20\n\n EXTRACT FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KARL FRIEDRICH BRUNNER, 14 MARCH 1947\n\nI only heard of the sulfanilamide experiments on human beings at\nRavensbrueck after their conclusion through the public report made by\nProfessor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer before the Third Conference East of\nConsultant Specialists of 24 and 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical\nAcademy, Berlin. I attended this conference as Stabsarzt in the army\nfrom a military reserve hospital in Berlin. Later on I read a report in\nthe directives. Professor Dr. Gebhardt did not speak to us about this\npoint subsequently. On the other hand, the existence of this\nsulfanilamide experiment was known and was not kept secret, although\neven foreigners were continuously to be found among the assistants, as,\nfor instance, the Swiss surgeon, Dr. Meyer, during my time.\n\n TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER\n DOCUMENT 1\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6\n\n EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON THE FIRST CONFERENCE EAST OF CONSULTING\n SPECIALISTS ON 18 AND 19 MAY 1942 AT THE MILITARY MEDICAL ACADEMY,\n BERLIN\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Directives for the chemo-therapy of wound infections_\n\nThe treatment of war wounds with sulfanilamide preparations in order to\ncombat wound infections seems to have prospects. In stock now in the\nmedical stores are: prontalbin-marfanil powder, prontosil,\nneo-uleron-albucid, eubasinum, sulfapyridine-cibazol, and eleudron\npills.\n\nTraumatic tetanus cannot be prevented by these preparations; tetanus\nantitoxin must therefore be given as usual.\n\nChemotherapeutics are not a safe precaution against gas oedemata. The\ncollection of further experiences in this field is especially desirable.\n\nWhen treating war wounds, an operative arrangement of the wound must\nfirst be made by removing the dead tissue and opening all cavities of\nthe wound. Then the remedy is applied with a powder distributor or with\ndredging boxes, in dosages of from 5-20 grams according to the size of\nthe wound. This is repeated whenever a change of dressing is necessary.\nIndependently of the change of dressing, and spread evenly over the day,\nthe patient is given 8 grams on the first day, 6 grams on the second\nday, 5 grams on the third day and on each of the fourth, fifth, and\nsixth days, 4 grams of sulfanilamide preparations per os (if necessary,\nrectal or intravenous injections). Then the drug treatment is\ndiscontinued and started again if necessary. The earlier this treatment\nis begun the better are its chances.\n\nLocal treatment with the available sulfanilamide powders together with\nan internal treatment with albucid, cibazol, eleudron, eubasinum,\nglobucid (particularly for gas oedema), marfanil-prontalbin, protosil is\nsuggested.\n\nIf, in rare cases, secondary reactions occur such as nausea, vomiting,\ndiarrhea, buzzing in the ears, headaches, skin rashes, or icterus, these\nremedies must be discontinued at once. A blood transfusion may be\nuseful.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER,\n OBERHEUSER DOCUMENT 3\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE EXHIBIT 10\n\n EXTRACTS FROM REPORT ON THE THIRD CONFERENCE EAST OF CONSULTING\nSPECIALISTS ON 24 TO 26 MAY 1943 AT THE MILITARY MEDICAL ACADEMY, BERLIN\n\n * * * * *\n\n5. SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General, Professor Gebhardt, and F.\nFischer.\n\n _Special Experiments on Sulfanilamide Treatment_\n\n CONCLUSIONS\n\n \u201c1. The development of suppuration on the soft parts caused by\n bacteriae cannot be prevented, even if sulfanilamides are\n applied immediately, locally, or internally.\n\n \u201c2. It could not be proved that the course of an inflammatory\n illness caused by aerobic organisms on abscesses and phlegmons\n of the limbs was influenced by sulfanilamides. We were of the\n impression that combined gas gangrene therapy took a milder\n course under the influence of sulfanilamides.\n\n \u201c3. Surgical measures are indispensable for a successful\n treatment of inflammations.\u201d\n\n_Additional Remarks_\n\nThe sprinkling of sulfanilamide powder on wounds can be injurious, if,\nby so doing, the fundamentals of surgery are infringed, if, for\ninstance, the powder basis is not dissolved by the tissue fluids, and if\nthe discharge of secretions is hampered by coagulation. The wounds\ntreated with sulfanilamide powder show a slight tendency to exudation.\n\n_Hypothesis of Functions_\n\nThe inflammation on the mesodermal soft parts shows a tendency towards\nnecrosis at an early stage. The necrosis is the seat of the bacterial\nculture. Its surroundings show thrombosed vessels. Access to it by\nchemo-therapeutic reagents is very difficult.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Directives for the Application of Sulfanilamides_\n\n_Experiments_ (_Gebhardt-Fischer_) showed the following results: Even\nthe immediate internal and external application of sulfanilamide\npreparations cannot prevent a suppuration of the soft parts due to\nordinary suppurative organisms. It could not be proved that the course\nof the inflammatory disease caused by anaerobions is influenced by\nsulfanilamides. The sulfanilamides seemed to have an easing effect on\nthe course of combined gangrene therapy.\n\n_Disorders caused by sulfanilamides_ (_Randerath_) are relatively rare.\nThey occur directly as liver disorders including acute yellow liver\natrophy, as kidney disorders, and as agranulocytosis. Therefore, as far\nas is possible under front-line conditions, the white and red blood\ncount should be controlled. The decrease of the body temperature caused\nby an infection of the central regulatory system may be looked upon as\nan indirect disorder, so that the temperature curve permits no\nconclusions as to the development of the wound infection. Furthermore,\nlocal powder treatment may lead to an occasional increase in the depth\nof the wound infection. Direct injury to the tissue at the spot where\nthe preparations were applied was not observed.\n\n_The endolumbal application of the sulfanilamides_ (_Mueller_) must also\nbe rejected for the treatment of meningitis, since it leads to serious\ndisturbances in the region of the spinal cord and may result in\nparalysis.\n\n_The clinical discourse_ (_Frey_) emphasized the decrease of optimistic\nand the increase of critical opinions. The clinical doctor considers the\nprincipal disorders to be anorexia, nausea, and increasing exhaustion.\nEarly application in the wound itself is essential for the efficacy. The\nenteral or parenteral inducing of sulfanilamide drugs cannot prevent\nwound infections, but can favorably influence its course.\n\n_The following rules for practice therefore result_: All surface wounds,\nthat is, grazing shot wounds, sulcus-shaped wounds and large gaping\nwounds of the soft parts should be sprinkled as soon as possible with\nsulfanilamide powder. The powder treatment is of no use if the depths of\nthe wound are not reached. It is ineffective to powder the small wounds\ncaused by the penetration and exit of the bullet. The powdering of the\nskin is senseless and may cause eczema. Deeper wounds must be treated in\nthe quickest and most thorough manner. After this, the wound can be\nadditionally treated with sulfanilamide powder which must reach the\ndeepest cavities. It is not advisable to powder granulating wounds.\n\nIf the powder treatment cannot be applied during the first hours or does\nnot seem to suffice, a pororal application of sulfanilamides should take\nits place or be performed supplementarily. Front-line conditions will\nnot always allow intravenous injections. According to the danger of a\nwound infection, the wound should be treated for a short time with large\ndoses of sulfanilamides (6-10 grams during 3-4 days, not more than a\ntotal of 50 grams). On the whole, small doses are insufficient and\ntherefore have no influence on the course of an infection, but if\napplied too long they may be injurious. Suitable preparations are\npreferably eleudron, cibazol, and globucide. If possible, the treatment\nshould be applied by a medical officer.\n\nWounds endangered by gas oedema\u2014and this means all large and deep\nmuscle wounds\u2014should, in addition to the local and oral treatment with\nsulfanilamide, also be treated with gangrene serum. At subsequent\noperations, for example resection of the ribs, empyema of the chest,\nsecondary sutures, and late amputations, the new wound caused by the\noperation may be powdered adequately with sulfanilamides when bleeding\nhas stopped.\n\nThe thoroughness of the surgical wound treatment should in no way be\nlessened even by the additional application of sulfanilamides.\n\nAbdominal gunshot wounds can also be treated with sulfanilamide powder\n(about one tablespoon) or the sulfanilamide may be induced into the\nabdominal cavity in the form of an emulsion.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS JADWIGA DZIDO[40]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. HARDY: Witness, what is your full name?\n\nWITNESS DZIDO: Jadwiga Dzido.\n\nQ. Do you spell that J-a-d-w-i-g-a, last name spelled D-z-i-d-o?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Witness, you were born on 26 January 1918?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You are a citizen of Poland?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Have you come here to Nuernberg voluntarily to testify?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal your present home address?\n\nA. Warsaw, Garnoslonska 14.\n\nQ. Witness, are you married?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Are your parents living?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. What education have you received?\n\nA. I finished elementary school and high school at Warsaw. In 1937 I\nstarted to study pharmacology at the University of Warsaw.\n\nQ. Did you graduate from the University in Warsaw?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. What did you do after you had finished school in the University of\nWarsaw?\n\nA. I started studying pharmacology at the University, and then when I\nwas studying the second year, the war broke out.\n\nQ. What did you do after the war broke out?\n\nA. In 1939 I was working in a pharmacy during the holidays.\n\nQ. Were you a member of the Resistance Movement?\n\nA. In the autumn of 1940 I entered the Resistance Underground.\n\nQ. What did you do in the Resistance Movement?\n\nA. I was a messenger.\n\nQ. Then were you later captured by the Gestapo and placed under arrest?\n\nA. I was arrested by the Gestapo on 28 March 1941.\n\nQ. What happened to you after your arrest by the Gestapo?\n\nA. I was interrogated by the Gestapo in Lublin, Lukow, and Radzin.\n\nQ. And what happened after that?\n\nA. In Lublin, I was beaten while naked.\n\nQ. Did you then receive any further treatment from the Gestapo, or were\nyou released?\n\nA. I stayed in Lublin 6 weeks in the cellar of the Gestapo building.\n\nQ. Then were you sent to the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?\n\nA. On 23 September 1941, I was transported to the Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp.\n\nQ. Were you told why you were sent to the concentration camp in\nRavensbrueck?\n\nA. No, I was not told.\n\nQ. Were you ever given a trial in any German court?\n\nA. Never.\n\nQ. Who sent you to Ravensbrueck concentration camp?\n\nA. All the prisoners in the prison at Lublin were sent there, and I went\nwith them.\n\nQ. Now will you tell the Court, Miss Dzido, in your own words what\nhappened to you after you arrived at Ravensbrueck?\n\nA. When I arrived in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, I thought that\nI would stay there till the end of the war. The living conditions in the\nprison were such that we could not live there any longer. In the camp we\nhad to work, but in the camp it was not so dirty, and there were not so\nmany lice as used to be in the prison.\n\nQ. What work did you do in the camp, Witness?\n\nA. I did physical work inside or outside the camp.\n\nQ. Were you ever operated on in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp?\n\nA. I was operated on in November 1942.\n\nQ. Will you kindly explain the circumstances of this operation to the\nTribunal?\n\nA. In 1942 great hunger and terror reigned in the camp. The Germans were\nat the zenith of their power. You could see haughtiness and pride on the\nface of every SS woman. We were told every day that we were nothing but\nnumbers, that we had to forget that we were human beings, that we had\nnobody to think of us, that we would never return to our country, that\nwe were slaves, and that we had only to work. We were not allowed to\nsmile, to cry, or to pray. We were not allowed to defend ourselves when\nwe were beaten. There was no hope of going back to my country.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, did you say that you were operated on in the\nRavensbrueck concentration camp on 22 November 1942? [See photographs,\npp. 898-908.]\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, on 22 November 1942, the day of this operation, will you kindly\ntell the Tribunal all that happened during that time?\n\nA. That day the policewoman, camp policewoman, came with a piece of\npaper where my name was written down. The policewoman told us to follow\nher. When I asked her where we were going, she told me that she didn\u2019t\nknow. She took us to the hospital. I didn\u2019t know what was going to\nhappen to me. It might have been an execution, transport for work, or\noperation.\n\nDr. Oberheuser appeared and told me to undress and examined me. Then I\nwas X-rayed. I stayed in the hospital. My dress was taken away from me.\nI was operated on 22 November 1942 in the morning. A German nurse came,\nshaved my legs, and gave me something to drink. When I asked her what\nshe was going to do with me she did not give me any answer. In the\nafternoon I was taken to the operating room on a small hospital trolley.\nI must have been very exhausted and tired and that is why I don\u2019t\nremember whether I got an injection or whether a mask was put on my\nface. I didn\u2019t see the operating room.\n\nWhen I came back I remember that I had no wound on my leg, but a trace\nof a sting. From that time I don\u2019t remember anything till January. I\nlearned from my comrades who lived in the same room that my leg had been\noperated on. I remember what was going on in January, and I know that\nthe dressings had been changed several times.\n\nQ. Witness, do you know who performed the operation upon your leg?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Now, you say that you had dressings changed. Who changed the\ndressings on your leg?\n\nA. The dressings were changed by Drs. Oberheuser, Rosenthal, and\nSchiedlausky.\n\nQ. Did you suffer a great deal while these dressings were being changed?\n\nA. Yes, very much.\n\nQ. Witness, will you step down from the witness box and walk over to the\ndefendants\u2019 dock and see if you can recognize anyone in that dock as\nbeing at Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the period and during\nthe time that you were operated on?\n\nA. (Witness points.)\n\nQ. Will you point to the person again that you recognized, Witness?\n\nA. (Witness points.)\n\nQ. And who is that, Witness?\n\nA. Dr. Oberheuser.\n\nMR. HARDY: May we request that the record so show that the witness has\nidentified the defendant Oberheuser?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will so show.\n\nMR. HARDY: Do you recognize anyone else in that dock, Witness?\n\nWITNESS DZIDO: Yes.\n\nQ. Point out who else you recognize, Witness?\n\nA. (Witness points.)\n\nQ. Who is that, Witness?\n\nA. This man I saw only once in the camp.\n\nQ. Do you know who that man is, Witness?\n\nA. I know.\n\nQ. Who is that man, Witness?\n\nA. Dr. Fischer.\n\nMR. HARDY: Will the record so show that the witness has properly\nidentified the defendant Fischer as being at the Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will so show.\n\nMR. HARDY: Witness, do you have any other details to tell the Tribunal\nabout your operation?\n\nWITNESS DZIDO: (No answer.)\n\nQ. Witness, how many times were you operated on?\n\nA. Once.\n\nQ. When Dr. Oberheuser attended you, was she gentle in her treatment\ntoward you?\n\nA. She was not bad.\n\nQ. Witness, have you ever heard of a person named Binz in the\nRavensbrueck concentration camp?\n\nA. I know her very well.\n\nQ. Do you remember what time your friends were called to be operated on\nin August of 1943?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Will you kindly tell the Tribunal some of the details there and the\nnames of the persons who were to be operated on?\n\nA. In the spring of 1943 the operations were stopped. We thought that we\ncould live like that till the end of the war. On the 15th of August a\npolicewoman came and called ten girls. When she was asked what for, she\nanswered that we were going to be sent to work. We knew very well that\nall prisoners belonging to our transport were not allowed to work\noutside the camp. The chief of the block where we were living was\nforbidden under capital punishment to let us outside the camp. That\u2019s\nwhy we know that it was not true. We didn\u2019t want to let our comrades out\nof the block. The policewoman came, and the assistants, the overseers,\nand with them Binz. We were driven out of the block into the street. We\nstood there in line 10 at a time and Binz herself read off the names of\n10 girls. When they refused to go because they were afraid of a new\noperation and were not willing to undergo a new operation, she herself\ngave her word of honor that it was not going to be an operation and she\ntold them to follow her.\n\nWe remained standing before the block. Then several minutes later our\ncomrades ran to us and told us that SS men have been called for in order\nto surround them. The camp police arrived and drove our comrades out of\nthe line. We were locked in the block. The shutters were closed. We were\n3 days without any food and without any fresh air. We were not given\nparcels that arrived in the camp at that time. The first day the camp\ncommandant and Binz came and made a speech. The camp commandant said\nthat there had never been a revolt in the camp and that this revolt must\nbe punished. She believed that we would reform and that we would never\nrepeat it. If it were to happen again, she had SS people with weapons.\nMy comrade, who knew German, answered that we were not revolting, that\nwe didn\u2019t want to be operated on because five of us died after the\noperation and because six had been shot down after having suffered so\nmuch. Then Binz replied: \u201cDeath is victory. You must suffer for it and\nyou will never get out of the camp.\u201d Three days later, we learned that\nour comrades had been operated on in the bunker.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, how many women, approximately, were operated on at\nRavensbrueck?\n\nA. At Ravensbrueck 74 women were operated on. Many of them underwent\nmany operations.\n\nQ. Now, you have told us that five died as a result of the operations,\nis that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And another six were shot down after the operation, is that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know why those other six were shot, Witness?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Witness, were any of these victims asked to volunteer for these\noperations?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Were any of them promised freedom if they would submit to operations?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. When you were operated on, did you object?\n\nA. I could not.\n\nQ. Why?\n\nA. I was not allowed to talk and our questions were not answered.\n\nQ. Do you still suffer any effects as a result of the operation,\nWitness?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were you ever asked to sign any papers with respect to the operation?\n\nA. Never.\n\nQ. When did you finally leave Ravensbrueck?\n\nA. On 27 April 1945.\n\nQ. Have you ever received any treatment since you have left Ravensbrueck\nin the last year?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Tell us what treatment you have received.\n\nA. Dr. Gruzan in Warsaw transplanted tendons on my leg.\n\nQ. When did he do that?\n\nA. On 25 September 1945.\n\nQ. Do you have to wear any special shoes, now, Witness?\n\nA. Yes, I should wear them, but I can\u2019t afford to buy them.\n\nQ. What are you doing now, Witness? Are you working now, or what is your\noccupation?\n\nA. I am now continuing my studies which I started before the war.\n\nQ. I see. I will ask the witness to identify these pictures.\n\nMR. HARDY: This is Document NO-1082_a_, _b_, and _c_. I will pass these\nup to the Tribunal for your perusal. Were these photographs taken of you\nin Nuernberg in the last day or two, Witness?\n\nWITNESS DZIDO: Yes.\n\nQ. Witness, would you kindly take your stocking and shoe off your right\nleg, please, and will you step out to the side and show the Tribunal the\nresults of the operations at Ravensbrueck? (Witness complies.) That\u2019s\nall, Witness, you may sit down.\n\nMR. HARDY: I have no further question on direct examination, your Honor.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Is there any defense counsel who desires to\ncross-examine this witness?\n\nDR. SEIDL (counsel for defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I\ndo not want to cross-examine the witness; however, I do not wish the\nconclusion to be drawn that my clients admit all the statements made by\nthe witness.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. LEO\n ALEXANDER[41]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. HARDY: Dr. Alexander, have you examined Miss Dzido before today?\n\nWITNESS DR. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir, I did, on several occasions during the\nlast 3 days.\n\nQ. During your examination, did you have X-rays made of the patient\u2019s\nlegs?\n\nA. I did, sir.\n\nMR. HARDY: At this time I will introduce Document NO-1091 which is the\nX-ray of the witness, Miss Dzido. We will pass two copies to the\nTribunal and one copy to the Secretary General. Dr. Alexander, in the\ncourse of your diagnosis of these X-rays, will you kindly diagnose this\nX-ray in English and then repeat in German for the benefit of the\ndefendants?\n\nWITNESS DR. ALEXANDER: Yes, sir.\n\nQ. Doctor, will you identify that X-ray which carried Document NO-1091?\n\nA. Yes. This is the X-ray which included the lower two-thirds of the\nthigh bone, the femur, and the knee joint, and\u2014\n\nMR. HARDY: I offer this X-ray as Prosecution Exhibit 215.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Doctor, this X-ray you are referring to now is Document NO-1092?\n\nA. This is Document NO-1091. The arrow points to the osteoporotic\natrophy of the tibia. Document NO-1092 is the X-ray of the leg. It shows\nthe fibula which is the smaller of the two larger bones of the leg,\nabout in the middle between the area just mentioned under the bracket\ncalled \u201cB\u201d. On the side, looking toward the tibia is the\nosteoperiostitis of the periosteum. This group of marks is particularly\nsevere in the smaller area which I have marked with the bracket \u201cA\u201d,\nwhich indicates a smaller area of the shaft of the tibia within the\nlarger area of the disturbance marked as \u201cB\u201d. This alteration is\nindicative and consists of an ordinary inactive Coxa, which in view of\nthe osteoperiostitis of the periosteum was probably an osteomyelitis\nprocess. However, there is no active osteomyelitis at the present\nexamination of the right foot. In pictures 1093 and 1094, it shows\narthritic changes of the cuniform navicula joints with narrowing of the\njoint spaces and increased marginal sclerosis. This has been marked in\nthe X-ray with an arrow pointing to the joint. The other prints are the\nsame. The prints have come out too dark, but it shows the condition\nclearly in the film.\n\nThis arthritis is due to the immobilization of the right foot. Secondary\nto the muscles and especially the paralysis of the perineal nerve. It is\nevidently arthritis of an immobilization nature which one sees also by\ninspection of the patient\u2019s foot.\n\nQ. Doctor, can you determine from your examination\u2014\u2014\n\nA. (Interposing) 1094\u2014have I mentioned it?\u2014shows the same as 1093 in a\nslightly different exposure. The marks are the same pointing to the most\nmarked arthritis between the cuniform navicular joints.\n\nQ. Doctor, in your opinion, from your examination of this patient can\nyou determine what was the purpose of the experiment?\n\nA. It appears that in this experiment a highly infectious agent was\nimplanted, probably without the addition of a bacteria static agent such\nas sulfanilamide, and for that reason the infection got out of hand and\nbecame very extensive.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT GEBHARDT[42]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nDR. SEIDL: The experiments on Polish internees were carried out in such\na way that, first of all, three series of experiments were performed on\nthree groups of 12 persons each. Is that correct?\n\nDEFENDANT GEBHARDT: Yes. What I wanted to solve by means of this second\nexperimental group was the task given me in my orders, namely, the\ntesting of the drugs prescribed. I definitely hoped in these\nexperiments, which produced gangrene, that if there was anything in the\nsulfanilamide drugs, which I had reason to hope, then the advantages\nconnected with one or the other drug would become apparent, and I would\nbe able to discontinue the experiments. Of course, I could not stop at\nthe initial instructions. I really had to go on to a localized and\ndefinite infection, and for that there is an internationally known\nprecept, not discovered by us, which is to produce a _locus minoris\nresistentia_\u2014that is to say, the place of least resistance\u2014where germs\ncombine with contact substances. So we did not insert dirt, glass, or\nearth, cruelly; the dirt in the wound was represented by sterile glass\nsilicate; soil and textiles which would enter a wound were replaced by\nus through sterile cellulose, finely ground. You all know that if you\ncut yourself and a nonsterile piece of glass remains in the wound, if\nyou do not move the spot, it will heal with the glass inside without any\naggravated symptoms. The only effect it has is to produce a catalysis\nfor the germs and a local obstruction to the flow of blood, and possibly\nto damage a few cells slightly. In other words, we produced inflammation\nin the safest way possible for such an experiment. That is an\nunquestionable scientific train of thought in this sphere. We proceeded\nin just that manner and in addition, we gave our sulfanilamide, or\nzeibazol 1., eleutron, and nitron. Two control persons, however, were\nnot without protection, because they were taken care of in the old\nestablished way.\n\nNow, don\u2019t suggest that I should know the schedule or that there was\nsome schedule regarding the supply of sulfanilamide used. A schedule is\nalways bad in medicine because it is no longer original. One thing is\ncharacteristic, however, with sulfanilamides and that is that you give a\nbig dose at the beginning, and here there is a question of whether it is\ncorrect to introduce it locally or to leave it open. Someone might mix\nit, somebody else might have a different combination and that is how we\ndid it. I would be a bad scientist if I were to write down for you now\nthat I knew exactly that they were all given in a certain manner on the\nthird day, or that they are all like this and this now. It states\nexpressly in Thomas\u2019 statement, of course, that any prearranged table\nfor the administration is wrong, and that we also cannot prescribe the\ncorrect way to apply these drugs. It was obviously clear that there was\na strong impression made by sulfanilamides and, even in the first group,\nwe were astonished to find a certain result, which is useful for the\nidea as such, but not for practical purposes. Among other things we\nimmediately and simultaneously sprinkled a mixture of germs together\nwith sulfanilamide powder into the wound. That was the only exception\nmade in the first group and it didn\u2019t produce any results at all. Now,\nif I were a bad scientist then I would have assumed that that, in\nitself, was a success. No matter whether it was the ultrasepsis or the\npowder we had used, I would have been satisfied, and I would have said,\n\u201cEverybody now has to take a little bag of sulfanilamide along with him\nand powder the wounds with it immediately because we know that if they\nare inserted simultaneously into the wound\u2014the germ and the drug\u2014then\nthere will be no inflammation.\u201d Only in complete ignorance of wound\nconditions and war conditions could one adopt that point of view. The\ndisadvantage of the sulfanilamide bag is that a man who is badly shot\nisn\u2019t in a position to act; he would be lying somewhere badly wounded\nand not be able to do anything. On the other hand, of course, the\nposition is that the surface of the wound can easily be powdered, but of\ncourse not right down to the very bottom of the wound, and we know\nparticularly well that sulfanilamides when applied wrongly in this way\nhave caused injury.\n\nQ. The second group consisted of the 36 women, 3 times 12 women?\n\nA. Yes. Infection, plus contact materials.\n\nQ. Is it true that the Reich Physician SS, Dr. Grawitz, on 3 September\n1942, when inspecting Ravensbrueck, demanded that the experimental\nconditions had to be made more severe in order to create conditions\nsimilar to wartime conditions?\n\nA. At the beginning of September, on the basis of my report, I was\ncalled to Grawitz to report on the results which might be expected.\nGrawitz, and as I shall explain later, Stumpfegger, came to me at the\nbeginning of September. Since Grawitz was coming to Ravensbrueck I\nturned up on the same day, so that Fischer could demonstrate the\npatients under my protection. That is the impression probably created\nrepeatedly by the testimony of witnesses; they have to wait for a time,\nand then I say \u201cThese are the patients whom I operated on.\u201d I assume the\nsame description was given each time. Grawitz was able to prove to me\nthat the effects were circumscribed and not of a war nature. And he was\nable to prove to me that I had obtained no clear medical information,\nonly assumptions, and the clinical conditions resulting might perhaps be\nexpected after surgery at home. For another reason, which can be seen\nfrom the documents, the argument became rather violent. Grawitz turned\nto Fischer, who presented the cases to him. At any rate he then said,\nunfortunately, that a speedy clarification had to be reached and that\nwounds similar to combat wounds had to be created, that is, a gunshot\nwound infected by earth and matter. Of course, I did not accept these\nconditions and I looked for some way to get the experiment into my own\nhands so that, using all safeguards, a higher degree of infection might\nbe brought about, and the cases might still remain under my control. I\ndid not want to give up and say, \u201cI have not reached any conclusion,\u201d\nthereby impliedly giving permission for wounds similar to combat wounds\nto be inflicted elsewhere. And so we arrived at the idea of tying off\nthe arteries of the third group, which is also a customary means of\nbringing about a locus minoris resistentiae in international\nexperimental technique.\n\nQ. You did not carry out the order then?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Then how were the experiments continued in order to create severe\nlocal inflammation in warlike wounds?\n\nA. We kept to our old technique, the infusion, that is an incision on\nthe outer side of the calf far from the joint, where it is not under\npressure, and where the cast does not hurt it. In other words, we chose\nthe most suitable place according to all medical considerations. Then we\nadministered the infection in a place where the circulation of the blood\nhad been reduced.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. What do you know about the deaths, and why was there no amputation in\nthese cases?\n\nA. I believe that I can remember the three deaths very well. But I only\nremember three\u2014I have always testified that\u2014with all the things that\nhave happened in the meantime and all the patients I have taken care of.\nIt was not that Fischer or I overlooked an amputation, and it is\ncertainly not true that an amputation can save the life of the patient\nin all cases of gangrene. As I remember the case histories, the most\nserious patient had a large abscess on the hip. Probably the\ncorresponding glands had been affected. The infection on the calf and\nthe abscess on the hip\u2014what can I amputate? One can amputate when the\ninfection is limited to the calf. We did not have such cases because we\nforced the infection to the place where we wanted it, but we were not\nable to prevent the infection spreading to a different area and running\ninto the blood vessel as does happen occasionally. There are infections\nof the veins, and then the patient dies suddenly, and it is a definite\nrisk to perform an operation because the power of resistance is on the\nborderline, hanging by a hair. If we perform such major operations to\nsave the patient\u2019s life, then you may assume that we would have\nundertaken an amputation, or would you assume that a surgeon of my\nexperience does not know when he has to amputate? Unfortunately that is\nthe first thing that an operative surgeon like Fischer learns in\nwartime, to amputate in time.\n\nAs far as I remember, the deaths were from an abscess of the glands, an\ninflammation of the veins, an inflammation of the blood vessels, and one\ndied from general sickness, in spite of all transfusions. This happens\nin cases of infection when there is no possibility of stopping the\ninfection by local surgery. But one cannot conclude that any medical\nmeasures which should have been taken were overlooked, because just by\nseeing a case history from a distance one cannot decide that at such and\nsuch a moment the patient should have been operated on. I am convinced\nthat in these three cases which Fischer reported to me exactly, which I\nsaw, and in which the therapy was discussed, that we certainly did not\noverlook anything. As far as one can humanly say, we did what we\nconsidered necessary.\n\nI wanted to publish this result or to report it to the public from the\nbeginning. Therefore, it was obvious from the very beginning, if you did\nnot assume that I had any humane or surgical motives, that I did\neverything in order to be able to publish the results.\n\n-----\n\n[40] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20\nDecember 1947, pp. 838-847.\n\n[41] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec.\n1946, pp. 848-855.\n\n[42] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6,\n7, 10 Mar. 47, pp. 3931-4256.\n\n 6. BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE TRANSPLANTATION\n EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt,\nOberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and\nparticipation in criminal conduct involving experiments on bone, muscle,\nand nerve regeneration and experiments on bone transplantation (par. 6\n(F) of the indictment). During the trial, the prosecution withdrew this\ncharge in the case of Rudolf Brandt. On this charge the defendants\nGebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Karl\nBrandt, Handloser, and Rostock were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on these experiments is\ncontained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract\nfrom this brief is set forth below on pages 392 to 396. A corresponding\nsummation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been\nselected from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears\nbelow on pages 396 to 399. This argumentation is followed by selections\nfrom the evidence on pages 400 to 418.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_\n\n _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone Transplantation\n Experiments_\n\nThese experiments were carried out in the Ravensbrueck concentration\ncamp during the same period of time and on the same group of Polish\ninmates as the sulfanilamide experiments. (_Tr. p. 1458._)\n\nThe defendant Fischer made the following statement about these\nexperiments in his affidavit:\n\n \u201cAfter the arrival of Doctor Stumpfegger from general\n headquarters in the fall of 1942, Professor Gebhardt declared\n before some of his co-workers that he had received orders to\n continue with the tests at Ravensbrueck on a larger scale. In\n this connection, questions of plastic surgery which would be of\n interest after the end of the war should be clarified. Doctor\n Stumpfegger was supposed to test the free transplantation of\n bones. Since Professor Gebhardt knew that I had worked in\n preparation for my habilitation at the university on\n regeneration of tissues, he ordered me to prepare a surgical\n plan for these operations, which, after it had been approved he\n directed me to carry out immediately. Moreover, Doctor Koller\n and Doctor Reissmayer were ordered to perform their own series\n of experiments. Professor Gebhardt was also considering a plan\n to form the basis of an operative technique of remobilization of\n joints. Besides the above, Doctors Schulze and Schulze-Hagen\n participated in this conference.\n\n \u201cSince I knew Ravensbrueck I was ordered to introduce the new\n doctors named above to the camp physician. I was specially\n directed to assist Doctor Stumpfegger, since, as physician on\n the staff of Himmler, he would probably be absent from time to\n time.\n\n \u201cI had selected the regeneration of muscles for the sole reason\n because the incision necessary for this purpose was the\n smallest. The operation was carried out as follows:\n\n \u201cEvipan and ether were used as an anaesthetic, and a 5\n centimeter longitudinal incision was made at the outer side of\n the upper leg. Subsequent to the cutting through the fascia, a\n piece of muscle was removed which was the size of the cup of the\n little finger. The fascia and skin were enclosed in accordance\n with the normal technique of aseptic surgery. Afterwards a cast\n was applied. After 1 week the skin wound was split under the\n same narcotic conditions, and the part of the muscle around the\n area cut out was removed. Afterwards the fascia and the sewed-up\n part of the skin were immobilized in a cast.\u201d (_NO-228, Pros.\n Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 774_.)\n\nThe responsibility of the defendant Gebhardt for these experiments is\nalso proved by the affidavit of Oberheuser. She stated:\n\n \u201cThe experiments with bone transplantations were carried out, as\n far as I can remember, at the end of 1942 and beginning of 1943\n by Dr. Stumpfegger of Hohenlychen. I helped Dr. Stumpfegger in\n the same way as I helped Dr. Fischer with the sulfanilamide\n experiments, and as I have described already in paragraph 4 of\n this affidavit. Before the operation I had to examine, as in the\n other case, the condition of health of the selected persons. The\n operations consisted of the removal and transplantation of a\n piece of the bone from the tibia. Fifteen to twenty persons were\n used for these experiments.\n\n \u201cThe persons necessary for these experiments were requisitioned\n by Dr. Schiedlausky from the camp commander.\n\n \u201cDr. Karl Gebhardt was in charge of the sulfanilamide\n experiments and bone transplantations. I do not know whether he\n himself performed operations of this type. But I know that all\n these experiments were performed under his direction and\n supervision and upon his instructions. He was assisted by the\n doctors already mentioned, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Stumpfegger, and\n also by Drs. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal. Also only healthy\n Polish prisoners were used for these experiments.\n\n \u201cI cannot remember that a single one of the experimental\n subjects used was pardoned after the completion of the\n experiments.\u201d (_NO-487, Pros. Ex. 208._)\n\nThe witness Maczka, a graduate of the Medical School of the University\nof Krakow and a practicing physician, testified that in the course of\nher duties as X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp\nshe had occasion to observe approximately 13 cases in which experimental\noperations were performed on the bones of inmates. There were three\nkinds of bone operations\u2014fractures, bone transplantations, and bone\nsplints. Some of the Polish girls were operated on several times. In the\ncase of Krystyna Dabska, Maczka took X-ray pictures of both legs and\ndiscovered that small pieces of the fibulae had been removed. In the\ncase of one leg the periosteum had also been taken out. Zofia Baj was\noperated on in a similar manner. Janina Marczewska and Leonarda Bien\nwere subjected to the bone fracture experiments. The tibia was broken in\nseveral places and in the case of one of the girls, clamps were applied\nwhile in the case of the other they were not. These operations impeded\nthe locomotion of the girls operated on. Bone incision operations were\nperformed on Barbara Pietczyk, a Polish girl 16 years old. She was\noperated on six times. During the first operation incisions were made in\neach tibia. During a later operation pieces of the tibia were cut out\nwhere incisions had been previously made. Maczka took an X-ray of the\npieces of tibia that were removed. As a result of these bone operations,\nMaczka observed the development of two cases of osteomyelitis, Maria\nGrabowska and Maria Cabaj. (_Tr. pp. 1445-7._)\n\nA rather large group of muscle experiments were performed. Here again\nmultiple operations were carried out on the same subject. Gledziewjowska\nwas operated on most frequently. During the first operation certain\nmuscles were removed and during subsequent operations additional pieces\nwere cut out, always at the same place, so that the legs got thinner and\nweaker all the time. (_Tr. p. 1447._)\n\nTransplantation of whole limbs from one person to another was also\ncarried out. Maczka testified that about 10 feeble-minded inmates were\nselected, taken to the hospital and prepared for operation. She knew\npersonally that at least two of these persons were operated on. One case\nwas a leg amputation. Following this operation, the experimental subject\nwas killed and placed in a special room where the dead were kept. Maczka\nwas able to observe the corpse and saw that there was only one leg. In\nthe second case an abnormal woman was operated on by Dr. Fischer. When\nhe left the operating room he carried with him a bundle wrapped up in\nlinen about the size of an arm. He took this away with him. The prison\nnurse, Quernheim, informed Maczka that the whole arm with shoulder blade\nwas removed from this woman. (_Tr. p. 1448._)\n\nThe amputation of the arm and shoulder blade mentioned by Dr. Maczka\nobviously refers to the transplantation performed on the patient Ladisch\nat Hohenlychen. As to this, the defendant Fischer stated in his\naffidavit as follows:\n\n \u201cAs a disciple of Lexer, Gebhardt had already planned long ago a\n free heteroplastic transplantation of bone. In spite of the fact\n that some of his co-workers did not agree, he was resolved to\n carry out such an operation on the patient, Ladisch, whose\n shoulder joint was removed because of a sarcoma.\n\n \u201cI and my medical colleagues urged professional and human\n objections up until the evening before the operation was\n performed, but Gebhardt ordered us to carry out the operations.\n Dr. Stumpfegger, in whose field of research this operation was,\n was supposed to perform the removal of the scapula at\n Ravensbrueck and had already made initial arrangements for it.\n However, because Professor Gebhardt required Doctor Stumpfegger\n to assist him in the actual transplantation of the shoulder to\n the patient Ladisch, I was ordered to go to Ravensbrueck and\n perform the operation of removal on that evening. I asked\n Doctors Gebhardt and Schulze to describe exactly the technique\n which they wished me to follow. The next morning I drove to\n Ravensbrueck after I had made a previous appointment by\n telephone. At Hohenlychen I had already made the normal initial\n preparation for an operation, namely, scrubbing, etc., merely\n put on my coat, and went to Ravensbrueck and removed the bone.\n\n \u201cThe camp physician who was assisting me in the operation\n continued with it while I returned to Hohenlychen as quickly as\n possible with the bone which was to be transplanted. In this\n manner the period between removal and transplantation was\n shortened. At Hohenlychen the bone was handed over to Professor\n Gebhardt, and he, together with Doctor Schulze and Doctor\n Stumpfegger, transplanted it.\u201d (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._)\n\nGebhardt admitted that he, together with Stumpfegger, personally\nperformed the bone transplantation operation on Ladisch. He testified\nfurther that Fischer only removed the scapula, shoulder blade, from the\nPolish female inmate at Ravensbrueck. (_Tr. p. 4235._) It is impossible\nto raise the arm above the horizontal if the scapula has been removed.\n(_Tr. p. 4235._) Gebhardt further admitted that Stumpfegger reported to\nhim on the bone experiments in Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_Tr. p.\n4235._)\n\nThe affidavit of Gustawa Winkowska corroborates the testimony of Maczka\nconcerning the transplantation of whole limbs and establishes that the\nexperimental subjects were later killed. (_NO-865, Pros. Ex. 231._)\n\nThe witness Karolewska was a subject in both the sulfanilamide and bone\nexperiments. (_Tr. pp. 833, 836-7._) She was operated on a total of six\ntimes. The first operation was conducted on 14 August 1942 by Fischer.\n(_Tr. p. 819._) Gebhardt inspected her early in September. (_Tr. p.\n821._) She was sent back to her block on 8 September 1942, but was\nunable to walk and remained in bed for a week. On 16 September 1942 she\nwas again taken to the hospital and operated on for the second time by\nFischer. (_Tr. pp. 821-2._) She left the hospital on 6 October 1942 and\nremained in bed for several weeks. Her leg did not heal until June 1943\n(_Tr. pp. 822-3_). She filed a written protest with the camp commander,\ntogether with other experimental subjects in February 1943. In August\n1943 she was operated on literally by force in the bunker at\nRavensbrueck. Both her legs were cut open. These operations were carried\nout on five other Polish girls under indescribably filthy conditions. On\n15 September 1943 a further operation was performed on her right leg by\na doctor from Hohenlychen. Two weeks later her left leg was operated on\nand pieces of the shinbone were removed. She stayed in the hospital for\n6 months\u2014until the end of February 1944. (_Tr. pp. 828-9._) Karolewska\nidentified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having\nparticipated in the experiments on her. (_Tr. pp. 818, 830._)\n\nThe defendant Fischer participated in these experiments until at least\n23 February 1943. On that date he carried out a second operation on\nZofia Baj. (_NO-871, Pros. Ex. 227._)\n\nThe most disgusting series of operations were those carried out in\nAugust 1943 in the bunker. The Polish girls selected had revolted and\nrefused to report to the hospital. The barrack block in which they had\nbarricaded themselves was then surrounded by male guards who carried\nthese women off forcibly to the camp prison, known as the Bunker, where\nthey were held down by these male guards and forcibly anaesthetized\nwithout any pre-operative care, and with their bodies still in a filthy\ncondition from walking around the camp. The experimental subject\nPiasecka stated in her affidavit as follows:\n\n \u201cI resisted and hit Trommer in the face and called him a bandit.\n He called some SS male guards who threw me on the floor and held\n me down while ether was poured over my face. There was no mask.\n I fought and resisted until I lost consciousness. I was\n completely dressed and my legs were filthy dirty from walking in\n the camp. As far as I know my legs were not washed. I saw my\n sister during this time unconscious on a stretcher, vomiting\n mucous.\u201d (_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229_)\n\nPiasecka stated that this operation was carried out by Dr. Villmann who\nwas an assistant doctor at Hohenlychen. A few weeks later two other\nassistant doctors to Gebhardt came and operated on her right leg.\n(_NO-864, Pros. Ex. 229._)\n\nIn his testimony Gebhardt attempted to disassociate himself from these\nexperiments. He admitted however that he received information from\nStumpfegger about the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 4082, 4087-9._) Stumpfegger\nwas a former assistant of Gebhardt\u2019s and he stayed at Hohenlychen during\nthe course of these experiments. Fischer assisted Stumpfegger and\nGebhardt. (_Tr. pp. 4230, 4090._) It is further established by Fischer\u2019s\nown affidavit that the plan for the experiments was worked out with the\nknowledge and approval of Gebhardt.\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[43]\n\n_The Experiments Concerning Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone\n Grafting_\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt is also charged in the indictment with particular\nresponsibility in the experiments, whose object according to the\nindictment was the examination of the conditions under which the\nregeneration of bones, muscles, and nerves resulted, and under what\nconditions the grafting of bones was possible.\n\nWith regard to the general reasons why there can be no question of\nguilt, I refer to the statements I have already made in connection with\nthe sulfanilamide experiments. These experiments, too, were occasioned\nby conditions of war and were to open up new ways of treating seriously\nwounded persons.\n\nThe evidence, however, has shown that the defendant Gebhardt, with a\nsingle exception, had nothing to do with these experiments. These\nexperiments, insofar as they were concerned with the regeneration and\ngrafting of bones, were carried out by Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Stumpfegger.\nIt is correct that Dr. Stumpfegger was assistant doctor in the clinic in\nHohenlychen before the war, and to that extent subordinate to its chief\ndoctor, Dr. Gebhardt. Dr. Stumpfegger, however, left in the early years\nof the war, and in the year 1942 became consulting physician to Reich\nLeader SS Himmler and later consulting physician to Hitler. The\nexperiments carried out by him in Ravensbrueck were carried out on his\nown responsibility, and upon direct orders from the Reich Leader SS\nHimmler. Dr. Stumpfegger at that time was neither under the military nor\nthe medical supervision of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. For the\nremainder, Dr. Stumpfegger limited himself to carrying out experiments\nin the removal and grafting of so-called bone splinters, the exact\nnumber of which can no longer be determined now, but which certainly did\nnot exceed six to eight. These were aseptic operations, which\nconstituted no danger to the life of the experimental subjects. The\nevidence has shown that the experimental subjects from whom the bone\nsplinters were removed suffered no reduction in the function of their\nlimbs. Besides, the examination of the transplantation process of bones\nachieved a research result that could not be attained from the animal\nexperiments because of the variety of the stipulated regeneration areas\ncaused by the location of the various species and for the other reasons\ngiven by Gebhardt.\n\nThe evidence has further shown that the experimental subjects were\nmembers of the resistance movement who had been condemned to death and\nwho were in this way given an opportunity to obtain a pardon, and so to\nescape execution. In view of the fact that no direct responsibility for\nthese experiments falls on the defendant Gebhardt, it is not necessary\nto go into the purpose of these experiments further at this time. It\nshould, however, be emphasized once more that the experiments were to\nopen up new possibilities in wartime surgery and restorative surgery on\nthe wounded. In 1944, Dr. Ludwig Stumpfegger published the results of\nhis experiments in the periodical for surgery the editor of which was\nGeheimrat Dr. Sauerbruch (vol. 259, issue 9-12) and this article was\nalso made available to the public in book form. I have submitted to the\nCourt (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 6, Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser\nEx. 9_) a review of this work in the periodical, \u201cClinic and Practice\u201d\nof February 1946 and refer to this for the details.\n\nThe defendant Karl Gebhardt would certainly not have hesitated to admit\nhis responsibility for these experiments if he had actually been more\nclosely connected with them, and if the experiments had taken place at\nhis behest or under his medical supervision. There would have been\nlittle reason to deny this responsibility since the experiments\nconcerned were completely without danger; they resulted in no reduction\nof the function of the limbs, and, moreover, no fatalities occurred.\nFurthermore, corresponding to the general practice in Germany, the work\nof Dr. Stumpfegger under the scientific responsibility of the defendant\nGebhardt would have been made public if he had been directly concerned\nwith the experiments, and if they had been carried out under his\nscientific supervision. Nor did the evidence prove that there were any\nexperiments carried out in connection with muscle and nerve regeneration\nunder the scientific supervision and by order of the defendant Gebhardt.\nIt even seems doubtful that any such experiments were ever carried out\nin Ravensbrueck. The witnesses called before this court were unable to\nmake any statements about this matter and it may be taken for granted\nthat in any case the defendant Karl Gebhardt had nothing to do with\nthese experiments. There was no point in carrying out such experiments\nas, long before the war, the surgical technique had already been\ndeveloped on scientific principles and set down in a system. It covers\nplastic surgical bone regeneration but does not advocate free\ntransplantation.\n\nThe only new field of scientific research taken up by Dr. Gebhardt\nduring the war was that of experiments connected with nerve operations.\nThese experiments were, however, carried out on animals by the special\norder and under the scientific supervision of the defendant Gebhardt\nhimself. I am here referring to the affidavits given by the witnesses\nKoestler (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 22, Gebhardt, Fischer,\nOberheuser Ex. 21_) and Brunner (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21,\nGebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20_), and to the statements made by\nthe defendant Gebhardt himself on the witness stand. I am further\nreferring to the report of the Third Session East of the Consulting\nSpecialists on 24-26 May 1943 (_Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3,\nGebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10_) which I have presented in Court\nand which proves that during this session he himself and the\naforementioned witness, Dr. Koestler, spoke about grafting operations in\ncases of nervous paralysis. This is the same report to which the witness\nDr. Koestler referred in his affidavit of 27 February 1947.\n\nFurthermore, I wish to draw the attention of this Court to the lecture\ngiven by the defendant Gebhardt in the same report on \u201cGymnastic Therapy\nand Mobilization of the Joints\u201d which is also based upon clinical\nexperience in Hohenlychen and also has nothing whatever to do with\nmedical experiments on human beings. The evidence has further proved\nthat the defendant Gebhardt was concerned with the transplantation of\nbones in one case only. This experiment was the free transplantation of\na shoulder blade from one person to another. The defendant Gebhardt has\ngiven a detailed account of this on the witness stand and I am referring\nyou to his statement on this point. Generally speaking, the following\nhas to be added: The free transplantation of bones from one person to\nanother is one of the great problems of restorative surgery which has\nyet to be solved. For decades, physicians have been trying to find a\nsolution to this problem. As early as the end of the First World War,\nGeheimrat Lexer, the great teacher of the defendant Gebhardt, conducted\nexperiments along these lines in 23 cases, aiming at the replacement of\ncompletely destroyed bones. The terrible injuries which occurred during\nthe Second World War made this problem still more urgent and it is,\ntherefore, understandable that in view of the progress Dr. Stumpfegger\nhad made in his research, he was ordered by the Reich Leader SS to make\nuse of this research result in the direct transplantation of bones. The\ndefendant Gebhardt himself did not take any steps in this direction. He\nhimself has stated his fundamental attitude as to this question and I\nrefer to his own statements. Only in one case did he give his approval,\nviz: when Dr. Stumpfegger carried out the experiment of transplanting a\nshoulder blade. The order to do this was given by the Reich Leader SS.\nThis experiment was justified in this particular case as it took place\nfor the benefit of a patient in serious danger. The experimental person\nfrom whom the shoulder blade was taken was also a member of the\nresistance movement and she, too, thus escaped execution. Furthermore,\nthe shoulder blade in question belonged to a hand restricted in its\nfunction.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NO-875 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka 400\n Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D., of\n Prague, concerning experimental\n operations conducted on fellow\n inmates at Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp.\n NO-861 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 402\n April 1946, concerning\n experimental operations on\n inmates of the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp.\n NO-579 288 Phosphorous burns artificially 904\n inflicted on inmates of the\n Buchenwald concentration camp.\n (_See Selections from the\n Photographic Evidence of the\n Prosecution._)\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from \u201cClinic and 405\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 9 Practice\u201d, weekly journal for\n Oberheuser 6 the practicing physician,\n regarding bone transplantation.\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extracts from affidavit of Dr. 407\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14\n Oberheuser 21 March 1945, concerning\n scientific experiments\n conducted at the clinic of\n Hohenlychen.\n Gebhardt, Gebhardt, Fischer, Extract from affidavit of Dr. 408\n Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 21 Josef Koestler, 27 February\n Oberheuser 22 1947, concerning Dr. Gebhardt\u2019s\n activities.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Miss Karolewska 409\nExtract from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo 417\n Alexander.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-875\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 230\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ZDENKA NEDVEDOVA-NEJEDLA, M. D., OF PRAGUE, CONCERNING\n EXPERIMENTAL OPERATIONS CONDUCTED ON FELLOW INMATES AT RAVENSBRUECK\n CONCENTRATION CAMP\n\n1. I, Zdenka Nedvedova-Nejedla, M. D. came to Ravensbrueck concentration\ncamp in a transport from Auschwitz on 19 August 1943, and I worked in\nthe sick bay as a doctor prisoner from September 1943 until 30 May 1945.\nIn the beginning I worked in the Department for Contagious Diseases at\nStation No. 1 and the Ambulatory. Besides this, I was in charge of\nSucking Block from the fall of 1944 until May 1945.\n\n2. Of the victims of experimental operations, I nursed personally Helena\nPiasecka, who was suffering from chronic osteomyelitis after completed\noperation of both shin bones. I knew that these operations were\nperformed under Professor Gebhardt\u2019s supervision by Doctor Fischer, and\na woman, Doctor Oberheuser, from the SS Hospital Hohenlychen, but I do\nnot know which one of them had operated on Piasecka. The operation was\nperformed in the \u201cbunker,\u201d camp prison, where there were not even the\nmost primitive sanitary installations and even fewer aseptic\ninstallations. Her general condition was good, but the defect in both\nbones made her an invalid for life. Before the operation Piasecka was\ncompletely healthy.\n\n3. All women on whom experimental operations had been performed were\nplaced in one block and they were generally known as \u201crabbits,\u201d so that\nI saw the effects of the operations on those women who had survived\nthem. In each case of abbreviation of limbs, muscular atrophy of the\nhighest degree set in, proving a grave injury of nerves during\noperations and deep indrawn scars where parts of muscles had festered\naway.\n\n4. From lay reports of nursing personnel without any special training, I\ntried to construct the types of experimental operations.\n\n_a._ Culture of virulent germs (streptococci, staphylococci, maybe even\ntetanus and gas phlegmon) were injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly,\nand even directly into bones. These were the attempts to produce\nosteomyelitis experimentally. The resulting sepsis was checked by daily\nexamination of the blood and urine to test the effectiveness of new\nmedicaments of the sulfanilamide group.\n\n_b._ Parts of long bones, as much as 5 centimeters (fibulae and tibiae),\nwere removed and in some cases replaced by metal or left without\nconnection. These operations were probably to prove the inability of\nbone to grow without periosteum.\n\n_c._ High amputations were performed; for example, even whole arms with\nshoulder blade or legs with osiliaca were amputated. These operations\nwere performed mostly on insane women who were immediately killed after\nthe operation by a quick injection of evipan. All specimens gained in\noperations were carefully wrapped up in sterile gauze and immediately\ntransported to the SS hospital nearby (Hohenlychen presumably), where\nthey were to be used in the attempt to heal the injured limbs of wounded\nGerman soldiers.\n\n5. Operations were performed on 1 Yugoslav, 1 Czech, 2 Ukrainian, 2\nGerman, and about 18 Polish women, of whom 6 were operated on by force\nin the bunker with the help of SS men. Two of them were shot after their\noperation wounds had healed. After operations, no one except SS nurses\nwas admitted to the persons operated on, whole nights they lay without\nany assistance and it was not permitted to administer sedatives even\nagainst the most intensive postoperational pains. From the persons\noperated on, 11 died or were killed, and 71 remained invalids for life.\n\n6. The report mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 5 was prepared on the basis\nof evidence given to me at Ravensbrueck in the autumn of 1943 by these\nfellow prisoners: Sofia Maczka, M. D., Poland; Isa Siczynska, medical\nstudent, Krakow, Poland; Jola Krzyzanowska, medical student, Krakow,\nPoland; Krisa Iwanska, medical student, Krakow, Poland; Emilie Skrbkova,\nmedical student, Praha, Czechoslovakia; and Inka Katnarova, M. D.,\nHradec Kralove, Czechoslovakia.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-861\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 232\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF SOFIA MACZKA[44], 16 APRIL 1946, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL\n OPERATIONS ON INMATES OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP\n\n * * * * *\n\nInformation concerning the experimental operations which took place in\nRavensbrueck concentration camp.\n\nThe operations were carried out in the period between the summer of 1942\nand the summer of 1943. The operations were conducted in the camp\nhospital, under the direction of Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS\nBrigadefuehrer. Professor Gebhardt was the head of the Hohenlychen\nsanatorium at Hohenlychen (Mecklenburg). The operations were conducted\nwith the help of Dr. Fischer, who was Professor Gebhardt\u2019s assistant.\nThere was also another assistant whose name I do not know. The following\ncamp doctors participated in this matter: Dr. Herta Oberheuser, Dr. Rolf\nRosenthal, Dr. Schiedlausky; all German nurses who were employed there\nat the time and two German prisoners (Schutzhaftgefangene), Gerda\nQuernheim and Fina Pautz, gave assistance. Polish political prisoners in\nprotective custody, from the transports from Warsaw and Lublin,\nnumbering 74, were chosen as victims. All those who were chosen were\nyoung, healthy, and well-built women. Many were college or university\nstudents. The youngest was 16 years of age, the oldest 48 years of age.\nThe operations were to be carried out for scientific purposes, but they\nhad nothing to do with science. They were carried out under horrible\nconditions. The doctors and the assisting personnel were not trained\nproperly medically. Conditions were neither aseptic nor hygienic. After\noperations, the patients were left in shocking rooms without medical\nhelp, without nursing or supervision. The dressings were made according\nto the whim of the doctors with unsterilized instruments and compresses.\nDr. Rosenthal, who did most of the dressings, excelled himself in\nsadism. In the summer of 1943 the last operations were carried out in\nthe \u201cbunker\u201d. \u201cBunker\u201d is the name of the horrible prison in the camp.\nThe victims were taken there because they resisted, and there in the\ncell their dirty legs were operated on. This was the \u201cscientific\natmosphere\u201d in which the \u201cscientific\u201d operations were carried out.\n\nAll operations were carried out on the leg and all under anesthetic. The\noperations were divided into two main groups:\n\n1. Operations for infecting the patient.\n\n2. Experimental aseptic operations.\n\nThe soft part of the calf of the leg was opened and the open wounds were\ninfected with bacteria which were introduced into the wounds. The\nfollowing were used: staphylococcus aureus, oedema malignum (clostridium\noedematis maligni), gas gangrene bacillus (clostridium perfrim gens),\nand tetanus. Weronika Kraska was infected with tetanus. She died after a\nfew days. Kazimiera Kurowska was infected with gas gangrene bacillus;\nshe died after a few days. The following were infected with oedema\nmalignum: Aniela Lefanowicz, Zofia Kiecol, Alfreda Prus, and Maria\nKusmierczuk. The first three died after a few days; Maria Kusmierczuk\nsurvived the infection. She was lying ill for more than a year and\nbecame a cripple, but she is alive and is living evidence of the\nexperiments. Mostly pyrogen stimulants were employed. The wounds were\nstitched after the infection and serious illness began. Many of the\npatients were ill for months and almost all of them became cripples.\n\nWhy did Professor Gebhardt, with his education, carry out these\nexperiments? To test the new drugs of the German pharmaceutical\nindustry; mostly cibazol and albucid were used. Even tetanus was treated\nin that way.\n\nThe results of the treatment were not checked, or if they were, it was\ndone in such an inadequate and superficial manner, that it was of no\nvalue.\n\nThe aseptic, experimental operations consisted of bone experiments,\nmuscle experiments, and nerve experiments.\n\nThe bone experiments were checked by X-ray photographs. As ward\nattendant I had to do all the X-ray photographs. In this way I was given\nthe opportunity of gaining an insight in this matter. The following were\ncarried out: (_a_) bone breaking; (_b_) bone transplantation; and (_c_)\nbone grafting.\n\n_a._ On the operating table, the bones of the lower part of both legs\nwere broken into several pieces with a hammer, later they were joined\nwith clips (for instance Janiga Marczewska) or without clips (for\ninstance Leonarda Bien) and were put into a plaster case. This was\nremoved after several days and the legs remained without plaster casts\nuntil they healed.\n\n_b._ The transplantations were carried out in the usual way, except that\nwhole pieces of the fibula were cut out, sometimes with periosteum,\nsometimes without periosteum. The most typical operation of this kind\nwas carried out on Krystyna Dabska.\n\n_c._ Bone grafting. These operations were with the school of Professor\nGebhardt. During the preparatory operation two bone splints were put on\nthe tibia of both legs; during the second operation such bone splints\nwere cut out together with the attached bones and were taken to\nHohenlychen. As a supplement to the bone splint operations such\noperations were also carried out on two prisoners in protective custody\nwho suffered from deformation of bones of the osteomyelitis type. These\ntwo were not Poles, one of them was a German who was a Jehovah\u2019s\nWitness, Maria Konwitschka, and the other was a Ukrainian, Maria\nHretschana. It was interesting for Professor Gebhardt to see how the\ndiseased bones would react to such an operation.\n\nThe muscle experiments consisted of many operations, always on the same\nspot, the upper or lower part of the leg. At each further operation\nlarger and larger pieces of muscles were cut out. Once a small piece of\nbone was planted into a muscle (this happened to Babinska). During nerve\noperations parts of nerves were removed (for instance Barbara\nPytlewska).\n\nWhat problem did Professor Gebhardt and his school wish to solve by\nthese experiments? The problem of the regeneration of bones, muscles,\nand nerves.\n\nWas the thing carried out? No. It was not checked at all, or only\ninsufficiently. I do not know what was done at Hohenlychen with those\npieces of bone, muscle, and nerves which were cut out and taken there.\n\nWhat was the fate of the patients after they left the hospital? Almost\nall of the patients became cripples, and suffered very much as a result\nof these operations. Even more severe was the moral torture inflicted on\nthem since they lived under the conviction that they would all be shot\nin order that they should not be evidence of these murderous operations.\nThe camp authorities\u2014Commandant Suhren, Adjutant Braeuning and Chief\nSupervisor Binz\u2014ensured through their orders that the victims should\nnot forget that they were condemned to death. In the meantime, six of\nthe patients were shot after surviving the operations.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs a supplement to these operations I am submitting a description of\n\u201cspecial operations\u201d which were carried out at the same time.\n\nA few abnormal prisoners (mentally ill) were chosen and brought to the\noperating table, and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint)\nwere carried out, or on others, amputation of the whole arm (with the\nshoulder blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims (if they still\nlived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was\ntaken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor\nGebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out.\n\nDuring the whole of the time these operations were carried out, I was\nemployed as a worker in the ward and investigated this matter risking my\nown life, with the idea that it was my duty, if I were saved, to tell\nthe truth to the world. I conclude my statement with two questions: What\nkind of recompense can the world offer to those who were operated on in\nsuch a manner? What kind of justice has the world for those who carried\nout such operations?\n\n [Signed] DR. MACZKA, ZOFIA\n Dr. med. Zofia Maczka\n X-ray specialist from\n Krakow. Former political\n prisoner in protective\n custody No. 7403 at\n Ravensbrueck, now in\n Stockholm,\n Serafimerlasarettet,\n Roentgen.\n\nStockholm, 16 April 1946\n\n TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER\n DOCUMENT 6\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE\n EXHIBIT 9\n\n EXTRACT FROM \u201cCLINIC AND PRACTICE\u201d, WEEKLY JOURNAL FOR THE PRACTICING\n PHYSICIAN, REGARDING BONE TRANSPLANTATION\n\nEditors: Dr. Herbert Volkmann and Dr. V. E. Mertens, Munich 2,\nAlfonsstrasse 1\n\nNo. 1 Munich, February 1946 Volume 1\n\n[page 12]\n\n _Discussions and extracts_\n\n[page 14]\n\n _Surgery_\n\nLudwig Stumpfegger\u2014Hohenlychen: The free autoplastic bone\ntransplantation in the restorative surgery of limbs\u2014experiences and\nresults.\n\nDuring the past 10 years, 471 free autoplastic bone transplantations\nwere carried out in Hohenlychen. Recent research results clearly showed\nthat apart from the osteoplastic activity, a metaplastic formation of\nnew bone occurs in the tissue. The newly formed bone trabeculae between\ntransplant and old bone begin to connect with those formed in the\nosteoid tissue in the seventh week, and in this way constitute the bone\nconnection between the graft and the original bone which have completely\ngrown together in the ninth week. After the twelfth week no old bone can\nbe detected in the entire region of the original graft, but only new\nbone trabecula. The question of the ever present hematoma can be\nanswered in this way: a blood extravasation, lying in the gap between\nthe transplant and the old bone, and not being subject to pressure,\nrepresents an adequate stimulation to the mesenchymal germinal tissue\nformation, while the large hemorrhage represents a negative stimulation\nand permits only a scarry connection of the transplant and the defective\nstump. The periosteum is no more important than the other layers, it is\ntransplanted with the bone, because in connection with the bone it has\nosteogenetic properties, but above all it effects a speedy supply from\nthe surroundings. A careful technique must be employed to spare the\ntissue layers, and bleeding must be stanched. Foreign bodies in the\nshape of wire slings to hold the transplant usually heal well into the\nbody. Firm fixation in a plaster cast safeguards the result. When the\ngraft has taken, a careful start with remedial exercises may be made in\nthe third or fourth month. The clinical use of free bone\ntransplantations is discussed with the help of numerous examples and\nmany X-ray illustrations. The first task of the bone transplant to\nbridge over a gap in the bone is to provide sufficient support for the\ndefective stump and, therefore, it has to be fairly strong. Bone\nsplinters in the lower arm have roentgenologically completely taken\nafter 1-1\u00bd years, those in the tibia after 1\u00bd-2 years. The free bone\ntransplant, some distance from the joints, has proved to be particularly\nvaluable with the usual dislocations of the shoulder and the hip joints.\nThe overlapping bone ridge prevents the bone from coming out of the\narticular cavity. In the course of years, the piece lying in the soft\nparts is considerably reduced, so that only a small bone ridge remains.\nThe graft effects a regeneration of the damaged edge of the articular\ncavity and in this way prevents further dislocation. Bone transplants in\nbone gaps after removal of growths are subject to special conditions of\ntaking. Hyperemic phenomena in the zone of the tumor edge in the form of\na mild inflammation, possibly also fermentation processes, accelerate\nthe taking of the transplant compared with the process in healthy\ntissue. Increased local resorption processes, occasionally with\nspontaneous fractures, infrequently prevail, but they again are apt to\nheal well. In wounds which heal with difficulty owing to suppurative\ninflammations, there is a great danger of the transplant being pushed\nout. When the whole transplant region is inflamed, total sequestration\ncannot be stopped. If suppuration remains localized, partial\nsequestration of the transplantation must be awaited. (_German Surgical\nJournal, 1944, Vol. 299, H. 9-12. H. Floercken-Frankfurt am Main._)\n\n TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER\n DOCUMENT 21\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE\n EXHIBIT 20\n\n EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. KARL FRIEDRICH BRUNNER, 14 MARCH 1943,\nCONCERNING SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT THE CLINIC OF HOHENLYCHEN\n\n * * * * *\n\nI can state the following regarding the scientific experiments at the\nclinic [of Hohenlychen]: It was in accordance with the principles of the\nclinic and, therefore, of the chief and his deputy to collect scientific\nresults arrived at through clinical observations. All reports at\ncongresses and lectures as well as publications were based on these\nresults. The scientific work and research were normally determined by\nthe observations made on the patients. In addition to this, and in order\nto clarify the question of surgical treatment of nerve injuries,\nexperiments on dogs were carried out in close collaboration with\nGebhardt\u2014first by Dr. Koestler in 1939-40, later by myself from 1943 to\nthe end of the war. I was ordered by Dr. Gebhardt to carry out the\nexperiments on animals at the training and experimental station for dogs\n[Hundelehr- und Versuchsanstalt], which establishment was situated\noutside the concentration camp Ravensbrueck, and I was strictly\ncautioned not to enter into any kind of contact with the concentration\ncamp itself. The animal experiments were strictly continued until the\nend of the war. The results were never published because of war\nconditions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nRegarding Dr. Stumpfegger, I can state that he was an assistant of the\nclinic in peacetime, before I arrived. At the outbreak of war in 1939 he\njoined the Waffen SS, and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards\nan escorting physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my\nreturn to Hohenlychen in autumn 1943, nor had he any official connection\nwith the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a\nmilitary sense. He did not have to report his return or departure to the\nchief physician or to his deputy. His family, however, still lived at\nHohenlychen. I still met him occasionally outside the medical sphere. I\nemphasize that during my presence at the clinic from 1 September 1943 up\nto the end of the war, as far as I know\u2014and finally I was directing the\nclinic\u2014no assistant was drafted from Hohenlychen to Ravensbrueck.\n\nI know that the specialist in pulmonary diseases, Dr. Heissmeyer, was\nworking as an assistant and later as chief physician in the so-called\nsanatorium Hohenlychen even before Professor Gebhardt took over\nHohenlychen. This sanatorium was strictly detached from the surgical\nwards of the hospital at Hohenlychen and was not under the professional\nsupervision of the chief physician nor of his deputy; i. e., Dr.\nHeissmeyer looked after his patients without any supervision by the\nsurgeon, he made no reports to the chief or his deputy, he did not\nparticipate in the daily discussions of the physicians, he had his own\nstaff of assistants and carried out his treatments and operations\nindependently; he also planned his duty journeys independently and made\nthese without reporting to the chief or his deputy on departure or\nreturn.\n\n TRANSLATION OF GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER\n DOCUMENT 22\n GEBHARDT, FISCHER, OBERHEUSER DEFENSE\n EXHIBIT 21\n\n EXTRACT FROM AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOSE KOESTLER, 27 FEBRUARY 1947,\n CONCERNING DR. GEBHARDT\u2019S ACTIVITIES\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the Third Conference of\nConsulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, lectured on\nsurgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one hand,\ninterpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on dogs from\n1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital, Berlin, and in the\ninstitutes of Professor Holz (Institute for Experimental Hormone and\nCancer Research) and Professor Ostertag (Pathological Institute), and,\non the other hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been\nfrequently used during the previous years.\n\nUnder the title of \u201cPreparatory and Restorative Surgery in cases of\nPeripheral Nerve Damage,\u201d I recorded these experiences in the \u201cGerman\nJournal for Surgery,\u201d volume 259, Nos. 1-4, 1943, and in my habilitation\npaper (1943, University of Berlin).\n\nI emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out\nexclusively on animals.\n\nFrom 1 July 1938 to 26 August 1939 I was in the Red Cross hospital at\nHohenlychen (Department for Sport and Industrial Injuries). During the\nfollowing war years, after I was drafted into the Wehrmacht, I worked\nthere repeatedly for short periods. I am convinced that the medical care\nthere was on an especially high level and that Professor Gebhardt as\nchief physician did everything possible to improve the treatment and its\nresults.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS MISS KAROLEWSKA[45]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: What is your name, please?\n\nWITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Karolewska.\n\nQ. And that is spelled K-a-r-o-l-e-w-s-k-a?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were you born on 15 March 1909 at Yeroman?\n\nA. I was born on 15 March 1909 in Yeroman.\n\nQ. You are a citizen of Poland?\n\nA. Yes, I am a Polish citizen.\n\nQ. And have you come here as a voluntary witness?\n\nA. Yes, I came here as a voluntary witness.\n\nQ. What is your home address?\n\nA. Warsaw, Inzynierska Street, No. 9, Flat No. 25.\n\nQ. Are you married?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Are your parents living?\n\nA. No, my parents are dead.\n\nQ. Will you tell the Tribunal what education you have received?\n\nA. I finished elementary school, and completed the training school for\nteachers in 1928.\n\nQ. And what did you do between 1928 and the beginning of the war in\n1939?\n\nA. I worked as a teacher in a children\u2019s school in Grudenz.\n\nQ. And when did you leave that post?\n\nA. I finished my work in June 1939 and went on holiday.\n\nQ. And did you go back to this position after your holiday?\n\nA. No, I did not go back because the war broke out and I stayed in\nLublin.\n\nQ. And what did you do while you were in Lublin?\n\nA. I lived with my sister and did not work at all.\n\nQ. Were you a member of the Polish Resistance Movement?\n\nA. Yes, I was.\n\nQ. And what did you do in the Polish Resistance Movement?\n\nA. I was a messenger.\n\nQ. And were you ever arrested for your activity in the Resistance\nMovement?\n\nA. I was arrested on the 13th of February 1941 by the Gestapo.\n\nQ. Was your sister arrested with you?\n\nA. Two sisters and two brothers-in-law were arrested with me on the same\nday.\n\nQ. What happened to you after you were arrested?\n\nA. I was taken to the Gestapo.\n\nQ. And what did the Gestapo do with you?\n\nA. The first day the Gestapo took down my personal data and sent me to\nthe prison in Lublin.\n\nQ. And then what happened? Just go on and tell the complete story about\nwhat the Gestapo did with you and where you went.\n\nA. I stayed 2 weeks in the prison in Lublin and then I was taken again\nto the Gestapo. There I was interrogated and they wanted to force me to\nconfess what kind of work I used to do in the Resistance Movement. The\nGestapo wanted me to give them the names of persons with whom I worked.\nI did not want to tell them the names and, therefore, I was beaten. I\nwas beaten by one Gestapo man, with brief intervals, for a very long\ntime. Then I was taken to a cell. Two days later, at night, I was taken\nagain to the Gestapo for interrogation. There I was beaten again. I\nstayed in the Gestapo office one week and then I was taken back into the\nprison in Lublin. I stayed in the prison till 21 September 1941. Then I\nwas transported with other prisoners to the concentration camp\nRavensbrueck, where I arrived on the 23d of September 1941.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, before you continue, will you tell the Tribunal whether\nyou were ever tried by any court for the crime of being a member of the\nResistance Movement?\n\nA. I was only interrogated by the Gestapo and I think that the sentence\nmust have been passed in my absence because no sentence was ever read\nout to me.\n\nQ. All right. Will you tell the Tribunal what happened to you at\nRavensbrueck?\n\nA. At Ravensbrueck our dresses were taken away from us and we received\nthe regular prison dress. Then I was sent to the block and I stayed in\nquarantine for 3 weeks. After 3 weeks we were taken to work. The work\nwas hard physical work. In the spring I was given other work and I was\ntransferred to the workshop, which was called in German \u201cBetrieb.\u201d The\nwork I did there was also very hard, and one week I had to work in the\ndaytime and the next week at night. In the spring the living conditions\nin the camp grew worse and worse, and hunger began to reign in the camp.\nThe food portions were smaller. We were undernourished, very exhausted,\nand we had no strength to work. In the spring of the same year, shoes\nand stockings were taken away from us and we had to walk barefoot. The\ngravel in the camp hurt our feet. The most tiring was the so-called\n\u201croll calls\u201d, which we had to stand several hours, sometimes even 4\nhours. If a prisoner tried to put a piece of paper underneath her feet,\nshe was beaten and ill-treated in an inhuman way. We had to stand at\nattention at the roll call place and we were not allowed to move our\nlips, because then we were supposed to be praying and we were not\nallowed to pray.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, were you operated on while you were in the Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp?\n\nA. Yes, I was.\n\nQ. When did that happen?\n\nA. On 22 July 1942, 75 prisoners from our transport that come from\nLublin were summoned to the chief of the camp. We stood outside the camp\noffice, and present were Kogel, Mandel, and one person whom I later\nrecognized as Dr. Fischer. We were afterwards sent back to the block and\nwe were told to wait for further instructions. On the 25th of July, all\nthe women from the transport of Lublin were summoned by Mandel, who told\nus that we were not allowed to work outside the camp. Also, five women\nfrom the transport that came from Warsaw were summoned with us at the\nsame time. We were not allowed to work outside the camp. The next day 75\nwomen were summoned again and we had to stand in front of the hospital\nin the camp. Present were Schiedlausky, Oberheuser, Rosenthal, Kogel,\nand the man whom I afterwards recognized as Dr. Fischer.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, do you see Oberheuser in the defendants\u2019 dock here?\n\nINTERPRETER: The witness asks for permission to go near to the dock to\nbe able to see them.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Please do.\n\n(Witness walks to dock and points to Dr. Oberheuser.)\n\nMR. MCHANEY: And Fischer?\n\n(Witness points to Dr. Fischer.)\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I will ask that the record show that the witness properly\nidentified the defendants, Oberheuser and Fischer.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness correctly\nidentified the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Witness, you have told the Tribunal that in July 1942, some\n75 Polish girls, who were in the transport from Lublin, were called\nbefore the camp doctors in Ravensbrueck.\n\nWITNESS KAROLEWSKA: Yes.\n\nQ. Now, were any of these girls selected for an operation?\n\nA. On this day we did not know why we were called before the camp\ndoctors and on the same day 10 out of 25 girls were taken to the\nhospital, but we did not know why. Four of them came back and six stayed\nin the hospital. On the same day six of them came back to the block\nafter having received some injection, but we did not know what kind of\ninjection. On the 1st of August, those six girls were called to the\nhospital again; those girls who received injections were kept in the\nhospital, but we could not get in touch with them to hear from them why\nthey were put in the hospital. A few days later, one of my comrades\nsucceeded in getting close to the hospital and learned from one of the\nprisoners that all were in bed and that their legs were in casts. On the\n14th of August, the same year, I was called to the hospital and my name\nwas written on a piece of paper. I did not know why. Besides me, eight\nother girls were called to the hospital. We were called at a time when\nexecutions usually took place and I thought I was going to be executed\nbecause some girls had been shot down before. In the hospital we were\nput to bed and the ward in which we stayed was locked. We were not told\nwhat we were to do in the hospital and when one of my comrades put the\nquestion she got no answer but an ironical smile. Then a German nurse\narrived and gave me an injection in my leg. After this injection I\nvomited and I was weak. Then I was put on a hospital cot and they\nbrought me to the operating room. There, Dr. Schiedlausky and Rosenthal\ngave me the second intravenous injection in my arm. A while before, I\nnoticed Dr. Fischer, who left the operating theater and had operating\ngloves on. Then I lost consciousness and when I revived I noticed that I\nwas in a proper hospital ward. I recovered consciousness for a while and\nI felt severe pain in my leg. Then I lost consciousness again. I\nregained consciousness in the morning, and then I noticed that my leg\nwas in a cast from the ankle up to the knee and I felt very great pain\nin this leg and had a high temperature. I noticed also that my leg was\nswollen from the toes up to the groin. The pain was increasing and the\ntemperature, too, and the next day I noticed that some liquid was\nflowing from my leg. The third day I was put on a hospital trolley and\ntaken to the dressing room. Then I saw Dr. Fischer again. He had on an\noperating gown and rubber gloves on his hands. A blanket was put over my\neyes and I did not know what was done with my leg but I felt great pain\nand I had the impression that something must have been cut out of my\nleg. Those present were Schiedlausky, Rosenthal, and Oberheuser. After\nthe dressing was changed I was again put in the regular hospital ward.\nThree days later I was again taken to the dressing room, and the\ndressing was changed by Doctor Fischer with the assistance of the same\ndoctors, and I was also blindfolded. I was then sent back to the regular\nhospital ward. The next dressings were made by the camp doctors. Two\nweeks later we were all taken to the operating theater again, and put on\nthe operating tables. The bandage was removed, and that was the first\ntime I saw my leg. The incision went so deep that I could see the bone.\nWe were told then that there was a doctor from Hohenlychen, Doctor\nGebhardt, who would come and examine us. We were waiting for his arrival\nfor 3 hours, lying on our tables. When he came, a sheet was put over our\neyes, but they removed the sheet and I saw him for a short moment. Then\nwe were taken back to our regular wards. On 8 September I went back to\nthe block. I couldn\u2019t walk. The pus was draining from my leg; the leg\nwas swollen up and I could not walk. In the block, I stayed in bed for\none week; then I was called to the hospital again. I could not walk and\nI was carried by my comrades. In the hospital I met some of my comrades\nwho were there after the operation. This time I was sure I was going to\nbe executed because I saw an ambulance standing outside the office,\nwhich was used by the Germans to transport people intended for\nexecution. Then we were taken to the dressing room where Doctor\nOberheuser and Doctor Schiedlausky examined our legs. We were put to bed\nagain, and on the same day, in the afternoon, I was taken to the\noperating theater and the second operation was performed on my leg. I\nwas put to sleep in the same way as before, having received an\ninjection. This time I again saw Doctor Fischer. I woke up in the\nregular hospital ward, and I felt a much greater pain and had a higher\ntemperature.\n\nThe symptoms were the same. The leg was swollen and the pus flowed from\nmy leg. After this operation, the dressings were changed by Dr. Fischer\nevery 3 days. More than 10 days afterwards, we were again taken to the\noperating theater and put on the table; and we were told that Dr.\nGebhardt was going to come to examine our legs. We waited for a long\ntime. Then he arrived and examined our legs while we were blindfolded.\nThis time other people arrived with Dr. Gebhardt, but I don\u2019t know their\nnames, and I don\u2019t remember their faces. Then we were carried on\nhospital cots back to our rooms. After this operation I felt still\nworse, and I could not move. While I was in the hospital, Dr. Oberheuser\ntreated me cruelly.\n\nWhen I was in my room I remarked to fellow prisoners that we were\noperated on in very bad conditions and left here in this room and that\nwe were not even given a chance to recover. This remark must have been\nheard by a German nurse who was sitting in the corridor, because the\ndoor of our room leading to the corridor was opened. The German nurse\nentered the room and told us to get up and dress. We answered that we\ncould not follow her order because we had great pains in our legs and we\ncould not walk. Then the German nurse came into our room with Dr.\nOberheuser. Dr. Oberheuser told us to dress and come to the dressing\nroom. We put on our dresses; and, being unable to walk, we had to hop on\none leg into the operating theater. After one hop we had to rest. Dr.\nOberheuser did not allow anybody to help us. When we arrived at the\noperating theater, quite exhausted, Dr. Oberheuser appeared and told us\nto go back, because the change of dressing would not take place that\nday. I could not walk, but somebody, a prisoner whose name I don\u2019t\nremember, helped me back to the room.\n\nQ. Witness, you have told the Tribunal that you were operated on the\nsecond time on the 16th of September 1942? Is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. When did you leave the hospital after this second operation?\n\nA. After the second operation I left the hospital on 6 October.\n\nQ. Was your leg healed at that time?\n\nA. My leg was swollen up, caused me great pain, and the pus drained from\nmy leg.\n\nQ. Were you able to work?\n\nA. I was unable to work, and I had to stay in bed because I could not\nwalk.\n\nQ. Do you remember when you got up out of bed and were able to walk?\n\nA. I stayed in bed several weeks, and then I got up and tried to walk.\n\nQ. How long was it until your leg was healed?\n\nA. The pus was flowing from my leg till June 1943; and at that time my\nwound was healed.\n\nQ. Were you operated on again?\n\nA. Yes, I was operated on again in the bunker.\n\nQ. In the bunker? That is not in the hospital?\n\nA. Not in the hospital but in the bunker.\n\nQ. Will you explain to the Tribunal how that happened?\n\nA. May I ask permission to tell something which happened in March 1943,\nMarch or February 1943?\n\nQ. All right.\n\nA. At the end of February 1943, Dr. Oberheuser called us and said,\n\u201cThose girls are new guinea pigs\u201d; and we were very well known under\nthis name in the camp. Then we understood that we were persons intended\nfor experiments, and we decided to protest against the performance of\nthose operations on healthy people.\n\nWe drew up a protest in writing and we went to the camp commandant. Not\nonly those girls who had been operated on before but other girls who\nwere called to the hospital came to the office. The girls who had been\noperated on used crutches and they went without any help.\n\nI would like to tell you the contents of the petition made by us. \u201cWe,\nthe undersigned, Polish political prisoners, ask the commandant whether\nhe knows that since the year 1942 experimental operations have taken\nplace in the camp hospital, under the name guinea pigs, explaining the\nmeaning of those operations. We ask whether we were operated on as a\nresult of sentences passed on us because, as far as we know,\ninternational law forbids the performance of operations even on\npolitical prisoners.\u201d\n\nWe did not get any answer; and we were not allowed to talk to the\ncommandant. On 15 August 1943, a policewoman came and read off the names\nof 10 new prisoners. She told us to follow her to the hospital. We\nrefused to go to the hospital, because we thought that we were intended\nfor a new operation. The policewoman told us that we were probably going\nto be sent to the factory for work outside the camp. We wanted to make\nsure whether the labor office was open because it was Sunday. The\npolicewoman told us that we had to go to the hospital to be examined by\na doctor before we went to the factory. We refused to go then because we\nwere sure that we would be kept in the hospital and operated on again.\nAll prisoners in the camp were told to stay in the blocks. All of the\nwomen who lived in the same block where I was were told to leave the\nblock and stand in line in front of Block 10 at a certain time. Then the\nOverseer Binz appeared and called out 10 names, and my name was among\nthem.\n\nWe went out of the line and stood before Block 9 in line. Then Binz\nsaid: \u201cWhy do you stand in line as if you were to be executed?\u201d We told\nher that operations were worse for us than executions and that we would\nprefer to be executed rather than to be operated on again. Binz told us\nthat she might give us work; there was no question of our being operated\non, but we were going to be sent for work outside the camp. We told her\nthat she must know that prisoners belonging to our group were not\nallowed to leave the camp and go outside. Then she told us to follow her\ninto her office, that she would show us a paper proving that we were\ngoing to be sent for work to the factory outside the camp. We followed\nher and we stood before her office. She was in her office for a while\nand then went out and went to the canteen where the camp commandant was.\nShe had a conference with him probably asking him what to do with us. We\nstood in front of the office for half an hour. In the meantime one\nfellow prisoner who used to work in the canteen walked past. She told us\nthat Binz had asked for help from SS men to take us to the hospital by\nforce. We stood for a while and then Binz came out of the canteen\naccompanied by the camp commandant. We stood for a while near the camp\ngate. We were afraid that SS men would come to take us, so we ran away\nand mixed with other people standing in front of the block. Then Binz\nand the camp police appeared. They drove us out from the lines by force.\nShe told us that she was putting us into the bunker as punishment for\nnot following her orders. Five prisoners were put into each cell\nalthough one cell was only intended for one person. The cells were quite\ndark, without lights. We stayed in the bunker the whole night long and\nthe next day. We slept on the floor because there was only one couch in\nthe cell. The next day we were given a breakfast consisting of black\ncoffee and a piece of dark bread. Then we were locked in again. People\nwere walking up and down the corridor of the bunker the whole time. The\nsame day in the afternoon we learned our fate. The woman guard of the\nbunker unlocked our cell and took me out. I thought that I was to be\ninterrogated or beaten. She took me down the corridor. She opened one\ndoor and behind the door stood SS man Dr. Trommel. He told me to follow\nhim upstairs. Following Dr. Trommel I noticed there were other cells,\nwith beds and bedding. He put me in one of the cells. Then he asked me\nwhether I would agree to a small operation. I told him that I did not\nagree to it because I had already undergone two operations. He told me\nthat this was going to be a very small operation and that it would not\nharm me. I told him that I was a political prisoner and that operations\ncould not be performed on political prisoners without their consent. He\ntold me to lie down on the bed; I refused to do so. He repeated it\ntwice. Then he went out of the cell and I followed him. He went quickly\ndownstairs and locked the door. Standing in front of the cell I noticed\na cell on the opposite side of the staircase, and I also noticed some\nmen in operating gowns. There was also one German nurse ready to give an\ninjection. Near the staircase stood a stretcher. That made it clear to\nme that I was going to be operated on again in the bunker. I decided to\ndefend myself to the last. In a moment Trommel came back with two SS\nmen. One of these SS men told me to enter the cell. I refused to do it,\nso he forced me into the cell and threw me on the bed.\n\nDr. Trommel took me by the left wrist and pulled my arm back. With his\nother hand he tried to gag me, putting a piece of rag into my mouth,\nbecause I shouted. The second SS man took my right hand and stretched\nit. Two other SS men held me by my feet. Immobilized, I felt somebody\ngiving me an injection. I defended myself for a long time, but then I\ngrew weaker. The injection had its effect; I felt sleepy. I heard\nTrommel saying, \u201cThat is all.\u201d\n\nI regained consciousness again, but I don\u2019t know when. Then I noticed\nthat a German nurse was taking off my dress, I then lost consciousness\nagain; I regained it in the morning. Then I noticed that both my legs\nwere in iron splints and were bandaged from the toes up to the groin. I\nfelt a severe pain in my feet, and had a temperature.\n\nOn the afternoon of the same day, a German nurse came and gave me an\ninjection, in spite of my protests; she gave me this injection in my\nthigh and told me that she had to do it.\n\nFour days after this operation a doctor from Hohenlychen arrived, again\nI was given an injection to put me to sleep, and as I protested he told\nme that he would change the dressing; I felt a higher temperature and a\ngreater pain in my legs.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. How many times did you see Gebhardt?\n\nA. Twice.\n\nQ. I will ask you to step down and walk over to the defendants\u2019 dock and\nsee whether or not you find the man Gebhardt sitting in the dock.\n\n(The witness complied and pointed to the defendant Gebhardt.)\n\nThank you. Sit down.\n\nI will ask that the record show that the witness properly identified the\ndefendant Gebhardt.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The record will show that the witness identified\nthe defendant Gebhardt in the dock.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I have no further questions at this time.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Will Dr. Alexander again be put on the stand in\nconnection with the examination of this witness?\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Yes, but if there is any cross-examination we can probably\nfinish that before lunch.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do any of the defense counsel desire to\ncross-examine this witness?\n\nDR. SEIDL (counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and\nFischer): I do not intend to cross-examine this witness, but this does\nnot mean that my clients admit the correctness of all statements made by\nthis witness.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other of the defense counsel desire to\nexamine the witness?\n\n(No response.)\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. LEO\n ALEXANDER[46]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the purpose of\nthe type of operation to which she [Karolewska] was subjected, that is\nthe bone removal?\n\nDR. ALEXANDER: I think it must have been one of the experiments which\naimed at the question of regeneration of bone or possible\ntransplantation of bone. Chances are that this tibial graft was either\nimplanted in another person or that grafts had been exchanged. Of course\ntoday, 3 years after the experiment, no trace of transplantation is left\nin this individual. Or if the object was, as alleged in some statements\nI have seen, that tibial grafts were exchanged between the two legs, one\nmust conclude that the experiment was negative because there is no\nevidence that a graft took. All we see now are the consequences of\nremoval of a graft, and the graft had included the entire compact part\nof the bone, otherwise the repair would have been better. If some part\nof the compact had remained, the periosteum would have probably\nregenerated and today, 3 years after the operation, no X-ray would have\nshown the defect. So I feel that rather deep grafts were taken which\nwent down into the spongiosa. Whether anything was replaced that later\nwas destroyed, I do not know, except the patient stated that there was a\npurulent discharge, indicating that the wound had become infected, and\nher statement of a subsequent operation, in fact, if I am not mistaken,\ntwo subsequent operations, indicates the probability that the grafts did\nnot take and that they were removed after infection had become obvious.\n\n-----\n\n[43] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947,\npp. 10874-10910.\n\n[44] Dr. Maczka appeared as witness before the Tribunal, 10 January\n1947, Tr. pp. 1430-1462.\n\n[45] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec.\n1946, pp. 815-832.\n\n[46] This testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec.\n1946, pp. 832-838.\n\n 7. SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt,\nRudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng,\nSchaefer, and Beiglboeck were charged with special responsibility for\nand participation in criminal conduct involving sea-water experiments\n(par. 6 (G) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the\nprosecution withdrew the charge in the case of Mrugowsky. On this charge\nthe defendants Schroeder, Gebhardt, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and\nBeiglboeck were convicted and the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser,\nRostock, Rudolf Brandt, Poppendick, and Schaefer were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the sea-water experiments\nis contained in its final brief against the defendant Schroeder.\nExtracts from that brief are set forth below on pages 419 to 443. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant\nSchroeder and from the closing brief for the defendant Beiglboeck. It\nappears below on pages 434 to 446. This argumentation is followed by\nselections from the evidence on pages 447 to 494.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_\n\n _Sea-Water Experiments_\n\n * * * * *\n\nOn 19 May 1944 a conference was held at the German Air Ministry which\nwas attended by Christensen, Schickler, Becker-Freyseng, and Schaefer,\namong others. This conference was concerned with the problem of the\npotability of sea-water. Two methods of making sea-water drinkable were\nthen available to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. One, the\nso-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently\nproduced potable sea-water. It had the disadvantage, however, of\nrequiring substantial amounts of silver which was available only in\nlimited quantities. The second method, so-called Berkatit, was a\nsubstance which changed the taste of sea-water but did not remove the\nsalt. It had the advantage of simplicity of manufacture and use.\n\nAt the conference on 19 May the defendant Becker-Freyseng reported on\ncertain clinical experiments which had been conducted by von Sirany to\ntest Berkatit. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not\nbeen conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress.\nHe reported that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was\u2014\n\n \u201c* * * convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to\n health had to be expected not later than 6 days after taking\n Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to\n health and\u2014according to the opinion of Unterarzt Dr.\n Schaefer\u2014will finally result in death after not later than 12\n days. External symptoms are to be expected such as dehydration,\n diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.\u201d\n (_NO-117, Pros. Ex. 133._)\n\nAs a result of this conference it was agreed to conduct new experiments.\nThey were to include a series of experiments for a maximum of 6 days\nduring which one group was to be given sea-water processed with\nBerkatit, another group ordinary drinking water, another group no\ndrinking water at all, and the final group such water as was available\nin the emergency sea distress kits then used. A second series of\nexperiments was decided upon and the report stated:\n\n \u201cPersons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also\n the emergency sea rations.\n\n \u201c_Duration of experiments: 12 days._\n\n \u201cSince in the opinion of the chief of the medical service\n permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the\n experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental\n subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the\n disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS.\u201d (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._)\n\nThus, with full knowledge that the use of Berkatit for periods of 6 days\nwould result in permanent injuries to the experimental subjects and that\ndeath would result no later than the 12th day, plans were made to\nconduct experiments of 6 and 12 days\u2019 duration. _It should be noted that\nthe conference report does not state that the duration was a maximum of\n12 days as in the case of the first series of experiment._ The duration\nwas to be 12 days in any event. Since it was known that volunteers could\nnot be expected under such conditions, the conference determined to use\ninmates of concentration camps which would be put at their disposal by\nthe SS. At a second meeting on 20 May 1944, the report states that \u201cit\nwas decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments were\n(to be) conducted.\u201d (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133._) Copies of the report on\nthe conferences were sent, among others, to the Medical Experimentation\nand Instruction Division of the Air Force, Jueterbog, to which the\ndefendants, Schaefer and Holzloehner, who conducted the freezing\nexperiments with Rascher, were attached; to the German Aviation Research\nInstitute, Berlin-Adlershof, to which the defendants Ruff and Romberg\nwere attached; to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe (L. In. 14);\nand to the Reich Leader SS. The report was signed by Christensen of the\nTechnical Office of the Reich Air Ministry.\n\nOn 7 June 1944 the defendant Schroeder wrote to Himmler through Grawitz\nasking for concentration camp inmates to be used as subjects in the\nsea-water experiments. This letter reads in part as follows:\n\n \u201cEarlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to\n settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human\n beings. _Today again_ I stand before a decision which, after\n numerous experiments on animals as well as human experiments on\n voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final solution. The\n Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making\n sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical\n officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it\n into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an\n engineer, leaves the salt content unchanged, and only removes\n the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in\n contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From\n the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically,\n as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce\n severe symptoms of poisoning.\n\n \u201c_As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be\n carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands\n require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12\n days, appropriate experiments are necessary._\n\n \u201cRequired are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available\n for 4 whole weeks. _As it is known from previous experiments\n that necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp\n Dachau, this camp would be very suitable._\u201d [Emphasis supplied.]\n (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)\n\nSchroeder concluded his letter by stating that the experiments would be\ndirected by the defendant Beiglboeck.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThat these experiments were carried out on nonvoluntary subjects is also\nproved by Grawitz\u2019 letter to Himmler on 28 June 1944. (_NO-179, Pros.\nEx. 135._) In this letter Grawitz reports the opinions of Gebhardt,\nGluecks, and Nebe, as well as his own, on the proposed experiments.\nGluecks stated that he had no \u201cobjections whatsoever to the experiments\nrequested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be\nconducted at the Rascher experimental station in the Dachau\nconcentration camp. _If possible, Jews or prisoners held in quarantine\nare to be used._\u201d It is impossible to imagine a Jew being asked to\nvolunteer for anything in the Third Reich when they were being\nslaughtered by the millions in the concentration camps. Nebe stated: \u201cI\nproposed taking for this purpose the asocial gypsy half-breeds. There\nare people among them, who, although healthy, are out of the question as\nregards labor commitment. Regarding these gypsies, I shall shortly make\na special proposal to the Reich Leader, but I think it right to select\nfrom among these people the necessary number of test subjects. Should\nthe Reich Leader agree to this, _I shall list by name the persons to be\nused_.\u201d It is a little difficult to imagine how Nebe, chief of the Reich\nCriminal Police, could \u201clist by name\u201d gypsy volunteers for these\nexperiments. Grawitz raised the objection to the use of gypsies on the\nground that they were \u201cof somewhat different racial composition\u201d and he\ntherefore wanted experimental subjects racially comparable to European\npeoples. Himmler decided that gypsies plus three others for control\nshould be used. (_NO-183, Pros. Ex. 136._)\n\nSchroeder testified that he tried to arrange for carrying out the\nsea-water experiments at the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick. He\nremembered very specifically, according to his testimony, that he had\ncontacted the commander of that hospital on 1 June 1944. He stated that\nhe also attempted to obtain students as experimental subjects from the\nLuftwaffe Medical Academy in the latter part of May 1944. Both of these\nattempts to obtain volunteers allegedly failed because of the lack of\nclinical facilities and the calling up of students to active service.\nSchroeder testified that he went to the SS only after he had exhausted\nall other possibilities. He would have the Tribunal believe that there\nwas no place to find 40 volunteers and the necessary clinical\nfacilities, although von Sirany had conducted such experiments in Vienna\non Wehrmacht soldiers, but of course _for only 4 days_. (_Tr. pp.\n3657-9._)\n\nIn connection with this testimony of Schroeder\u2019s, it should be noted\nthat the records of the conference on 19 and 20 May 1944 were\nimmediately sent to the SS. The decision to use concentration camp\ninmates did not await any efforts to find volunteers but was made at the\nconference of 19 May. It was known that because of the very nature of\nthe experiments which were planned volunteers could not be obtained.\nContrariwise, it is impossible to believe that the commanding officer of\nthe whole of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe was unable to obtain\n40 volunteers for the experiments which he claims were so innocuous.\nThere were no regulations which forbade experiments on members of the\nWehrmacht. (_Tr. p. 3660._) The defense witness Haagen, in connection\nwith his proposed epidemic jaundice experiments on human beings, as set\nforth in his letter of 27 June 1944 to Kalk, who was attached to the\nstaff of Schroeder, insisted at great length that he planned to use\nvolunteers from the student companies of the Wehrmacht at Strasbourg,\nFreiburg, or Heidelberg. (_Tr. p. 9578._) He was positive that student\nvolunteers would have been made available. He stated that he could have\nused them during their vacations. (_Tr. p. 9579._) Kalk was also sure\nthat this could have been done. Haagen emphasized repeatedly that\nvolunteers were available. (_Tr. p. 9580._) Clinical facilities would\nhave been easily obtained in reserve hospitals. (_Tr. p. 9581._)\n\nSchroeder testified that he did not know that Berkatit would cause death\nin not more than 12 days. (_Tr. p. 3666._) He could not remember whether\nSchaefer had told him that taking Berkatit for 12 days would cause\ndeath. In a pretrial interrogation, he specifically denied that. (_Tr.\np. 3668._) He testified that while both Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer\nwere at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942 at which the report on the\nfreezing experiments at Dachau was given, neither of them reported to\nhim about it when he proposed going to Dachau to conduct the sea-water\nexperiments. (_Tr. p. 3669._) Schroeder denied that he had ever seen the\nreport on the meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944 (_NO-177, Pros. Ex. 133_) on\nthe sea-water experiments. (_Tr. p. 3662._) Although a copy of this\nreport was sent to Himmler, he would have the Tribunal believe that it\nwas a sheer coincidence that he turned to Himmler for experimental\nsubjects without having seen the report. (_Tr. p. 3669._) He testified\nthat he told Grawitz in a meeting with him that he wanted the\nexperiments carried out on dishonorably discharged soldiers. (_Tr. p.\n3670._) Grawitz allegedly said that he would respect this wish.\nSchroeder stated that he made it clear to Grawitz that the subjects had\nto be volunteers, with a little food as a reward. (_Tr. p. 3672._) He\nfurther testified that he told Grawitz that the experiments had to be\ncontrolled by the Luftwaffe. During a pre-trial interrogation, he swore\nthat he knew nothing about the sea-water experiments, that the SS took\nit out of his hands and he had no influence. (_Tr. pp. 3610-1._)\nSchroeder had no idea, according to his testimony, that foreigners were\nincarcerated in concentration camps. He said that he knew that gypsies\nwere used as experimental subjects only after the report by Beiglboeck\nin Berlin in October 1944. (_Tr. p. 3676._) He testified that he\ninstructed Beiglboeck that Berkatit was to be used only until the\nsubjects said they could not tolerate any more. (_Tr. p. 3677._) He\nadmitted having heard the report by Beiglboeck on the experiments,\ntogether with Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer, among others, but that he\ndid not hear the complete report as he had to leave the meeting early.\n(_Tr. pp. 3679-80._)\n\nThe charts kept by the defendant Beiglboeck on each of the experimental\nsubjects\u2014which the defense was finally forced into submitting in\nevidence, after attempting to use them through the defense \u201cexpert\u201d\nVollhardt without offering the documents themselves\u2014give some of the\ndetails as to the experiments, although under the circumstances their\nreliability is doubtful. (_Tr. p. 9381._) Certain alterations in these\nrecords which will be discussed at a later point, indicate that they are\nnot entitled to great weight. The experiments began in August 1944 and\ncontinued until the middle of September. Forty-four experimental\nsubjects were used. Subjects one to six were deprived of all food and\nwater for periods from 5\u00bd to 7\u00bd days. The duration of the experiments\ngiven herein is based upon the starting date of the morning of 22\nAugust, as contended by the defense, although there is some evidence\nindicating that the starting date was 21 August. If the experiment was\ninterrupted in the forenoon, no additional day or part thereof is\ncounted. If it was interrupted between noon and 1700 hours, one-half day\nis added, while if it was interrupted after 1700 hours, a full day is\nadded. Subjects 7 through 10 were given 1,000 cc. of Schaefer water for\n12, 13, and 12 days, respectively, and hungered for 7, 8, and 9 days,\nrespectively. Subject No. 9 was not used for reasons of health. This was\nthe defense witness Mettbach. Subjects 11 through 18 were given 500 cc.\nof sea-water plus the emergency sea ration which contained approximately\na total of 2,400 calories. These experiments lasted from 5 to 10 days.\nThey hungered up to 6\u00bd days. Several of these subjects, for example, 11,\n13, 17, and 18 were subjected to two separate experiments of 8 and 6\ndays, 6 and 5 days, 7\u00bd and 5 days, and 10 and 4 days, respectively.\nSubjects 19 through 25 were given 500 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency\nsea ration. The duration of the experiments lasted from 5 to 9\u00bd days\nwith periods of hunger up to 6\u00bd days. Subjects 19 and 20 underwent two\nseparate experiments of 7 and 5 days each. Subjects 26 through 30 were\ngiven 1,000 cc. of Berkatit plus the emergency sea ration. Duration of\nthe experiments was from 5 to 9\u00bd days with periods of hunger up to 6\u00bd\ndays. Subject 29 underwent two experiments of 8 and 5 days. Subjects 31\nand 32 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 8 and 6 days, respectively.\nSubject 31 was subjected to an additional experiment of 5 days. Subject\n33 was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for 6 days; subject 34, 1,000 cc. of\nSchaefer for 12 days, subjects 35 through 37, 39, 41, and 42 were given\n500 cc. of sea-water for periods ranging from 4 to 6 days; subjects 38,\n40, and 43 were given 1,000 cc. of sea-water for 6, 5, and 6 days; and\nsubject 44 was given Schaefer water for 12 days.\n\nThe clinical charts on the experiments also supply us with the ages of\nthe experimental subjects. Subjects 17, 19, 20, 35, 37, 40, and 43 were\nall under the age of 21. Subject 40 was 16 years old; subjects 17, 19,\nand 37 were 17 years old; subject 35 was 18 years old; subject 43 was 19\nyears old; and subject 20 was 20 years old. Needless to say, no effort\nwas made to obtain the consent of the parents or guardians of these\nminors.\n\nThe defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end\nof June 1944 where he was told by Becker-Freyseng that he was to carry\nout the sea-water experiments in Dachau. He also saw Schroeder\npreviously in connection with the experiments. He said he attempted to\nwithdraw because he had a horror of working in a concentration camp. He\ndid not refuse to perform the experiments because he was afraid of being\ncalled to account for failure to obey orders. (_Tr. pp. 8828-9._)\nBecker-Freyseng told him that the purpose of the experiments was, first,\nto find out if Berkatit was useful; second, to test the Schaefer method;\nand third, to see whether it would be better to go completely without\nsea-water or to drink small quantities of it. (_Tr. p. 8832._) He said\nhe was told by the officials in Dachau that the gypsies who were to be\nused in the experiments were held as \u201casocial\u201d persons. Beiglboeck\napparently considers himself an expert on asocials. He testified that it\nwas his understanding that a whole family could be classified asocial,\nalthough this \u201cdoes not exclude the possibility that, in this family,\nthere may be a large number of persons who did not commit any crime.\u201d\n(_Tr. p. 8848._)\n\nHe testified that he called the experimental subjects together and told\nthem what the experiment was about and asked them if they wanted to\nparticipate. (_Tr. p. 8849._) He did not tell them how long the\nexperiment would last. He did not tell them that they could withdraw at\nany time. He testified that he _had to require_ that they thirst for a\ncertain period. The decision as to their being relieved from the\nexperiment lay with him. (_Tr. p. 8850._) During the course of the\nexperiments he testified that the subjects revolted on one occasion\nbecause they did not get the food they had been promised. (_Tr. p.\n8863._) They did not get food for several days because of a delay in\ndelivery. (_Tr. p. 8868._) The subjects were locked in a room during the\nexperiments. Beiglboeck testified that:\n\n \u201cThey should have been locked in a lot better than they were,\n because then they would have had no opportunity at all to get\n fresh water on the side.\u201d (_Tr. p. 8864._)\n\nHe stated that the danger point would be reached in about seven days\ndrinking 500 cc. of sea-water, while in cases of 1,000 cc. of sea-water,\nit would be 4\u00bd days. (_Tr. pp. 8876-7._) Compare the much longer\nduration of the experiments as set out above.\n\nIt was readily apparent to the prosecution after an inspection of the\nclinical charts kept during the course of the experiments that a number\nof alterations had been made in them. These records were in the\nexclusive possession of defense counsel prior to the testimony of\nVollhardt, whose expert opinion was based in part upon such records. In\na large number of instances the names of the experimental subjects have\nbeen erased from the charts, obviously in an effort to make it\nimpossible to locate such persons for the purpose of giving testimony.\nAn examination of the charts further reveals that the final weights of\nthe experimental subjects were written on the charts in a different\nshade of ink from the remainder of the records. In some cases these\nweights were written over the original pencil notations; for example, on\nchart C-2 the final weight of 62 kilograms in pencil was written over in\nink to read 64\u00bd kilograms. Beiglboeck admitted that the red arrows\npurporting to indicate the start of the experiments, usually appearing\nunder the date August 22, were made by him in 1945, long after the\nexperiment had been completed. (_Tr. p. 8909._) In charts 1 to 32 a red\nmark under the date August 21 appears, which would indicate that the\nexperiments very probably began on that date. Certain notes in German\nshorthand appear on the back of chart C-23. Beiglboeck admitted that he\nwrote these notes himself. (_Tr. p. 8970._) Beiglboeck testified that:\n\n \u201cWe [Beiglboeck and his defense counsel] were in agreement at\n all times that the charts and curves should be submitted in the\n same way as we received them here.\u201d (_Tr. p. 8921._)\n\nHe repeatedly stated that he did not make any erasures on the charts in\nNuernberg. (_Tr. pp. 8922, 8973, 8975-6._) When the proof left him no\nalternative, Beiglboeck finally admitted having made changes and\nerasures in the notes on the back of chart C-23 in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p.\n8978._) These notes give a clinical report on one of the experimental\nsubjects who was critically ill. The following is a restoration of the\noriginal stenographic notes insofar as they could be translated:\n\n \u201cThe thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies\n there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. He takes no notice\n of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from\n his semiconscious condition (half a line erased).\n\n \u201cThe appearance is very bad\u2014looks doomed. The general condition\n gives cause for alarm.\n\n \u201cRespiration more shallow, labored, moderately frequent.\n\n \u201cRespirations 25 per minute.\n\n \u201cThe eyes are deeply hollowed, the turgor of the skin greatly\n reduced.\n\n \u201cSkin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle\n fairly loose.\n\n \u201cThe mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter\n covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis lower\n border VI-XII, sharpened vesicular respiration.\n\n \u201cHeartbeats very low hardly audible. Filling of the pulse\n weaker. Increased thickness of walls of blood vessels. Frequency\n 72, liver, 2\u00bd-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft,\n moderately sensitive to pressure; spleen on percussion slightly\n enlarged.\n\n \u201cMusculature hypotonic. Joints over-extendable. Calves slightly\n sensitive to pressure. Indications of transverse welt formation,\n marked longitudinal welt formation. Romberg plus plus. Reflexes\n plus plus. Abdominal reflexes plus plus. Babinski negative. Eife\n phenomenon. Oppenheim negative. Rossolimo negative. Tonus of the\n bulb of the eye bad. Bulbus reflex positive. (Interruption.)\u201d\n\nBeiglboeck had substituted the word \u201csomnolent\u201d for the word\n\u201csemiconscious\u201d in the last line of the first paragraph. In this same\nparagraph half a line was completely erased and could not be translated.\nBeiglboeck purported not to remember what it said, an obvious falsehood\nsince it was erased out of fear of the truth. In the last sentence of\nthe second paragraph, Beiglboeck altered the notes to read \u201cThe general\ncondition gives no cause for alarm.\u201d In the first line of the eighth\nparagraph, Beiglboeck substituted the word \u201cpoorly\u201d for \u201chardly.\u201d The\nnotation \u201cRomberg plus plus\u201d means that the subject has an \u201cuncertain\u201d\nability to stand. (_Tr. p. 8982._) He said that these notes refer to\nsubject number 30 rather than subject 23. (_Tr. p. 8984._)\n\nBeiglboeck testified that he made no further changes, erasures, or\nalterations in Nuernberg. (_Tr. p. 8992._) That Beiglboeck\u2019s testimony\nas a whole is completely unreliable is evidenced by the fact that he\nalso made erasures in the notes on the back of chart A-29. These notes,\ninsofar as they can be translated, read as follows:\n\n \u201cThe thirst again becomes very severe. Patient lies down on his\n back and rolls about. Also gets * * * a typical stereotyped\n organic rigid seizure with severe tetanic symptoms such as from\n his * * *, symptoms * * *. In view of the fact that in the last\n two days he has been drinking a great deal of water * * *\n quarter plus half liter, he is being taken out of the\n experiment.\n\n \u201c3/9 Again taken into the experiment.\n\n \u201c5/9 Again complains about very severe thirst.\n\n \u201c6/9 Feeling of thirst very severe, tongue dry and coated. Fetid\n smell from the mouth. Skin dry and hot, liver significantly\n enlarged, reflexes very lively, blood vessels show thickening of\n walls, musculature over-excitable.\n\n \u201c7/9 Psychic state has changed. Somnolence. Tongue dry,\n musculature feels stiffened. Considerable weakness of\n musculature with atoxic manifestation. Romberg positive. Blood\n vessels still * * *, pulse poorly filled, marked bradycardia,\n respiration accelerated. General condition [the next word erased\n and not legible], liver greatly enlarged.\u201d\n\nIn the case of subject 25, Beiglboeck testified that this man was\nX-rayed several times and apparently had acute bronchitis. His fever\nwent up to 39.8 Centigrade. (_Tr. p. 8998._) He complained of a stomach\nailment before the experiment began. (_Tr. p. 9000._) He was still sick\nwhen Beiglboeck left Dachau on 15 September. (_Tr. p. 9002._) Subject 39\nwas a man 49 years old; He was given 500 cc. of Berkatit for a period of\nfour days, namely, from 1 September to 4 September, when the experiment\nwas interrupted at 1930 hours. Beiglboeck used the truth with\ncharacteristic economy when he testified that the man was undergoing the\nexperiment only three days. (_Tr. p. 9010._) He admitted having\nperformed numerous lumbar and liver punctures on the subjects. (_Tr. p.\n8933._)\n\nA number of experimental subjects were able to gain access to fresh\nwater in spite of the efforts of Beiglboeck to prevent them. Beiglboeck\nand his defense counsel assumed the anomalous position that this somehow\nmitigates his guilt. It is difficult to understand how this self-help on\nthe part of the subjects, which undoubtedly saved the lives of the\nmajority of them, could be raised as a mitigating factor when Beiglboeck\ndid everything in his power to prevent that. As a matter of fact he did\nnot even know that the experimental subjects in the first group, that is\nto say from 1 to 32, had been able to get at fresh water. He testified\nthat:\n\n \u201cI should like to say that in the second group, when I knew\n their devices from my experience with the first group, I knew\n what to do and broke off the experiments. If I had wanted to\n continue the experiments, I would have done it in the second\n group too. This I did in the first group _only became at first I\n did not realize the significance of their failure to lose\n weight_.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.] (_Tr. p. 9022._)\n\n_Thus Beiglboeck says, in effect, that although he did not know that the\nexperimental subjects gained access to fresh water, and although he\ncontinued the experiments far beyond what he himself knew to be the\ndanger point, nonetheless he is to be excused because some of the\nexperimental subjects drank fresh water secretly in spite of his efforts\nto prevent it._\n\nThe expert witness, Dr. Ivy, testified for the prosecution concerning\nsea-water experiments. He, himself, participated in an experiment of\nthree days during which he consumed 2,400 cc. of sea-water with a\ncaloric intake of 108 per day in the form of candy. He suffered marked\ndehydration and was at the point of developing hallucinations. A second\nvolunteer in these experiments took 2,000 cc. in a little over one day\nand developed vomiting and diarrhea to such an extent that the\nexperiment had to be stopped. (_Tr. p. 9038-9._) Compare the amounts of\nsea-water taken by Beiglboeck\u2019s subjects. For scientific data concerning\nthe effect of sea-water on the human body, see Transcript pages 9039-41.\nDr. Ivy pointed out certain basic inconsistencies in the testimony of\nthe defense expert witness, Vollhardt. (_Tr. pp. 9041-43._) Dr. Ivy\ntestified that it was entirely unnecessary to perform these experiments\nfor the purpose of establishing the potability of sea-water processed by\nthe Berka method. This could have been determined chemically in a matter\nof one-half hour. (_Tr. pp. 9043-4._) He stated that if 1,000 cc. of\nsea-water or Berkatit were taken per day, it would cause death in less\nthan 12 days. Death would occur between the 8th and the 14th day if 500\ncc. were consumed per day under ideal conditions. (_Tr. p. 9045._) The\nstatement in the report of the conferences on 19 and 20 May 1944 that if\nBerka water was used, damage to health was to be expected not later than\nsix days and would lead to death not later than 12 days is essentially\ncorrect. (_Tr. p. 9044._) This document shows that the planned duration\nof the experiments was 12 days. Dr. Ivy testified that it would be\nunnecessary to conduct experiments for more than three or four days to\nshow that Berkatit was just as dehydrating as sea-water. (_Tr. p.\n9046._) He stated that these experiments make sense only if they were\ntrying to determine the survival time of human beings on 500 cc. and\n1,000 cc. of sea-water per day. It is clear that the experimental plan\nanticipated deaths. (_Tr. pp. 9046-7._)\n\nDr. Ivy testified that, on the basis of his studies of the charts kept\nduring the course of the experiments, there was an insufficient\nobservation period after the experiments to determine whether there were\nany delayed damaging effects to the experimental subjects. (_Tr. p.\n9049._) The results of the experiments are not scientifically reliable.\n(_Tr. p. 9051._)\n\nDr. Ivy pointed out that the chart of subject 3 proved that he was too\nweak to stand and have his blood pressure taken on several occasions.\n(_Tr. p. 9052._) This was one of the subjects in the fasting and\nthirsting group. He was given an injection of coronine on 29 August and\nstrychnine on 30 and 31 August. Both of these drugs are heart stimulants\nand the clinical picture indicates that this subject was ill or markedly\ndisabled by the experiments. (_Tr. p. 9053._) Eight to fourteen days is\nthe range of _survival time_ of strong men under ideal conditions for\nthirsting and fasting. (_Tr. p. 9053._)\n\nAs a result of his study of the clinical records, Dr. Ivy testified that\nsubjects 3, 14, 36, 37, 39, 31, 23 (or 30), 25, 28, and 29 were ill\nduring the experiments. Subjects 3, 23, (or 30), and 25 were especially\nill and there is a possibility that they were permanently injured or\ndied as a result of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9058-9._)\n\nThe subject to whom the notes on the back of chart C-23 applied was very\nsick and in a coma. (_Tr. p. 9061._) The changes made in the\nstenographic notes by the defendant Beiglboeck make the subject appear\nto be in a better condition than he actually was. (_Tr. pp. 9062-3._)\nThe bulbous reflex referred to in these notes means the pressing of the\neyeball to determine the degree of coma. \u201cTonus of ball of eyes is bad\u201d\nindicates the blood pressure was low and the circulation was quite poor.\nThis is a bad prognostic sign and might indicate impending death. (_Tr.\np. 9064._) These notes indicate that the subject was in a dangerous\ncondition and required immediate remedial therapy. The follow-up\nobservation for subject 23 was four days, while for subject 30 it was\nfive days. This was entirely insufficient. This subject could have died\nif not properly cared for. (_Tr. pp. 9065-6._)\n\nDr. Ivy testified that of the 44 subjects, 13 were too weak to stand on\none or more occasions, had fever, required cardiac stimulants, or were\nunconscious\u2014namely, subjects, 3, 4, 14, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37,\n39 and 40. (_Tr. pp. 9067-8._) The statement of the affiant Bauer to the\neffect that he observed symptoms of heart weakness in the experimental\nsubjects as a result of certain electrocardiograms he took was\ncorroborated by Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9069._)\n\nIn Dr. Ivy\u2019s opinion, an experimental subject who agrees to undergo an\nexperiment is no longer a volunteer if, during the course of the\nexperiment, he is forced to continue after having expressed a desire to\nbe relieved. (_Tr. pp. 9076-7._)\n\nThe testimony of the defense expert Vollhardt is entirely unreliable.\nAlthough Vollhardt had nothing whatever to do with these experiments in\nDachau, he repeatedly testified in a highly partial manner concerning\nmatters about which he could not possibly have had any knowledge. For\nexample, he insisted that the subjects in Dachau were volunteers. He\ntestified that Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects before the\nexperiments began because of their physical condition, and that three\nother persons immediately volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 8457-8._) Even\nBeiglboeck made no such contention. He said that he considered it \u201cquite\nout of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to\ndrink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets and if they\nfelt they needed a drink, they could have drunk out of them.\u201d (_Tr. p.\n8467._) It is passing strange that Vollhardt could have such information\nwhen he was never in Dachau. He believed it quite impossible that any of\nthe experimental subjects had cramps, although subject 29 is proved to\nhave had cramps and organic seizures by the notes quoted above. Although\nVollhardt admitted that the clinical data showed that a number of the\nexperimental subjects had secretly obtained fresh water, and although\nBeiglboeck admitted that some of the subjects threw their urine away\n(_Tr. p. 8865_), Vollhardt was quite sure that the experimental subjects\nwere all volunteers.\n\nVollhardt made no study of the clinical notes himself but turned them\nover to a 25-year-old assistant to digest for him. (_Tr. p. 8432._) He\nadmitted that he relied on descriptions of the experiments made by\nBecker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck since the trial began. (_Tr. p. 8438._)\nVollhardt had had no previous experience with sea-water problems, nor\nhad his assistant. (_Tr. p. 8451._) Vollhardt testified that he\nconducted a volunteer experiment on five of his doctor assistants after\nhe had been approached by defense counsel. His subjects drank 500 cc. of\nsimulated sea-water per day and received 1,600 calories per day. (_Tr.\npp. 8440-2._) Four of the subjects continued the experiment for five\ndays and one for six days. The latter subject drank an extra 500 cc. on\nthe last day. The purpose of these experiments was to ascertain how much\na person suffers when undergoing a sea-water experiment. (_Tr. p.\n8443._) Vollhardt\u2019s subjects continued their work about the clinic,\nalthough they ate and slept in the same room. He does not know whether\nthey went to the local cinema or left the clinic for other purposes\nduring the course of the experiments. (_Tr. p. 8445._) Four of the\nsubjects quit on the fifth day because of an engagement with a young\nlady. (_Tr. p. 8450._) He testified that his subjects had no severe\nthirst on the first two days, it became unpleasant on the third, reduced\nthirst on the fourth, and very strong thirst on the fifth day; the\nsubject who went six days reported that it made very little difference.\nAll continued their work during the experiment. (_Tr. p. 8453._) It is\nobvious that this experiment in no way compared to those conducted in\nDachau. While some of the experimental subjects in Dachau were too weak\non many occasions to have their blood pressure taken, Vollhardt\u2019s\nsubjects were able to continue their work.\n\nWhile Vollhardt\u2019s subjects were trained doctors who participated in the\nexperiment because of interest, who were permitted to withdraw from the\nexperiment at any time, who were permitted to control their own\nactivities during the experiment, none of these important factors were\npresent in the Dachau experiments. (_Tr. p. 8479._) The wretched gypsies\nwere not permitted to withdraw when they felt like it. They did not know\nhow long the experiments were to last, they had no freedom of activity,\nthey had no interest in the experiment. Vollhardt\u2019s regard for these\ngypsies is apparent from his statement that \u201c* * * people like that will\nof course find a way\u201d to cheat. (_Tr. p. 8468._) That Vollhardt knew\nnothing of the experiments he purported to testify about is apparent\nfrom his testimony regarding their duration. For example, he stated that\nin the Berkatit group of 500 cc., the experiments were discontinued\nafter six days. (_Tr. p. 8462._) _The clinical charts which Vollhardt\nhad in his possession, and upon which his testimony purported to be\nbased, show that the duration of the experiments in this group ran as\nhigh as 9\u00bd days, and in all but two cases exceeded six days. He\ntestified that the group on sea-water was also discontinued after six\ndays while the clinical charts show some of them to have run as long as\nten days. In the fasting and thirsting group he testified that they were\ndiscontinued after four to five days, while the chart shows that they\nlasted from 5\u00bd to 7\u00bd days._ (_Tr. pp. 8462-3._) No, Vollhardt\u2019s\ntestimony would indeed have been an unreliable substitute for the\ncharts.\n\nThe testimony of the prosecution witnesses proves that the sea-water\nexperiments resulted in murder and tortures. The Austrian witness\nVorlicek, who was tried for \u201cpreparation of high treason\u201d in 1939 and\nsentenced to four years in a penitentiary, was transferred to Dachau in\nMarch 1944 and acted as an assistant nurse in the experimental station\nduring the course of the sea-water experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9383-5._) One\nof the inmate guards who fell asleep was transferred to a penal company.\n(_Tr. p. 9386._) At least one of the subjects suffered a violent attack\nof cramps. (_Tr. p. 9386._) On one occasion Vorlicek spilled some fresh\nwater on the floor and forgot the rag which he used to mop it up. The\nexperimental subjects seized the dirty rag and sucked the water out of\nit. Beiglboeck threatened to put him in the experiments if it ever\nhappened again. (_Tr. p. 9387._) The experimental subjects were not\nvolunteers. Vorlicek talked to some of the Czech subjects who told him\nthey had been asked in another camp to volunteer for a good outside\nassignment and only when they got to Dachau did they find out that they\nwere to undergo the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9388, 9392._) He testified\nthat the subjects were of Czech, Polish, Hungarian, Austrian, and German\nnationalities. (_Tr. p. 9388._) Some of the subjects were quite ill and\nhe was under the impression that they would not live much longer. About\nthree months after the experiments he met Franz, one of the subjects,\nand he told him that one of the victims of the experiments had already\ndied. (_Tr. p. 9390._)\n\nThe witness Laubinger, who was subject number 7, testified that he was\narrested by the Gestapo in March 1943 because he was a gypsy. He was\nsent to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943 without having been tried for\nany crime. (_Tr. p. 10199._) He was later transferred to Buchenwald for\na few weeks and while there, together with other inmates, was asked to\nvolunteer for a cleaning-up work detail in Dachau. The inmates were\nunder the impression that conditions were better in Dachau, so they\nagreed to go. Upon their arrival at Dachau they were given a physical\nexamination and X-rayed and then taken to the experimental station.\n(_Tr. p. 10200._) Beiglboeck told them that they were to participate in\nthe sea-water experiment and that was the first they knew of it. (_Tr.\np. 10201._) Laubinger identified Beiglboeck in the dock. (_Tr. p.\n10202._) He told Beiglboeck that he had had two stomach operations, but\nBeiglboeck did not permit him to withdraw. Beiglboeck did not ask\nwhether the subjects wished to volunteer, and they did not volunteer.\n(_Tr. p. 10203._) Laubinger, who was in the Schaefer group, was given\nSchaefer water for 12 days and fasted for at least nine days. He got so\nweak he could hardly stand up. The experimental subjects received\nspecial food for only one day after the experiment. Beiglboeck had\npromised them extra rations and an easy work detail but these promises\nwere not kept. (_Tr. p. 10205._) One of the subjects tried to persuade\nthe others to refuse to drink the sea-water. Beiglboeck threatened to\nhave him hanged for sabotage. The subject later vomited after drinking\nsea-water whereupon Beiglboeck had the water administered through a\nstomach tube. (_Tr. p. 10207._) Another subject was tied to his bed and\nadhesive tape was plastered over his mouth, because he had obtained some\nfresh water and bread. Most of the subjects were Czech, Polish, and\nRussian nationalities, with approximately eight Germans. (_Tr. p.\n10208._). A number of subjects suffered attacks of delirium and two were\ntransferred to the hospital. Laubinger did not see them again. (_Tr. p.\n10209._)\n\nThe witness Hoellenrainer corroborated the testimony of Laubinger on all\nimportant points. He testified that the experimental subjects did not\nvolunteer (_Tr. p. 10509_) and that the majority of them were non-German\nnationals. (_Tr. p. 10513._) Hoellenrainer testified further that\nBeiglboeck showed no concern for the experimental subjects, but, on the\ncontrary, threatened to shoot them when they became excited. (It hardly\nseems appropriate to wear a gun when experimenting on volunteers.) He\nhad no pity for them when they became delirious from thirst and hunger.\n(_Tr. p. 10510._) The witness Hoellenrainer unfortunately assaulted\nBeiglboeck in open Court. This impulsive act of the witness, however,\nspeaks more forcibly than volumes of testimony as to the inhuman\ntreatment of the experimental subjects and the suffering which was\ninflicted on them as a result of these experiments. We may rest assured\nthat Hoellenrainer was no volunteer. When explaining his behavior to the\nTribunal, Hoellenrainer characterized Beiglboeck a \u201cmurderer\u201d. (_Tr. pp.\n10233-4._)\n\nThe witness Tschofenig was committed to Dachau in November 1940 where he\nremained until April 1945. He was a political prisoner. (_Tr. p.\n9331._). He is at present a member of the Carinthian Land Diet in\nAustria. (_Tr. p. 9332._) From the summer of 1942 until the end, he was\nin charge of the X-ray station in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 9334._) He examined\nthe transport of gypsies in the summer of 1944 before the experiments\nbegan and excluded a number of them as being unfit. (_Tr. pp. 9334-5._)\nHe saw Beiglboeck several times in the camp and in the X-ray station.\n(_Tr. p. 9335._) During the experiments a number of those who got sick\nwere brought to the X-ray station for examination. Their physical\ncondition had deteriorated considerably as a result of the experiments.\nHe heard that one of the subjects had a maniac attack. (_Tr. p. 9336._)\nAt the conclusion of the experiments, three of the subjects were brought\nto the station for internal diseases. One was on a stretcher and unable\nto walk. All of them were X-rayed by Tschofenig. (_Tr. p. 9338._) It was\ncustomary to send the results of the X-ray examinations to the hospital\nward where the inmates were kept. Tschofenig received an official order\nfrom the station for internal diseases that it was not necessary to\nreport on the stretcher case as he had died two days after his transfer.\nThe station physician reported that the death resulted from the\nsea-water experiments. Tschofenig examined the death records himself.\n(_Tr. p. 9339._)\n\nEven Dr. Steinbauer, defense counsel for Beiglboeck, has apparently\nconvinced himself that these experiments involved torture. He said, in\nexplaining his conduct in withholding part of a document the Tribunal\nhad ordered to be produced, that: \u201cI do not want to say anything about\nthe experimental subjects, who suffered terribly.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9378._)\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_[47]\n\n * * * * *\n\nI now come to the count of the indictment \u201cParticipation of the\ndefendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea-water experiments which\nwere carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.\u201d\n\nIn the case of these experiments, Professor Schroeder\u2019s participation\nhas been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as\nthe preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned.\nProfessor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the prosecution of having\npermitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp.\nThe prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated\nthat these experiments were not necessary at all, and it drew the\nconclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to\ntorture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it\nalso stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental\nsubjects been volunteers.\n\nTherefore it is the task of the defense to show in the following\nparagraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder, as Chief\nof the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, these experiments had to\nbe considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his\napproval for the carrying out of the experiments in a concentration\ncamp.\n\nThe first question therefore is\u2014why and from what considerations were\nthere experiments ordered at all? It must be stated in advance here,\nthat as far as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was\nconcerned, he did not have to examine the question whether one or the\nother method for making sea-water drinkable was more suitable; the\nproblem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It\nwas to rescue shipwrecked persons from death from lack of water and find\nthe best method of protection against this danger. This problem had\nalready been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time,\nand various individual questions for the solution of this problem had\narisen. No method for making sea-water drinkable had been found and it\nwas not clear what procedure should be advocated.\n\nIn the course of the year 1943 two methods for making sea-water\ndrinkable were offered almost simultaneously. One of them, the so-called\nWofatit method, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with\nI. G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of\nStabsingenieur Berka.\n\nIt was quite clearly recognized that Schaefer\u2019s Wofatit represented the\nideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the\nsea-water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let\nthe salt remain in the sea-water and only improved the taste of the\nsea-water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We\nagree with the prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they\nstate that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided\nby means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkatit was better.\nThe participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe,\nProfessor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, realized that quite\nclearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have\nbeen solved in a simple manner.\n\nThe difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this\nproblem, however, lay in another field; this was the shortage of raw\nmaterials prevailing at the time, which had arisen in Germany because of\nthe war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of\nthe Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider\nthe Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method\ncould be procured without any difficulty and production could be started\nright away, since production facilities for the appropriate amounts were\nalready in existence. It was different in the case of Wofatit.\nConsiderable amounts of silver were required for its production, which\ncould not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging\nother production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical\nOffice of the Luftwaffe, therefore, had already decided in favor of the\nintroduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his\ncapacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have\nassumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to\nhis professional medical care equipped with the Berka method, because\nthe danger existed that shipwrecked aviators, deceived by the\nimprovement in the taste of sea-water, would drink it in larger amounts\nand thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also\nhad to be clarified whether the shipwrecked crew of an airplane\ncompletely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever\nor whether they should consume a certain amount of sea-water rather than\nno water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying\nout an experiment on human beings. An experiment on animals would not\nsuffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body\nof animals differs from that in a human being. By proving its medical\nobjections, the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make\nits point of view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert,\nProfessor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best known specialists for internal\ndiseases not only in Germany, but in Europe, had not sided with the\nTechnical Office. Professor Eppinger, in the conference at the Technical\nOffice on 25 May 1944, expressly voiced the opinion that the Berka\nmethod was suitable, because for a certain time the human kidney could\nconcentrate salt up to 3 percent, and because the vitamins which had\nbeen added to the Berka method would be suitable for speeding up the\nexcretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also\nshared at the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner,\nwho is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.\n\nProfessor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods.\nHe would then have been reproached with the fact that he had not done\neverything within his power in order to make the position of shipwrecked\nGerman soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying of lack of\nwater. It, therefore, becomes evident that these considerations on the\npart of Schroeder give us proof of his great feeling of responsibility;\nit was not easy for him to give his approval for the carrying out of\nsuch experiments.\n\nFurther developments also show clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the\nfact that he was extremely busy with official matters, devoted the\ngreatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just\ndecide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be\ncarried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he\nintended to have the experiments carried out as a troop experiment in\ninstitutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily\nconsidering the Luftwaffe hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1\nJuly 1944 he turned to the chief medical officer of this hospital, who\nwas competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it. This\nbecomes evident from the certificate of Dr. Harriehausen, who was a\nGeneralarzt at the time. Now Professor Schroeder began to consider the\nMilitary Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended\nto use the young cadets in this academy as experimental subjects. An\ninquiry which he made there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his\nrequests were turned down in each case was that just at this particular\ntime the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect that all\nconvalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to\ntheir units, and that the cadets of the academy were to be given a\ncombat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor\nBeiglboeck to carry out the experiments at the Tarvis Field Hospital\nalso remained unsuccessful.\n\nThe further possibility of perhaps using German civilians for the\nexperiments was completely out of question because at this time it was\nnot possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case\namong the German civilian population, because all of them had either\nbeen conscripted for military service or for labor service. Professor\nSchroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion of\nconsidering Dachau concentration camp for his experimental station.\n\nProfessor Schroeder was not informed at all about conditions in a\nconcentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no\ndifferent from those prevailing in a military camp, and only the names\nDachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this\nconnection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the\nconcentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy.\nSchroeder never listened to foreign radio stations. In the circles of\nhis medical officers such events were never discussed. I may point out\nhere that an express opponent of National Socialism, no less than the\nformer Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a\nwitness in the IMT trial that he had had no knowledge of the events in\nthe concentration camps, and he had different sources of information at\nhis disposal from Professor Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had had\nany idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from\nGermany, then in view of his ideology as a faithful Christian, he would\nhave refused such contact with concentration camps arising out of\nordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder\u2019s favor is\nthat the experiments were not to be carried out under the supervision\nand command of the SS camp leadership but completely separate, under the\nspecial leadership of a Luftwaffe medical officer and recognized\nspecialist. As a further consideration, Professor Schroeder had to take\ninto account that a useful result could be achieved in these experiments\nonly if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance.\nBecause of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the whole of\nGermany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these\nexperiments could be given in any spot in Germany. However, it was known\nthat air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the\ncharge cannot be brought against Professor Schroeder that he chose a\nconcentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who\nperforce had to subject themselves to the experiments. The very opposite\nis true. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that if he wanted to be\nsuccessful he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary\nexperimental subjects, for the director of the experiments was dependent\non the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, since in no\nother way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary\nexperimental subject would have had the power to drop out of the\nexperiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this\nway, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it\nprematurely.\n\nFor the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder\u2019s conduct, his\nconversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered\nespecially. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he\ncould only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons, whose\nage corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made\nthe further condition that the experimental persons should have the same\nphysiological and racial requisites as the members of the German\nWehrmacht in question. On direct examination, Professor Schroeder\ntestified under oath that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about\ndishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he\nknew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the\nseriousness of their offenses.\n\nProfessor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of\nGrawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not\naccept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German\nWehrmacht, gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes.\nProfessor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to\nmake arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to\nexpect that the SS would decide upon experimental subjects, against his\nwell-founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the\nprerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.\n\nBecause of the extremely heavy official duties caused for Professor\nSchroeder in his capacity as chief medical officer by the imminent\ncollapse of German military resistance, this affair was only a small\nsegment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not\nconcern himself further with this affair.\n\nA further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to bear in mind\nwas whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the\nhealth of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly\nstudied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the\nproblem. Professor Schroeder also knew that sea-water is used by doctors\nfor drinking cures and that the criterion of harmfulness depends on the\ndoses. If there was medical supervision then there would be no danger to\nhealth. Therefore, the prosecution\u2019s charge that he failed to take the\npossible hazards sufficiently into account is not justified.\n\nNothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized\nProfessor Schroeder more than the instructions which the medical\ninspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.\n\nProfessor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to\nthe experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reich\nPhysician SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when\nthe quantity of sea-water to be taken was regulated in accordance with\nthe best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that\nthe experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore,\nif the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on\nthe basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments\nwould be carried out in a humane manner, taking into account all medical\nand clinical considerations.\n\nTherefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he,\nfrom his position as a physician and a leading medical officer,\nconsidered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible\nsources of danger as far as humanly possible. His direction to the man\nin charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental\nsubject refused to take in further water, and if dangerous injury to the\nbody were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder\u2019s favor. The\nperson carrying out the experiments was furnished with all necessary\nassistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as\nwell as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.\n\nThe contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments\nby Schroeder can stand any examination, that that planning was with full\nmoral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was\nreaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Vollhardt, as\nwell as by the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable\nthat instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct\nfrom a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked\nout.\n\nBy this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder\nin the sea-water complex are refuted.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Persons Subjected to the Experiments_\n\nAs regards this subject [sea-water experiments] I want to put the\ndefendant\u2019s statements first (_Tr. pp. 8703-4_):\n\n \u201cDR. STEINBAUER: Did you have influence on the selection of the\n experimental subjects?\n\n \u201cDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: No. I was told at the Medical\n Inspectorate that arrangements had been made with the SS, and\n the SS in accordance with these arrangements would supply the\n experimental subjects. I did not have to worry about that.\n\n \u201cQ. Did you have orders to find out where the experimental\n subjects came from and what the specified circumstances and\n conditions were?\n\n \u201cA. No. That too was not a decision that I could have made, nor\n could the Luftwaffe.\n\n \u201cQ. Did you know before that gypsies had been used?\n\n \u201cA. I only found out that gypsies were coming into Dachau from\n the camp commandant. * * * I, therefore, do not feel that I am\n responsible either for the selection of the place where the\n experiments were carried out nor for the selection of those\n persons who were used.\u201d\n\n Defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder states regarding this (_Tr.\n pp. 3676-7_): [Transcriber Note: The text ends here. No further\n statement printed in the original text.]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n \u201cMR. MCHANEY: Did you say anything to Beiglboeck about the\n experimental subjects?\n\n \u201cDEFENDANT SCHROEDER: No. We only spoke about the matter as\n such. I am not quite sure whether the question \u2018concentration\n camp\u2019 was already established at that time. Please, why don\u2019t\n you ask Beiglboeck himself? I don\u2019t know if it was before or\n after 1 June.\n\n \u201cQ. You didn\u2019t say anything to Beiglboeck about making sure that\n only German volunteers were used in the experiments?\n\n \u201cA. That was a matter of course. There was no discussion about\n it. It was no subject of discussion. There wasn\u2019t anything to be\n discussed.\n\n \u201cQ. Well, you didn\u2019t tell him that then?\n\n \u201cA. I don\u2019t know. I can\u2019t tell you that under oath. I know that\n there were volunteers; and I certainly did not say that they had\n to be German because I didn\u2019t take any other possibility into\n consideration at all and couldn\u2019t have said it. These are all\n reconstructions which came up later, but at that time weren\u2019t\n subjects of discussion at all.\u201d\n\nThese were gypsies wearing the black badge of the asocials. The\ndefendant states that the Sturmbannfuehrer in charge of the shipment\ntold him that these persons were all asocials, who were interned on\naccount of punishable offenses and not for social reasons. As we read in\nKogon\u2019s book \u201cThe SS State\u201d[48] the black badge was in fact the\ndesignation of the asocials. We see from Document NO-179, Prosecution\nExhibit 135, that SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe suggested as persons to be used\nfor the experiments asocial persons of mixed gypsy blood in Auschwitz\nconcentration camp, who were in good health but at the same time\nunsuitable for labor. In the book on gypsies of the Royal Police\nDirectorate Munich 1905, (_Beiglboeck 28, Beiglboeck Ex. 11_), we read:\n\n \u201cThe greatest difficulty arises in securing a census of gypsies.\n The majority of them make every effort to obscure their identity\n through false statements or through a pretense of ignorance * *\n *.\u201d\n\nTheir asocial character led to a series of police regulations, of which\nthe most important are the following, as far as Germany is concerned:\n\n Decree of 16 May 1938, RMB1.i.V. (_Bulletin of the Reich\n Ministry of the Interior_) pages 883-4, concerning measures\n against the gypsy nuisance.\n\n Decree of 8 December 1938, RMB1.i.V., page 2105, concerning\n measures against the gypsy nuisance.\n\n Decree of 10 November 1939, RMB1.i.V., page 2339, concerning\n employment records for gypsies.\n\n Decree of 2 September 1939, Reich Law Gazette, I, page 1578.\n Prohibition of wandering of gypsies in the frontier zone[49]\n (_Sec. 4 of the ordinance concerning frontier protection_).\n\nThe witness Dorn states (_Tr. p. 8618_):\n\n \u201cAs far as I know, the brown sign was done away with in\n Buchenwald in 1940 and all gypsies arrested for racial reasons\n were asocial. In other words, from 1940 on, there were no\n gypsies in the camp who were not designated in the filing system\n as asocial, as unwilling to work.\u201d\n\nThe same witness states (_Tr. pp. 8661-2_):\n\n \u201cI can merely say that initially all gypsies were arrested for\n racial reasons. Later on this was changed. Some of the gypsies\n who were not declared asocial elements were removed from Dachau\n to the Labor House in the Rebdorf Bavarian penitentiary.\u201d[50]\n\nThe famous Swiss Psychiatrist E. Bleuler, Zuerich, writes in his\nTextbook on Psychiatry, Berlin, Springer, 1937 on pages 397-400 about:\n\n _Constitutional ethnical deviations_\n\n \u201c* * * A large number of asocials show what type of character\n they are while still young. Most of them are backward at school,\n even if their intelligence is good, because they adjust\n themselves too little and show too little industry and\n attention. Extraordinary achievements in any single direction\n are rare. Many of them are lazy, thieving, lying, cruel to\n animals and people, exacting, often deliberately and negligently\n damaging their own and others property, vain, unreliable, and\n egotistical. They cannot submit to authority, run away if they\n do not like anything; punishments are not respected, altogether\n neither sugar plums nor the whip have any visible effects. When\n carrying out mean tricks they develop cunning and energy, soon\n learn from others what is bad, with difficulty or not at all\n what is good, have an instinctive inclination for bad company.\u201d\n\nI have not made any special reference to asocial character to point out\nthat we must be particularly careful when estimating their\ntrustworthiness, on account of their tendency to mendacity and because\nof a certain psychotic cupidity concerning claims for compensation. This\nis not necessary where the judges are so experienced; I am referring to\nthis fact for _legal_ reasons. It is well known that there is no legal\ndefinition of crimes against humanity. According to legal authors, such\ncrimes can only be committed against persons who are persecuted for\npolitical, religious, and racial reasons.\n\nTo complete this chapter in its legal aspects, I would also like to\nmention the racial regulation of the gypsy question as far as it can be\nseen from German legislation. According to the 12th decree implementing\nthe Reich Citizenship Law, dated 25 April 1943 (_Reich Law Gazette I, p.\n268_), gypsies who are not yet German citizens cannot acquire\ncitizenship. Section 4 of this decree reads:\n\n \u201cJews and gypsies cannot become citizens. They cannot become\n citizens either subject to revocation, or protected persons * *\n *.\u201d\n\nAccording to the first decree implementing the Law for the Protection of\nGerman Blood and German Honor of 14 November 1935 (_Reich Law Gazette I,\np. 1334_), marriage between gypsies and Germans is prohibited. Section 6\nof this decree reads:\n\n \u201cA marriage shall furthermore not be contracted if the progeny\n to be expected from it would endanger the purity of German\n blood.\u201d\n\nIn all fairness, however, one must admit in this connection that in the\npractice of the Third Reich no strict distinction seems to have been\nmade when gypsies were put in a concentration camp, so that we should\nneed the criminal record and family history of each person subjected to\nthe experiments to be able to ascertain accurately the asocial character\nof each individual. It is a fact that in the gypsy book mentioned by me,\n11 names of persons subjected to experiments are to be found, who must\nno doubt be characterized as asocial.\n\n _Origin of the gypsies as to nationality_\n\nAs I have already mentioned, the gypsies themselves like to leave this\npoint vague. Therefore no point of the evidence contains so many\nconflicting statements as this particular one. Beiglboeck himself cannot\nmake any definite statements as to this matter, but as he used to speak\nto all of them, they must all have understood German. Among the names we\nalso find plenty of Slav names, having a Polish, Ukrainian, or Southern\nSlav sound. In the old Austrian Monarchy, these people were jumbled\ntogether a good deal and in their wanderings they also entered German\nReich territory. After the break-up of the Monarchy, some of the\nso-called Carpatho-Russians became citizens of Hungary or Slovakia. In\nthe eastern provinces of the German Reich, there were many Poles or\nGermanized persons with Polish names. The mere name, therefore, admits\nof no conclusion as to nationality. The fact, however, that most of them\ncould make themselves understood in the German language allows the\nconclusion that none of the persons subjected to experiments were\nimported from the _Allied_ countries.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe witness Fritz Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32,\nBeiglboeck Ex. 21_):\n\n \u201cThe experimental subjects in most cases spoke their gypsy\n dialect. Many of them were obviously of Slav origin. I did not\n see identification papers, however, as this was quite impossible\n in a concentration camp and as I did not ask them anything of\n the kind, I cannot make any exact statement regarding the\n _nationality_ of the individual gypsies. I did not ask them\n because the gypsies were very primitive people, and some of them\n did not even know their own birthdays.\u201d\n\nThe witness Mettbach stated when questioned by Dr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p.\n9729_):\n\n \u201cDR. STEINBAUER: What language did you speak among yourselves?\n\n \u201cWITNESS METTBACH: Mostly gypsy language.\n\n \u201cQ. What was the citizenship of the individual experimental\n subjects?\n\n \u201cA. Mostly they were Germans. There were a lot of Austrians and\n a lot of them came from East Prussia and Upper Silesia and the\n Burgenland [Province bordering Austria-Hungary].\u201d\n\nWhen questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Mettbach\nstated (_Tr. pp. 9737-8_):\n\n \u201cMR. HARDY: Were there any foreign nationals\u2014that is, men other\n than Germans\u2014used in these experiments?\n\n \u201cWITNESS METTBACH: Austrians and Burgenlaender and some from\n Upper Silesia and East Prussia.\n\n \u201cQ. No Czechs?\n\n \u201cA. No.\n\n \u201cQ. No Russians?\n\n \u201cA. No.\n\n \u201cQ. No Poles?\n\n \u201cA. A couple of them talked Polish but I think they came from\n Upper Silesia or East Prussia. That very often happens. Lots of\n Upper Silesians can talk Polish.\u201d\n\nWhen questioned by counsel for the prosecution the witness Joseph\nVorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_):\n\n \u201cMR. HARDY: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects?\n\n \u201cWITNESS VORLICEK: For the most part I do.\n\n \u201cQ. Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various\n subjects, as near as you can recollect?\n\n \u201cA. There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and\n Germans.\u201d\n\nDuring direct examination the witness Vorlicek stated (_Tr. p. 9388_):\n\n \u201cMR. HARDY: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special\n detachment or some such thing?\n\n \u201cWITNESS VORLICEK: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know\n the Slavonic language, and there were some Czechs among them, I\n spoke to them.\u201d\n\nTherefore, the defendant\u2019s statement, that the persons concerned were\nSlovaks from the Bratislava area (Bratislava is the capital of Slovakia)\nis not without foundation.\n\n _The Rations of the Gypsies_\n\nThe defendant states that the persons subjected to the experiments got\nthe Luftwaffe flight rations before the experiments, and the same\nrations after the experiments, and that there was a hitch only once due\nto the bombing of the provisions warehouse. During the experiments, the\npersons got shipwreck rations. The Englishman, Ladell also says that he\ngave his soldiers shipwreck rations during the experiments. On this\npoint, see extract from Beiglboeck 20, Beiglboeck Exhibit 8:\n\n \u201c* * * In all the experiments the food given was the \u2018shipwreck\n diet\u2019; this comprises 1 ounce each per day of biscuits;\n sweetened condensed milk; butter, fat, or margarine; and\n chocolate.\u201d\n\nThat food was provided is evident from two documents. (_Beiglboeck 26,\nBeiglboeck Ex. 13_; _Beiglboeck 27, Beiglboeck Ex. 14_.)\n\nThe witness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck\nEx. 12_):\n\n \u201cBefore beginning the experiment, the experimental subjects were\n given the same food as that supplied to the flying personnel of\n the Luftwaffe, that is to say, a very nutritious diet of\n sardines, butter, cheese, milk, meat, etc. During the\n experiment, 4 persons assigned to the thirst group received no\n food whatsoever, the others received sea-emergency rations, with\n chocolate, etc. I know that on one occasion difficulties arose\n in the food supply which possibly were connected with an air\n raid. I was sent to Frankfurt with the urgent order to obtain\n sea-emergency rations there.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Treatment of Gypsies_\n\nBeiglboeck treated the experimental subjects in a humane manner. It is\nnatural that he insisted the strict observance of the whole experiment\nwas not to be a farce. The whole experiment was a constant struggle\nagainst the understandable attitude of the experimental subjects who\nwanted to save themselves by cheating the director of the experiment (by\nsecretly drinking water and pouring away the urine), and by obtaining\nspecial favors, in particular cigarettes, which in 1944 were hard to\nget\u2014and that not only in the concentration camps.\n\nIn regard to this point I refer to a document in which Professor Dr.\nDennig writes (_Beiglboeck 29, Beiglboeck Ex. 15_):\n\n \u201cWhile the people are able for the first few days successfully\n to fight their thirst with good grace, their strength of will is\n insufficient during the later stage; they devise extremely\n subtle means of obtaining water, e. g., the case of Juergensen.\u201d\n\nWitness Ernst Mettbach states in regard to this point when questioned by\nDr. Steinbauer (_Tr. p 9722_):\n\n \u201cDR. STEINBAUER: The professor forbade your bringing them water.\n Did you nevertheless bring them water? Now, be honest.\n\n \u201cWITNESS METTBACH: Several times I brought my relative,\n Mettbach, water to drink.\n\n \u201cQ. Where did you give it to him?\n\n \u201cA. Sometimes I smuggled it in to the experimental station\n myself. Sometimes I stuck it through the fly screen on the\n window which was a little bit loose.\u201d\n\nLater we shall speak in detail about the secret drinking of water. At\nthis point I just want to say in general that every drop of water which\nwas consumed in secret not only diminished the scientific value of the\nexperiments, but is also of greatest significance from the point of view\nof criminal law, because it decreased the feeling of thirst. As I said\nbefore, the treatment of the experimental subjects was a humane one. In\nregard to this point compare the statement of Dr. Lesse (_Bieglboeck 14,\nBieglboeck Ex. 20_):\n\n \u201cQ. What was his attitude to the prisoners in general?\n\n \u201cA. Very humane and benevolent.\u201d\n\nWitness Massion states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex.\n12_):\n\n \u201cDr. Beiglboeck treated the prisoners as humanly as ordinary\n patients. He was rough to them only when they obtained drinking\n water contrary to orders. I know definitely that none of the\n experimental subjects were turned over to the SS for punishment\n because of any offenses.\u201d\n\nWitness Pillwein states in his affidavit (_Beiglboeck 32, Beiglboeck Ex.\n21_):\n\n \u201cQ. How did Beiglboeck treat the inmates?\n\n \u201cA. Beiglboeck treated the patients well, which was a striking\n contrast to the treatment which we inmates received from the SS.\n Beiglboeck only became very angry when the gypsies lied to him\n regarding the drinking of water, and when he found out about it\n from the blood test.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros.\n Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\n NO-184 132 Letter from the Technical Office of the Reich 447\n Minister of Aviation (Goering) to Himmler\u2019s\n office, 15 May 1944, concerning methods to\n render sea-water potable.\n NO-177 133 Minutes of conference at the Reich Ministry of 448\n Aviation, 20 May 1944, concerning methods\n for making sea-water potable.\n NO-185 134 Letter from Schroeder to Himmler and Grawitz, 452\n 7 June 1944, requesting subjects for\n sea-water experiments.\n NO-183 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, 453\n undated, concerning experimental subjects.\n NO-182 137 Letter from Sievers to Grawitz, 24 July 1944, 454\n concerning experiments on the potability of\n sea-water.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document\nBecker-Freyseng Becker-Freyseng Affidavit of Dr. Ludwig 455\n 42 Ex. 29 Harriehausen, 9 January 1947,\n regarding use of patients in\n sea-water experiments.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Karl 456\n Hoellenrainer\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Beiglboeck 468\nExtracts from the testimony of defense expert witness Dr. Franz 474\n Vollhardt\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-184\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 132\n\n LETTER FROM THE TECHNICAL OFFICE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF AVIATION\n(GOERING) TO HIMMLER\u2019S OFFICE, 15 MAY 1944, CONCERNING METHODS TO RENDER\n SEA WATER POTABLE\n\n [Stamped] Secret\n\n[Letterhead]\nReich Minister of Aviation\nand Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe\nTechnical Office\nRef. Nrs. 91a, 0016 GL/C-E (51V)\n_No: 26 773 secret_\n(In your answer to the above\nreference, please give date and\nshort summary.)\n\n Berlin W 8, 15 May 1944\n Leipziger Strasse 7\n Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin\n Phones: Local: 520024\n 218241\n 120047\n Long distance: 218011\n Extension: 4335\n\nRe: Rendering sea-water potable.\nReference: Letter of the Reich Leader SS\n No. 39/4/44 secret of 17 January 1944.\nTo: Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police,\nPersonal Staff.\nBerlin\n\nWith reference to the interoffice conference between Oberstingenieur\nChristensen and Haupsturmfuehrer Engineer Dohle regarding the\nabove-mentioned matter, it is announced that two processes have been\nworked out by the office to render sea-water potable:\n\n1. The I. G. method, using mainly silver nitrate. For this process quite\na large plant needs to be set up, which would require about 200 tons of\niron and cost about 250,000 RM. The amount of the product needed by the\nLuftwaffe and Navy requires 2.5 to 3 tons of pure silver a month.\nBesides, the water which is rendered potable by this preparation has to\nbe sucked through a filter in order to avoid absorption of precipitated\nchemicals. These facts make the application of this process practically\nimpossible.\n\n2. The second process which was worked out is the so-called Berka\nmethod. According to this method, the salts present in the sea-water are\nnot precipitated, but are so treated that they are not disagreeable to\nthe taste. They pass through the body without oversaturating it with\nsalts and without causing an undue thirst. No special plants are\nnecessary for producing preparations needed for this process; nor do the\npreparations themselves consist of scarce materials.\n\nIt can be presumed that this method will be introduced in the Luftwaffe\nand the navy in a short time. Now that German technical science has\nactually succeeded in rendering sea-water potable for people in distress\nat sea, in accordance with the above, the knowledge as to how foreign\ncountries intend to solve this problem is no longer of prime importance.\nNaturally the office is very much interested in ascertaining how, above\nall, the United States has solved this problem, and it is requested that\nthis information be sought, without, however, compromising any person or\nany office too much.\n\nShould the office there be interested in the Berka method, let us know.\nSamples can then be delivered.\n\nThe cube dispensed is not a preparation to render sea-water potable, but\na milk cube such as is already familiar to the offices.\n\n [Signature illegible]\n\nEnclosure: [Notation: both crossed out]\n\n 1 Milk cube\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-177\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 133\n\n MINUTES OF CONFERENCE AT THE REICH MINISTRY OF AVIATION, 20 MAY 1944,\n CONCERNING METHODS FOR MAKING SEA WATER POTABLE\n\n Personal Staff RF-SS.\n Filing Department, File No./220/5\n\nTechnical Office\n GL/C-E 5 IV No. 26860/44 secret\n\n Berlin, 23 May 1944\n [Handwritten] W 29.6\n\n[Handwritten]:\n\n Just received\n for reading given\n to RF [Himmler]\n\n [Signature] R. Br. [Rudolf Brandt]\nReichsarzt SS 4/July\nMinutes of the conference on 20 May 1944 re methods for making sea-water\n drinkable\n\nPresent:\n\n * * * * *\n\n10. Oberstingenieur Christensen German Air Ministry\u2014\n GL/C-E 5 IV 120047/28\n11. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler dto. 120047/4335\n12. Stabsingenieur Berka E-Tra Vienna\n B 23566\n13. Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng Chief Medical 278313\n Service\n14. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Luftwaffe Medical\n Research 27 83 13\n Institute\n\nI. On 19 May 1944 a preliminary discussion was held at the Reich Air\nMinistry\u2014GL/C-E 5 IV. Present were the following persons:\n\nGL/C-E 5 IV Obersting. Christensen\ndto. Stabsing. Dr. Schickler\nE-Tra. Stabsing. Berka\nL. In. 14 Major Jeworrek\nChief of the Medical Service Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng\n [Office]\ndto. Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer\n Herr Pahl.\n\nAt this meeting Captain (med.) Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the\nclinical experiments conducted by Colonel (med.) Dr. von Sirany and came\nto the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being\nunobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision. The Chief of\nthe Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used,\ndamage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking\nBerkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health\nand\u2014according to the opinion of N. C. O. (med.) Dr. Schaefer\u2014will\nfinally result in death after not later than 12 days.\n\nExternal symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea,\nconvulsions, hallucinations, and finally death. As a result of the\npreliminary discussion it was agreed to arrange a new series of\nexperiments of short duration. A commission was to be set up for the\narrangement of these series of experiments. This commission should be\nset up together with the High Command of the Navy at the conference on\n20 May 1944.\n\nThe series of experiments should include the following:\n\n 1. _a._ Persons to be given sea-water processed with Berka method.\n _b._ Persons to be given ordinary drinking [Shorthand notation]:\n water.\n One copy to be submitted\n to the ministry.\n _c._ Persons without any drinking water at all.\n _d._ Persons given water treated according to the present method. (0.7\n liters of drinking water for 4 persons and 4 days.)\n\nFor the duration of the experiments all persons will receive only an\nemergency sea diet such as is provided for persons in distress at sea.\n\n _Duration of experiments_: Maximum 6 days\n\nIn addition to these experiments a further experiment should be\nconducted as follows:\n\n2. Persons nourished with sea-water and Berkatit, and as diet also the\nemergency sea rations.\n\n _Duration of experiments_: 12 days\n\nSince in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent\ninjuries to health\u2014that is, the death of the experimental\nsubjects\u2014have to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons\nshould be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.\n\nHerr Pahl reports that due to the latest improvements in the I. G.\nFarben method, smaller quantities of iron are needed for the\nconstruction of the manufacturing equipment than were originally\nprovided for and estimated by I. G. Herr Pahl reports further that if\nthe Wofatit equipment which has to be constructed could not be used\nlater for the manufacturing of the sea-water preparation another use\nwould be quite possible. As to the silver problem GL/C-E 5 IV will check\nwhether the necessary quantities of silver are available.\n\nWith GL/C-B 5 it is to be determined whether the same quantities of the\npreparations will be required as heretofore.\n\nII. At the main conference on 20 May 1944, Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler\nwill report on work done since the last conference, especially re the\nresults of the preliminary discussion described in part I.\n\nThe navy emphasizes that it is considered to be of great importance to\nobtain a method which under the given conditions could be introduced at\nonce without undue delay. In the opinion of the navy the results\nobtained at the clinical experiments are sufficient, since they are\nmainly interested in being able to nourish their men 3 to 5 days with\nthe preparation. A longer nourishing period up to 12 days would probably\nonly be necessary in very few cases. But in spite of this the High\nCommand of the Navy agrees that the series of experiments, as proposed\nby the Chief of the Medical Service in paragraph 1, should still be\ncarried out.\n\nThese series of experiments should be finished and reported on not later\nthan the end of June. During this period all preparations are to be made\nfor the commencement of production according to the Berka method at a\ndate not later than July 1st 1944, and also, if the I. G. method should\nbe introduced, for the start of the construction of the necessary\nmanufacturing equipment by the I. G.\n\nThe commission which has to determine the conditions for the series of\nexperiments still to be conducted is composed as follows:\n\n Professor Eppinger, Vienna, Representative of the Chief of the\n Medical Service of the Air Force\n\n Representative of the German Air Ministry GL/C\n\n Representative of the High Command of the Navy\n\nStabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng is being contemplated as representative of\nthe Chief of the Medical Service. Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler and\nStabsingenieur Berka as representatives of GL; and Professor Orzichowski\nas representative of the High Command of the Navy.\n\nIt was decided that Berlin, Reich Air Ministry GL/C-E 5 IV should be the\nmeeting place of the commission. (The originally proposed meeting place\nwas changed from Munich to Berlin after a telephone call from Dr.\nBecker-Freyseng); and that the meeting should be on 25 May 1944 at 10:00\na. m.\n\nIt was decided that Dachau was to be the place where the experiments\nshould be conducted.\n\nStabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng would invite Professor Eppinger and would\nget in touch with the Reich Leader SS. The High Command of the Navy\nwould invite Professor Orzichowski.\n\n_Distribution_:\n\nHigh Command of the Navy\u2014Medical Department\n\nHigh Command of the Navy, Department for Research, Inventions and\nPatents\n\nResearch Operation of the Reich Ministry for Aviation and High Command\nof the Luftwaffe\n\nFor information of:\n\nMedical Experimentation and Instruction Division of the Air Force\nJueterbog\n\nE-Office Rechlin (E med)\n\nInstitute for Aviation Medicine,\n\nD. V. L., Berlin-Adlershof\n\nL. In. 14. 1. Abt. 2 Abt., Gruppe 3, KTB\n\nReich Leader SS\n\nTechnical Academy, Vienna\n\n [Signature] C. CHRISTENSEN\n [Handwritten]\n _A\u2014_\n RSHA. Through asocial gypsies\n GERHABDT.\n\n [Stamp]\nPersonal Staff RFSS\u2014enclosures received on: 12 June 1944\nJournal No. 39/4/44g.\nto:\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-185\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 134\n\n LETTER FROM SCHROEDER TO HIMMLER AND GRAWITZ, 7 JUNE 1944, REQUESTING\n SUBJECTS FOR SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\n [handwritten] Top Secret\n\nChief Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\nFile: 55 Nr. 510/44 top secret (2F).\n\n Saalow, 7 June 1944\n ueber Zossen/Land\n 2 Copies\u20141st copy\n\nTo the Reich Minister of the Interior and Reich Leader SS _through_\nReich Physician SS and Police\n\nBerlin W, Knesebeckstr. 51\n\nHighly respected Reich Minister!\n\nEarlier already you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent\nmedical matters through experiments on human beings. Today again I stand\nbefore a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as well\nas human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects, demands a final\nsolution. The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for\nmaking sea-water potable. The one method, developed by a medical\nofficer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real\ndrinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, leaves the\nsalt content unchanged, and only removes the unpleasant taste from the\nsea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no\ncritical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must\nbe viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt\nsolutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning.\n\nAs the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out\nfor a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for\nthose who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments\nare necessary.\n\nRequired are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole\nweeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary\nlaboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be\nvery suitable.\n\nDirection of the experiments is to be taken over by Stabsarzt Dr.\nBeiglboeck, civilian; Chief Physician of the Medical University Clinic\nin Vienna, Professor Dr. Eppinger. After receipt of your basic approval,\nI shall list by name the other physicians who are to participate, in the\nexperiments.\n\nDue to the enormous importance which a solution of this problem has for\nshipwrecked men of the Luftwaffe and navy, I would be greatly obliged to\nyou, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my\nrequest.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signature] SCHROEDER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-183\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 136\n\nTELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO GRAWITZ, UNDATED, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL\n SUBJECTS\n\n [stamp] Top Secret\n\n_Teletype_:\n\nTo the Reich Physician SS and Police SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz,\nBerlin\n\nSubject: Experiments by the Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe.\n\nReference: Your letter of 28 June 1944\u2014Journal Number 13/44 secret\n\nObergruppenfuehrer!\n\nThe Reich Leader SS has decided that in accordance with the suggestion\nof SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, gypsies should be used for the experiments.\nIn addition, three other prisoners will be made available.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Standartenfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-182\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 137\n\nLETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GRAWITZ, 24 JULY 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON\n THE POTABILITY OF SEA WATER\n\nReich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff \u201cOffice-A\u201d\n\n (13a) Waischenfeld/Ofr.\n No. 135, Tel. No. 2\n 24 July 1944\n\n Secret\n\nSS Standardtenfuehrer Ministerialrat Dr. Brandt, for Information.\n\nTo SS Obergruppenfuehrer Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz\n\nBerlin W 15, Knesbeckstr. 51\n\n [Handwritten remark]\n Gbl 29.7\n\nSubject: Experiments on the potability _of sea-water_.\n\nRefer: Your letter of 11 July 1944, Journal No. 13/SS top secret\n\nDear Obergruppenfuehrer!\n\nI want to inform you about my talks with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr.\nPloetner and Chief Physician Beiglboeck in Dachau on 20 July. There will\nbe employed: 1 person in charge, 3 medical chemists, 1 female assistant,\n3 ranks for supervision. Prospective time: 3 weeks. In our research\nstation only the 40 experimental persons can be accommodated, otherwise\nthere is absolutely insufficient room since the Ploetner section is\nfully occupied and work cannot be interrupted. Our laboratory is\ninsufficiently equipped, since some essential equipment is wanting. In\nspite of serious difficulties, the following agreement was arrived at:\n1. In the Ploetner section a desk will be reserved (in the laboratory).\n2. The remaining rooms will be placed at our disposal in our\nEntomological Institute for a period of 3 weeks. Equipment needed must\nbe provided by the Luftwaffe. Thus it will be assured that the female\nassistants can work in Dachau too, because the Entomological Institute\nis located outside the concentration camp. 3. Billet must be arranged\nbetween Chief Physician Dr. Beiglboeck and the commandant\u2019s office,\nsince we have no billets at our disposal. 4. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr.\nPloetner will give his assistance, help, and advice. He was, however,\nnot selected for internal guidance, because this is being done by the\nLuftwaffe physicians themselves.\n\nThe experiments are to begin on July 23 if experimental persons are\navailable by then and the camp commandant is in possession of the\nrequired order of the Reich Leader SS. Dr. Beiglboeck himself wanted to\nget in touch with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Frowein, Adjutant of the Reich\nPhysician SS, on this subject.\n\nI hope that this arrangement may permit a successful conduct of the\nexperiments. When the results are reported at the proper time, please\narrange to point out the participation and assistance of the Reich\nLeader SS.\n\n With best regards and\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n SS Standartenfuehrer\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF BECKER-FREYSENG DOCUMENT 42 BECKER-FREYSENG\n DEFENSE EXHIBIT 29\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG HARRIEHAUSEN, 9 JANUARY 1947, REGARDING USE OF\n PATIENTS IN SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS\n\n * * * * *\n\nDr. Schroeder, as my superior, often visited the hospitals in my charge,\nespecially the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick of which I had been\nmedical superintendent since 1942.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI recall very well that I was once asked whether it would be possible to\ncarry out control experiments with sea-water, made drinkable by various\nmethods, on patients suffering from minor complaints and the slightly\nwounded in the Luftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my\nsupervision. Whether Professor Dr. Schroeder or one of his\nrepresentatives put this question to me, and at what exact time, I\ncannot recall exactly. It could have been in June 1944. I had to refuse\nthe undertaking of such experiments, as I had strict orders to send all\npatients and wounded who could be released back to the troops; thus I\ndid not have at my disposal hospital inmates suitable for these\nexperiments. Furthermore, the hospital was overcrowded at this time and\nwas, therefore, not suitable for scientific experiments. I can also\nrecall clearly that, at a later time, I again spoke to Professor Dr.\nSchroeder about this matter, and that he expressed his regret on this\noccasion that these experiments could not be carried out in the\nLuftwaffe hospital in Brunswick which was under my direction.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS KARL\n HOELLENRAINER[51]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Now, Witness, for what reasons were you arrested by the\nGestapo on 29 May 1944?\n\nWITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Because I am a gypsy of mixed blood.\n\nQ. And after your arrest you were sent to the Auschwitz concentration\ncamp?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. How long did you remain in Auschwitz?\n\nA. About 4 weeks.\n\nQ. And then where were you placed?\n\nA. I was sent to Buchenwald.\n\nQ. How long did you stay in Buchenwald?\n\nA. I only stayed there for a few days.\n\nQ. And then what happened to you?\n\nA. I was in Buchenwald, and suddenly our numbers were called. Forty men\nwere called out, including me, and we were told that we were going to\nDachau to work. As soon as we arrived at Dachau we were put in a\nquarantine block. One day an SS man came and wrote down our numbers, and\nthen we were X-rayed. Afterwards they sent us to the surgical department\nof a certain Luftwaffe doctor. I am afraid I can\u2019t remember the\nphysician\u2019s name. I know that he was in the Luftwaffe and that he was an\nAustrian. He examined all of us, and then we were divided into groups\nfor a sea-water experiment.\n\nQ. Just a moment, Witness. I now want to ask you some brief questions\nconcerning what you have just told us. You state that you went to Dachau\nto work. Did you consider going to Dachau to be good fortune?\n\nA. Yes; a friend of mine, a gypsy, had already been to Dachau, and he\ntold me that the situation was much better and that we would get better\nfood. But that was not the case.\n\nQ. Well, did you understand what you were to do when you went to Dachau,\nwhat type of work was it, bomb disposal or removal?\n\nA. Yes. We went there to work.\n\nQ. Did you understand that you were going to Dachau to volunteer for\nsea-water experiments?\n\nA. No, never.\n\nQ. Now, upon arrival in Dachau you then went to the quarantine block, is\nthat correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You stayed there for a day or two and were given a physical\nexamination?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you also get an X-ray examination?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And then you were transferred to the experimental block?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And there you met a professor or a doctor?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you think you would be able to recognize that doctor if you saw\nhim today?\n\nA. Yes, immediately. I would recognize him at once.\n\nQ. Would you kindly stand up from your witness chair, take your\nearphones off, and proceed over to the defendants\u2019 dock, and see if you\ncan recognize the professor that you met at Dachau?\n\n(Witness leaves the stand.)\n\nQ. Walk right over, please.\n\n(Witness attempts assault on the defendant Beiglboeck.)\n\nMR. HARDY: The prosecution apologizes for the conduct of the witness,\nyour Honors. Due to the manner of this examination, the prosecution will\nhave no further questions, your Honors.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The marshal will keep the witness guarded before\nthe Tribunal.\n\nDR. STEINBAUER (counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I have no\nquestions to put to the witness.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Will the marshal bring the witness before the bar\nof this Court? Will an interpreter come up here who can translate to the\nwitness?\n\nWitness, you were summoned before this Tribunal as a witness to give\nevidence.\n\nWITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes.\n\nQ. This is a court of justice.\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And by your conduct in attempting to assault the defendant Beiglboeck\nin the dock, you have committed a contempt of this Court.\n\nA. Your Honors, please excuse my conduct. I am very excited.\n\nQ. Ask the witness if he has anything else to say in extenuation of his\nconduct.\n\nA. Your Honors, please excuse me. I am so worked up. That man is a\nmurderer. He has ruined my whole life.\n\nQ. Your statements afford no extenuation of your conduct. You have\ncommitted a contempt in the presence of the Court, and it is the\njudgment of this Tribunal that you be confined in the Nuernberg prison\nfor the period of 90 days as punishment for the contempt which you have\nexhibited before this Tribunal.\n\nA. Would the Tribunal please forgive me. I am married and I have a small\nson. This man is a murderer. He gave me salt water and he performed a\nliver puncture on me. I am still under medical treatment. Please do not\nsend me to prison.\n\nQ. That is no extenuation. The contempt before this Court must be\npunished. People must understand that a court is not to be treated in\nthat manner. Will the marshal call a guard and remove the prisoner to\nserve the sentence which this Court has inflicted for contempt? It is\nunderstood that the defendant is not to be confined at labor. He is\nsimply to be confined in the prison, having committed a contempt in open\ncourt by attempting to assault one of the defendants in the dock.\n\nMR. HARDY: At this time, your Honor, the prosecution will request a\nbrief recess, if your Honors please.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess for a\nmoment.\n\n(A recess was taken.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nTHE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session. [1 July 1947.]\n\nMR. HARDY: The prosecution wishes to recall the witness Karl\nHoellenrainer to the witness stand, your Honors.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The marshal will summon the witness\nHoellenrainer.\n\n(The witness Karl Hoellenrainer took the stand.)\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: You will raise your right hand and be sworn. I swear by\nGod, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and\nwill withhold and add nothing.\n\n(Witness repeated the oath.)\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel may proceed.\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. HARDY: Witness, your name again is Karl Hoellenrainer?\n\nWITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes.\n\nQ. Witness, at the close of your testimony the other day, you were\nproceeding to tell the Tribunal about your activities after your arrival\nat the Dachau concentration camp?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, when did you arrive for the first time at the Dachau\nconcentration camp?\n\nA. That was about the middle of July.\n\nQ. And then you stayed at the camp hospital for a period of 1 or 2 days?\n\nA. In Auschwitz?\n\nQ. No, in Dachau, after your arrival?\n\nA. Yes, yes, in Dachau.\n\nQ. And then you were examined physically and also X-rayed?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. After you had been physically examined and X-rayed, what happened to\nyou?\n\nA. Then, we came into the so-called surgical department. We were 40 men.\nThen a Luftwaffe doctor came and examined us. We had to take our clothes\noff and stand in line. Then he said, \u201cWell, you will be given good food,\nsuch as you have never had, and then you won\u2019t get anything to eat at\nall, and you will have to drink sea-water.\u201d One of the prisoners whose\nname was Rudi Taubmann jumped up and refused. He was in an experiment, a\ncold-water experiment, and he didn\u2019t want to be in any more experiments.\nThe doctor from the Luftwaffe said, \u201cIf you are not quiet, and want to\nrebel, I will shoot you on the spot.\u201d The doctor from the Luftwaffe\nalways had a pistol, and then we were all quiet. For about one week we\ngot cookies, rusks, and brown sugar. There were about 21 little cookies,\nand three or four little pieces of dextrose. Otherwise, we got nothing.\nThe 8 days\u2014\n\nQ. Just a moment. Did you at any time volunteer for these experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Were you asked whether or not you wished to volunteer for the\nexperiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Were any of the other inmates asked if they would like to volunteer?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Was the young Mettbach a volunteer, the youngest Mettbach?\n\nA. I know only one Ernst Mettbach from Fuerth, but I don\u2019t know whether\nhe volunteered.\n\nQ. Was Ernst Mettbach in the experiments throughout; that is, did he\ncomplete the experiments?\n\nA. No, he was only there a short time, 2 or 3 days maybe. Then, the\ndoctor from the Luftwaffe put him out, and where he went I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Now, did the professor ask anyone for his approval before he was\nsubjected to the sea-water experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did the professor or any of the other Luftwaffe physicians talk to\nthe inmates and advise them as to the hazards of the experiment prior to\nthe commencement of the actual experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Now, will you, in detail, tell the Tribunal just what food the\nexperimental subjects received prior to the experiments, during the\ncourse of the experiments, and after the experiments, and in doing so,\nWitness, kindly talk very slowly and distinctly so that the interpreters\nwill be able to translate you more efficiently.\n\nA. Yes. At first we got potatoes, milk, and then we got these cookies\nand dextrose and rusks. That lasted about 1 week. Then we got nothing at\nall. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, \u201cNow, you have to drink\nsea-water on an empty stomach.\u201d That lasted about 1 or 2 weeks. This\nRudi Taubmann, as I already said, got excited and didn\u2019t want to\nparticipate; and the doctor from the Luftwaffe said, \u201cIf you get excited\nand mutiny, I will shoot you,\u201d and then we were all quiet. Then we began\nto drink sea-water. I drank the worst kind, that was yellowish. We drank\ntwo or three times a day, and then in the evening we drank the yellow\nkind. There were three kinds of water, white water, and yellow water\n[two kinds]; and I drank the yellow kind. After a few days the people\nbecame raving mad; they foamed at the mouth. The doctor from the\nLuftwaffe came with a cynical laugh and said, \u201cNow it is time to make\nthe liver punctures.\u201d I remember one very well.\n\nQ. Talk more slowly, Witness. Thank you.\n\nA. Yes. The first row on the left when you came in, the second bed, that\nwas the first one. He went crazy and barked like a dog. He foamed at the\nmouth. The doctor from the Luftwaffe took him down on a stretcher with a\nwhite sheet over him, and then he stuck a needle about this long\n(indicating) into his right side, and there was a hypodermic needle on\nit, and it bled, and it was very painful. We were all quiet and excited.\nWhen that was over, the other inmates took their turn. The people were\ncrazy from thirst and hunger, we were so hungry\u2014but the doctor had no\npity on us. He was as cold as ice. He didn\u2019t take any interest in us.\nThen, one gypsy\u2014I don\u2019t know his name any more\u2014ate a little piece of\nbread once, or drank some water; I don\u2019t remember just what he did. The\ndoctor from the Luftwaffe got very angry and mad. He took the gypsy and\ntied him to a bed post and sealed his mouth.\n\nQ. Witness, do you mean that he put adhesive tape over this gypsy\u2019s\nmouth?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Go ahead, continue.\n\nA. Then a gypsy, he was lying on the right, a big strong, husky fellow,\nhe refused to drink the water. He asked the doctor from the Luftwaffe to\nlet him go. He said he couldn\u2019t stand the water. He was sick. The doctor\nfrom the Luftwaffe had no pity, and he said, \u201cNo, you have to drink it.\u201d\nThe doctor from the Luftwaffe told one of his assistants to go and get a\nsun. Naturally, we didn\u2019t know what a sun was. Then one of his\nassistants came with a red tube about this long (indicating) and thrust\nthis tube first into the gypsy\u2019s mouth and then into his stomach.\n\nQ. Just a moment. That tube was how long? How long would that be, a half\na meter long?\n\nA. About this long (indicating).\n\nQ. That will be about a half a meter?\n\nA. Yes, about a half a meter. And then the doctor from the Luftwaffe\ntook this red tube and put it in the gypsy\u2019s mouth and into his stomach.\nAnd then he pumped water down the tube. The gypsy kneeled in front of\nhim and beseeched him for mercy but that doctor had none.\n\nQ. Witness, during the experiments was your temperature taken?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Who took your temperatures?\n\nA. There were two Frenchmen, one tall thin and one short blond one; and\nthey took the temperatures and the doctor from the Luftwaffe took the\ntemperatures, too.\n\nQ. When you say \u201cthe doctor from the Luftwaffe\u201d you mean the man you\nreferred to as the \u201cprofessor.\u201d The professor and the doctor from the\nLuftwaffe are the same or are they two different people?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. I see. Thank you. Now, who performed the liver punctures?\n\nA. The doctor from the Luftwaffe carried out the liver punctures\nhimself. Some people were given liver punctures and at the same time a\npuncture in the spinal cord. The doctor from the Luftwaffe did that\nhimself. It was very painful. Something ran out at the same time at the\nback. It was water or something\u2014I don\u2019t know what it was.\n\nQ. Well, did you receive a liver puncture?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did the professor tell you for what reason he gave you that liver\npuncture?\n\nA. The doctor from the Luftwaffe came to me and said, \u201cNow,\nHoellenrainer, it\u2019s your turn.\u201d I was lying on the bed. I was very weak\nfrom this water and from not having anything to eat. He said, \u201cNow, lie\non your left side and take the clothes off your right side.\u201d I held on\nto the bedstead on top of me and the doctor from the Luftwaffe sat down\nnext to me and pushed a long needle into me. It was very painful. I\nsaid, \u201cDoctor, what are you doing?\u201d The doctor said, \u201cI have to make a\nliver puncture so that the salt comes out of your liver.\u201d\n\nQ. Now, Witness, can you tell us whether or not the subjects used in the\nexperiments were gypsies of purely German nationality or were there some\nPolish gypsies, some Russian gypsies, Czechoslovak gypsies, and so\nforth?\n\nA. Yes, there were about seven or eight Germans and the rest of them\nwere all Poles and Czechs, Czech gypsies and Polish gypsies.\n\nQ. Were any of the experimental subjects ever taken out of the station\nroom to the yard outside the experimental barracks?\n\nA. Yes, at the end when the experiments were all finished; and three\npeople were carried out with white sheets over them on a stretcher. They\nwere covered with sheets but I don\u2019t know whether they were dead or not.\nBut we, my colleagues and I, talked about it. We never saw these three\nagain, neither at work nor anywhere in the camp. We often talked about\nit and wondered where they were. We never saw them again. We thought\nthat they were dead.\n\nQ. Do you know where they were taken?\n\nA. No, I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Well, during the course of the experiments were you weighed every\nday?\n\nA. Yes. We were weighed, too.\n\nQ. Was that every day or every other day?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember exactly.\n\nQ. Well, now, after the completion of the experiments in early September\nwhat happened to you?\n\nA. When we had finished the experiments?\n\nQ. Yes.\n\nA. I told you that already. We were sent to the hospital and the doctor\nfrom the Luftwaffe came and said we were to take our clothes off and we\nlined up and were divided into three groups. The doctor from the\nLuftwaffe said, \u201cNow you will be given good food. You have never had\nsuch good food.\u201d We were given potatoes, dextrose, cookies, milk\u2014\n\nQ. Just a minute, Witness. I am referring to the end of the experiments,\nafter the experiments were all completed. Could you tell us what date\nyour experiments were completed and you were transferred from the\nexperimental station?\n\nA. The experiment lasted, maybe, 4 or 5 weeks altogether. I don\u2019t know\nthe date.\n\nQ. Well, then, they were completed in early September. Is that correct?\nYou arrived\u2014\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, after the experiments were completed did you then return to the\ncamp proper or to the camp hospital?\n\nA. No, to the camp, into Block 22. We couldn\u2019t walk. We all had to\nsupport each other. We were exhausted. I forgot to tell you one thing.\nBefore we began the experiments and we had this good food for about one\nweek, the doctor took us out into the courtyard near the hospital. The\ndoctor from the Luftwaffe came. He had a little bottle in his hand and\nwe all had to line up. There was some liquid in the bottle and he put a\nnumber on our chest. I had number \u201c23.\u201d It burned a lot. Then we went\nback into the block. On every bed there was a number, the same number we\nhad on our chests. One man\u2014but I don\u2019t remember who it was\u2014one of the\ninmates, said: \u201cThat is what they call the death number.\u201d I was pretty\nscared and the inmates said, \u201cYes, that is the death number so that the\ndoctor of the Luftwaffe will know right away who is dead.\u201d\n\nWe didn\u2019t want to go on with the experiments but what choice did we\nhave? We were just poor prisoners. Nobody bothered about us. We had to\nlet them do with us what they wanted. We couldn\u2019t resist. I haven\u2019t got\nthe power to relate everything as it\u2014\n\nQ. All right. Just a moment. Was your bed number \u201c23\u201d?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Then you were considered to be experimental subject number 23?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were you sick during the course of the experiments, Witness?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, after the completion of the experiments in early\nSeptember were you then called in and weighed to determine your weight\nabout 2 weeks later?\n\nA. No, not after 2 weeks.\n\nQ. Were you called in and weighed 1 week after you had completed the\nexperiments? Do you remember?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember. But we were weighed.\n\nQ. You were weighed every day during the experiments?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What I want to know is, were you weighed after the completion of the\nexperiments? For instance, you were weighed every day during the\nexperiments; then the experiments were completed; then you were not\nweighed again for a period of 1 or 2 weeks. Did you get weighed 1 or 2\nweeks after the completion of the experiments?\n\nA. When the experiment was all finished? No.\n\nQ. Well, now after you left the experimental block and went to the camp\nhow long was it before you were able to resume work?\n\nA. A few days. Then we were sent in a detachment to a farm in\nFeldmochingen. We had to work hard and the food was better than in the\ncamp but, you know, if you are a prisoner, what did the farmers give\nyou? A little bread, some soup\u2014but, in any case it was better than in\nthe camp; and then every evening we came back to our block and then we\ngot the regular camp food.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. STEINBAUER: When you were examined the first time you said that you\nhad no previous convictions. Do you maintain this assertion?\n\nWITNESS HOELLENRAINER: No, I have been convicted.\n\nQ. Then why did you lie?\n\nA. I did not lie. I meant from the experiments.\n\nQ. The question was whether before you came to the Gestapo you had ever\nbeen convicted and punished by the police. Nothing was mentioned about\nexperiments at that time. That\u2019s an excuse. Do you admit that you lied?\nIt\u2019s much better for you.\n\nA. No. I did not lie.\n\nQ. Well, you have been convicted?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. For theft?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. For fraud?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. For assault?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. For blackmail?\n\nA. What do you mean by that?\n\nQ. Well, coercion.\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. For using a false name?\n\nA. No. I never used a false name.\n\nQ. You have to speak more slowly. We will come back to that. You were\narrested then for desertion?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You were prosecuted for desertion?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You refused to obey your draft order?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Isn\u2019t that why you were sent to the concentration camp?\n\nA. No, I was sent to the concentration camp merely because I am a gypsy.\nMy brothers were in the war and they came back from Russia and were sent\nto Sachsenhausen and were murdered there, because there weren\u2019t supposed\nto be any more gypsies in the German Army.\n\nQ. What kind of a badge did you wear in the camp?\n\nA. A black one.\n\nQ. You and your wife, too, have stated that you participated in malaria,\nphlegmon, typhoid, and sea-water experiments?\n\nA. No, only this one experiment, no malaria.\n\nQ. Do you admit that you lied to the young doctor who talked to you?\n\nA. No, I didn\u2019t lie to the doctor. I just told him the exact truth. My\nwife and I weren\u2019t allowed to marry. My wife had a child from me and it\nwas cremated in Birkenau. My sister was cremated and both her children.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t get excited. I asked you whether you told the young doctor that\nyou were in four different experiments. All you have to say is yes or\nno.\n\nA. I told the doctor I drank salt water.\n\nQ. Listen, Herr Hoellenrainer, don\u2019t be evasive as gypsies usually are.\nGive me a clear answer as a witness under oath. Did you tell the doctor\nthat you participated in other experiments, yes or no?\n\nA. No. I just drank salt water.\n\nMR. HARDY: Your Honor, the testimony of this doctor is not in evidence\nbefore this Tribunal. I don\u2019t understand what Dr. Steinbauer is\nreferring to.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. STEINBAUER: You said you were in Auschwitz?\n\nWITNESS HOELLENRAINER: Yes.\n\nQ. Were you in the Birkenau extermination camp?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were the gypsies in a big camp there?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Were there women and children there?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you have a wife there?\n\nA. Yes, my fiancee, Ida Schmidt. She was gassed. She was burned to\ndeath. I never saw her again.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t you once beat your wife until the blood spurted out on to the\nwall?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did you ever beat her?\n\nA. No.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. I asked you whether what I have just read to you is true, that you\nwere divided up and your numbers were called out, etc.?\n\nA. We weren\u2019t asked at all. Forty of us were collected together and we\nwere sent to Dachau.\n\nQ. Now, I have to tell you that your countryman\u2014he is from Fuerth too,\ncalled Mettbach\u2014said that he talked to you and particularly said that\nhe wanted to go to Dachau because it was nearer Fuerth than Buchenwald;\nis that true?\n\nA. That might be. I didn\u2019t mind going to Dachau either because my\nbrother lived in Munich.\n\nQ. Then you did go voluntarily?\n\nA. No, I did not.\n\nQ. How does it happen that Laubinger said something else? Laubinger said\nyou were deceived, that is why you volunteered?\n\nA. No, I never volunteered. I certainly wouldn\u2019t volunteer for these\ndeath experiments.\n\nQ. Well, you went to Dachau?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know the old Herzberg?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. You don\u2019t remember the gypsy from Bratislava?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Who was the oldest gypsy?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember.\n\nQ. You were with your comrades for weeks and don\u2019t know their names?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. It is possible that Mettbach did not know all the names then, isn\u2019t\nit?\n\nA. How should I know? I did not have time to ask everybody what his name\nwas.\n\nQ. When the experiments were to begin, did the professor explain the\npurpose? That it was for rescuing people from shipwrecks, and that it\nwas a sea-water experiment?\n\nA. Yes, of course.\n\nQ. Did he explain that you would be very thirsty?\n\nA. Yes, he did first.\n\nQ. And that thirst was very unpleasant?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, the thirst dried out the mouth?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. How can you explain that these people foamed at the mouth?\n\nA. They had fits and foamed at the mouth, they had fits of raving\nmadness.\n\nQ. I am just asking you how there can be foam on a mouth which is\ncompletely dried out?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. You don\u2019t know. Then some became mad?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You gypsies stick together, don\u2019t you?\n\nA. Yes, of course.\n\nQ. Then you must be able to tell me who became mad?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember.\n\nQ. You must know. If a friend of mine\u2014I was a soldier twice\u2014and if a\nfriend of mine had gone mad then I would have noticed it.\n\nA. It was a tall man who was in the first row. He was the first one to\nstart. He became raving mad and had fits and thrashed around with his\nhands and feet. He was a tall slim gypsy.\n\nQ. You said that you were weighed?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Isn\u2019t it possible that after the experiment, when you received good\nfood again and plenty of water, you were re-weighed?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. But then they had a chart showing where you were weighed every day?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Were you weighed standing up or lying down?\n\nA. Standing up.\n\nQ. Were some of the people weighed lying down?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember.\n\nQ. Were the scales ones on which people could be weighed lying down?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. What did these scales look like?\n\nA. Well, they were big scales. You had to stand on it. There was an\nindicator which showed the weight.\n\nQ. The man who had his mouth sealed, did he have a tube in his stomach\ntoo?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember.\n\nQ. Your liver was punctured?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you have a scar?\n\nA. A scar? I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you ever look at your body?\n\nA. Yes. You want to see it?\n\nQ. No. I am just asking you if you have a scar?\n\nA. You mean a little mark?\n\nQ. Have you a little round scar there?\n\nA. I did not look as carefully as that.\n\nQ. Well, do you think you have one or not?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know. I didn\u2019t bother with these camp matters any more,\notherwise I would go crazy. I don\u2019t want to hear anything more about the\ncamp. We suffered long enough.\n\nQ. Witness, do you think you are mad or mentally retarded?\n\nA. No. I don\u2019t think I am mad. I said, I\u2019d very soon go mad if I thought\nabout these things at the camp.\n\nQ. Do you think there is something wrong with you mentally?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. You say you are going crazy?\n\nA. Well, if I keep thinking of that camp.\n\nMR. HARDY: I object to this line of questioning, your Honor.\n\nDR. STEINBAUER: Well, your liver was punctured?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Do you know whether you have a scar, yes or no?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. What was the nationality of the people in the camp who were\nexperimental subjects?\n\nA. Poles and Czechs.\n\nQ. How many Germans were there?\n\nA. Seven or eight, who spoke German.\n\nQ. Were there some Hungarians and Burgenlaender?\n\nA. No. I don\u2019t know.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK[52]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, Doctor?\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Yes, I know shorthand.\n\nQ. Are these your stenographic notes on the back of Document C-23?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal\u2014transcribe them? Would\nthat be too difficult, or would you like to have me give you my\ntranscription of them to aid you?\n\nA. It says: \u201cThe thirst acquires forms which are difficult to bear. The\npatient is apathetic.\u201d\n\nQ. Pardon me, Doctor. It might be helpful if you used this\ntranscription. I have had experts transcribe the notes; and then the\ninterpreters can follow us more readily. I have the English copies also\nfor the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point\nout with transcription as set out in the English\u2014\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy?\n\nMR. HARDY: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe\nthe notes, and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document\ninto evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if\nnecessary, I will give this a document number. I think we will have to\nwait to clarify that point later.\n\nQ. Would you check that transcription, Professor?\n\nA. That is correct, except in the first line it says\u2014\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You have read your own stenographic notes, have\nyou not?\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Yes, and I have compared them with this\ntranscription.\n\nQ. What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes\nas you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read\nthem from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand\ndirect or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read\nslowly, too, please.\n\nMR. HARDY: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop\nat the correction he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy\nand the interpreters can correct the German copy.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: He will call attention to the corrections which\nyou make.\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: \u201cThe thirst assumes forms difficult to endure.\u201d\nThe second version reads: \u201calready unendurable\u201d. My notes do not read\nlike that.\n\n\u201cThe thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there\nquite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically.\nHe takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when\nhe awakes from his somnolent condition.\n\n\u201cThe appearance is very bad and shows signs of a decline. The general\ncondition gives no cause for alarm.\n\n\u201cRespiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent.\n\n\u201cRespirations 25 per minute.\n\n\u201cThe eyes are deeply hollowed\u201d, it should read \u201cdeeply\u201d. Here it says\n\u201coften\u201d.\n\n\u201cThe turgor of the skin greatly reduced.\n\n\u201cSkin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly\nfree.\n\n\u201cThe mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with\ncrusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.\u201d It\nis supposed to read \u201cXI\u201d. Originally it said \u201cXII\u201d and apparently I\ncorrected it to read \u201cXI.\u201d\n\n\u201cSharpened vesicular\u201d, the word \u201cbreathing\u201d is omitted here, of course.\n\n\u201cSharpened vesicular breathing\u201d\u2014that is a medical expression.\n\n\u201cHeart beats very low, barely audible. Pulse weak. Filled. Palpability\nof the pulse worse.\u201d Here it says that the pulse is \u201cfelt\u201d and it should\nbe \u201cfilled\u201d. The pulse is less full.\n\nThen this which is described here as undecipherable reads: \u201cThe cell\nwalls are somewhat thickened.\u201d Here I probably said \u201cmore strongly\nthickened\u201d.\n\n\u201cLiver 2\u00bd-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately\nsensitive to pressure.\u201d\n\n\u201cSpleen soft\u201d is wrong. It says: \u201cSpleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring\nform, slightly enlarged.\u201d\n\n\u201cMusculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively. Calves\nslightly sensitive to pressure.\u201d Then what is described here as\nillegible reads: \u201cIndication of horizontal welt formation strong welt\nvertical formation.\u201d That refers to the reaction of the muscle upon\nknocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt.\n\nQ. Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is\nwritten?\n\nA. It reads here: \u201cMusculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended\nexcessively. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure. Indication of\nhorizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.\u201d Up to this\npoint, that is how it reads in the text; then in order to explain it, I\nadded that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt.\n\nFurther the text continues: \u201cReflexes\u201d with two little crosses, that is,\nthey react strongly. \u201cAbdominal reflexes\u201d, also two little crosses.\n\u201cRomberg\u201d as it says here. \u201cBabinski negative\u201d.\n\n\u201cLeft\u201d\u2014here it says \u201cLeif\u201d \u201cphenomenon\u201d. Here on the left, \u201cphenomenon\nof Becher\u201d. \u201cOppenheim negative\u201d. \u201cRosselimo negative\u201d. \u201cBulbous reflex\nbad\u201d. \u201cTonus of the bulb of the eye bad\u201d. \u201cBulbous reflex\u201d with a little\ncross\u2014that is positive.\n\n[Interruption.]\n\nQ. Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in\nthe sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence,\nwhich states: \u201cHe takes little notice of his surroundings\u201d, has an\nerasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence?\n\nA. No. I can\u2019t see any.\n\nQ. In place of the word \u201clittle\u201d which appears in the present text on\nthe back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for\nthe word \u201cno\u201d and then the word \u201cno\u201d was erased and replaced by the word\n\u201clittle\u201d?\n\nA. I see here that actually something else had been written there;\nprobably at the time I wrote over it. I don\u2019t see anything erased.\n\nQ. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the\nfourth sentence where it states: \u201cHe asks for water only when he awakes\nfrom his somnolent condition\u201d, did another word appear in the same place\nas the character for \u201csomnolent condition\u201d? Did another word appear in\nthe same place as the character for \u201csomnolent\u201d now appears, and can you\nmake out whether or not that other character that has been erased was\nthe word \u201csemiconscious\u201d and has now been replaced by \u201csomnolent\u201d? I\nthink the original character can be well recognized to read\n\u201csemiconscious\u201d.\n\nA. What is legible under here says: \u201cNumb\u201d.\n\nQ. After the sentence that I have just read: \u201cHe asks for water\u2014\u201d\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I did not understand the witness\u2019 explanation of\nthat last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation,\nWitness?\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: The German word \u201cbenommen\u201d, numb.\n\nQ. Numb? Not unconscious?\n\nA. Numb.\n\nMR. HARDY: In the first instance, in the sentence: \u201cHe takes little\nnotice of his surroundings\u201d, is an erasure noticeable there, in that the\nword \u201cno\u201d has been replaced by the word \u201clittle\u201d?\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: Something has been written over.\n\nQ. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has\nbeen written over? Would you point that out to them, Doctor? Point out\nthe character in that sentence: \u201cHe takes little notice of his\nsurroundings\u201d, and point that out, this character here (indicating) on\nthe second line of characters.\n\nMR. HARDY: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.\n\nQ. Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word \u201csemiconscious\u201d\nor \u201cnumb\u201d appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last\ncharacter on the third line.\n\nA. Yes, here (indicating).\n\nQ. Now, after the sentence: \u201cHe asks for water only when he awakes from\nhis somnolent condition,\u201d which is the fourth stenographic line on the\nback of chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been\nerased. This half line had previously contained stenographic symbols but\nthey are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?\n\nA. Yes. Something has been erased here.\n\nMR. HARDY: Your Honors can see the red erasure that has been used to\nerase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is\nstill obvious there.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic\nnotes, the second sentence reads: \u201cThe general condition gives no cause\nfor alarm.\u201d Is that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, throughout your writing of these characters, between each word\nyou usually leave a space to indicate another word, do you not? That is\nvery clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between\neach character signifying words. Is that correct?\n\nA. No. It varies. Sometimes the words are written closer together, quite\nclosely, for example here (indicating).\n\nQ. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, \u201cThe general condition\ngives no cause for alarm\u201d, the word \u201cno\u201d\u2014that is, this character\nhere\u2014does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters\non the sheet have, does it? In fact, the symbol for \u201cno\u201d touches the\nprevious symbol for \u201cgeneral condition\u201d, leaving no spacing. Did you add\nthe word \u201cno\u201d at a later date in a different pencil?\n\nA. No. I do that quite frequently. When something is written above the\nline in shorthand I raise the adjoining sign as well.\n\nQ. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which\nreads: \u201cRespiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent\u201d. The word\n\u201cis\u201d appeared instead of \u201csomewhat\u201d originally, did it not, before an\nerasure was made? Didn\u2019t it read originally \u201cRespiration is flatter,\nmoderately frequent\u201d?\n\nA. It still says so: \u201csomewhat frequent; moderately frequent.\u201d I wrote\nthat twice.\n\nQ. Well, now, how does that sentence read?\n\nA. \u201cRespiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25\nper minute.\u201d\n\nQ. Did the word \u201cis\u201d, the character for the word \u201cis\u201d, appear in that\nsentence before a change was made?\n\nA. Which word?\n\nQ. \u201cIs\u201d\u2014\u201ci-s\u201d.\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Can\u2019t you clearly see in that sentence that the word \u201cis\u201d has been\nerased and in its place the word \u201csomewhat\u201d has been written, the\ncharacter \u201csomewhat\u201d?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. You can\u2019t see that. Did you look at it through the glass, Doctor?\n\nA. In shorthand I write the word \u201cis\u201d\u2014\n\nQ. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word\n\u201cflatter\u201d, didn\u2019t the word \u201chardly\u201d appear originally in place of the\nword \u201cmoderately\u201d? The word \u201chardly\u201d was erased and replaced by\n\u201cmoderately\u201d and then crossed out twice.\n\nA. Here it said \u201ctroublesome\u201d.\n\nQ. It says, \u201crespiration flatter\u201d. It could say \u201chardly frequent\u201d before\nthe changes, couldn\u2019t it?\n\nA. \u201cHardly moderately\u201d it says here. That means: \u201cHardly moderately\nfrequent\u201d.\n\nQ. Has the character been changed at all?\n\nA. I said already originally it read \u201ctroublesome\u201d.\n\nQ. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?\n\nA. It was written over.\n\nQ. And then crossed out?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over,\nthat is now legible, the word \u201cmoderately\u201d or is that the word \u201chardly\u201d?\n\nA. It didn\u2019t read \u201chardly\u201d. It read: \u201ctroublesome\u201d.\n\nQ. Well, which character said \u201ctroublesome\u201d, the one that is legible now\nor the one that has been written over?\n\nA. It is legible; it was \u201ctroublesome\u201d.\n\nQ. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eighth paragraph\nwith the words: \u201cHeartbeats very low, poorly audible,\u201d in that sentence\nhas a character been erased and another one written over? Has the\ncharacter \u201cscarcely\u201d been erased and replaced by \u201cpoorly\u201d? I believe the\nmarks of the original symbol for \u201cscarcely\u201d can still be clearly\ndistinguished, can they not?\n\nA. Yes, that is correct.\n\nQ. Who made these changes, Doctor? Did you make them yourself?\n\nA. Yes, I did.\n\nQ. When did you make them?\n\nA. I am no longer able to tell you exactly when I made them.\n\nQ. Did you make them at Dachau?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did you make them in Nuernberg?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you erase these shorthand characters that appear on the fourth\nline here in Nuernberg?\n\nA. Yes, I did that too.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, Doctor, you have had the opportunity to think over during the\ncourse of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told\nthis Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself\nhere in Nuernberg; are you prepared to tell this Tribunal now just why\nit became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?\n\nA. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I\nchanged these notes before these sheets were handed in, that is, after\nthey had been returned from Professor Vollhardt. I only made some\nchanges in these stenographic notes, and then I told my defense counsel,\nwhom I had not informed about this\u2014this I want to emphasize\u2014I said to\nhim we should withdraw the weight chart, because I was immediately sorry\nthat I had changed something. I originally intended to submit the weight\ncharts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights\nalone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then,\nwhen I had committed this thoughtless action, my conscience immediately\nbothered me, and I told my defense counsel that I should not submit it.\nBut I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the\nreport on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as\nwell as in the temperatures, and especially in the case of the weights,\nthey are definitely the original values, as also in the case of the\nblood pressure. So in what you see here, on the front pages of the\nchart, nothing has been changed since these charts arrived here.\n\nQ. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the\nstenographic notes?\n\nA. Because a person who does not know the condition of thirst would\nreceive a stronger impression of the condition from the description as\nit was here than the actual condition really was.\n\nQ. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor?\nYou may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection\nwith those alterations if you wish.\n\nA. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. As I\nsaid, I only intended to submit the charts to show the weights, and not\nbecause of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am\nof the opinion that from the weight charts one can definitely recognize,\nfirst, how much weight the experimental subject lost; secondly, they\nreveal unequivocally on which days water was drunk; thirdly, they reveal\nclearly that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment there\nwas a gain in weight in the case of all the experimental subjects; and,\nfourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases\nthey had again reached their original weight.\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have\nbeen erased from many of these charts?\n\nDEFENDANT BEIGLBOECK: This erasing of names must have been done before.\nI did not do that here. I did not change anything on the front pages of\nthese charts. It is possible that this already happened in Dachau. I\ncan\u2019t tell you that. It is possible that I erased them later on in\nTarvis. I did not erase them here.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE EXPERT WITNESS DR. FRANZ\n VOLLHARDT[53]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. MARX: Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your\nscientific activities have been and in what special field you have taken\na particularly great interest, and since when?\n\nWITNESS VOLLHARDT: I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfurt and\npredominantly I have dealt with the questions of circulation,\nmetabolism, blood pressure, and kidney diseases.\n\nQ. Which are the German universities where you have been a lecturer?\n\nA. Halle and Frankfurt.\n\nQ. Are you an author of scientific works regarding this special field of\nactivity?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in\nforeign languages?\n\nA. Yes, they have been translated into Russian, behind my back.\n\nQ. Considering the facts you have just stated, it would be right to say\nthat you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad; so\nwould you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have\nreceived abroad?\n\nA. I really have to?\n\nQ. Which foreign academies and foreign societies have you been a member\nof? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because my\nquestions pursue certain purposes.\n\nA. I am Honorary Doctor of the Sorbonne, Paris, of Goettingen and\nFreiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of\nthem, Medical Society at Edinburgh, at Geneva, at Luxembourg. I am an\nHonorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.\n\nQ. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you\nwhether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections\nthey were and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps you\nmight answer the last question first.\n\nA. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America, and when I was\ngiving a lecture in Cordoba, Argentina, before a medical congress, I\nreceived a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my\noffice and the reason given was lack of anti-Semitic attitude.\n\nQ. When was that?\n\nA. 1938.\n\nQ. And since when have you been reinstated and active again?\n\nA. Since 1945.\n\nQ. As a full professor?\n\nA. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of\nFrankfurt.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You\nhave dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of\nkidney diseases. Is that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding\nthe observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst\ntreatment?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nDR. MARX: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this\nexpert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion.\nThere are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor\nVollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility,\nthe one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor\nVollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the\nentire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the\nend I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the\nexpert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is\nentitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number\nof individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject\nchronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that\nwould distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the\nsituation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr.\nPresident, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an\nopinion in the form of a lecture first.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: If counsel would propound to the witness a\nhypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue,\nand if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without\nfurther question from counsel and make his response brief and to the\npoint, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is\nnot fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows,\nwe might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question\nshould cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a\ngroup of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then\nthe witness may answer that question without further interruption by\ncounsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on\ngeneralities.\n\nDR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and\ncarrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert\nopinion on that subject?\n\nWITNESS VOLLHARDT: Yes.\n\nQ. What documentary evidence did you have?\n\nA. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck.\n\nQ. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the\nexperiments. Are there differences between the character of these\nsea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with\nmalaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they?\n\nA. You can\u2019t compare the two at all, because in the case of the\nsea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can\ninterrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a\nshort time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute\ncertainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that.\n\nQ. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing\nthey are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided\nwith certainty or bordering on certainty.\n\nA. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.\n\nQ. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you\nknow of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning\nof the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner\nguarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the\nproblem?\n\nA. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an\nextremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading\nclinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both\nof these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be\ncarried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men,\nvis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger\u2019s idea apparently was\nthat under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would\nsuffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins,\nmight assist the work of the kidney.\n\nQ. Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental\ngroups?\n\nA. I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I\nhave no objection to the entire plan. It was good to add a\nhunger-and-thirst group because we know by experience that thirst can be\nborne less well than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and\nthirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst;\nand that resembles what shipwrecked persons would be subjected to\nbecause they only suffer from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was\nto be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from\nthe beginning that this wonderful discovery would show its value. It\nturned out that groups given sea-water treated according to the Schaefer\nmethod reacted similarly to a group that was subjected to a reasonable\nhunger treatment and did not suffer any great discomfort. In the hunger\ntreatment of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate\nduring the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out\ninnumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where\npeople are made to go without food for 4 weeks, and as long as they get\nwater in the shape of fruit juice, they still carry on well and often\nwith enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer\u2019s group, groups 3 and 4 were the\ngroups that received 500 cc. of sea-water, once without and once with\nWofatit. Group 3 was the one which drank 1,000 cc. of sea-water. That\none could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since\nthe cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable; without\nhis good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That\nsufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course,\nsince a period of 10 days of excellent food before and after the\nexperiment was before them, and since one could assure them with the\nbest of confidence that there would not and could not be any danger.\n\nQ. We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about\nfood, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during,\nand after the actual experiments?\n\nA. Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments\nit was meager, corresponding to that of shipwrecked persons and\nafterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments\nnourishment doesn\u2019t play any part.\n\nMR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the\nwitness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from\nstudying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he\ntestifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates, or what is\nthe basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here?\n\nA. I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied.\n\nMR. HARDY: Thank you.\n\nA. But I don\u2019t attach any importance to the meager food served during\nthe experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have\nsaid we have allotted to others many times.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, when you referred to this examination of\nthe records, state briefly just what records you examined.\n\nA. The original records.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. MARX: Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations\ncarried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution\nof the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and\npreferable to thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily\ncondition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to\ninterrupt the experiments could be ascertained?\n\nDid you get my question?\n\nA. Yes. I got it. I thought that the arrangement of these experiments\nwas splendid from the scientific point of view, and Beiglboeck\napparently devoted himself with tremendous industry and great\nresponsibility to carrying out of these experiments which he had been\nordered to do.\n\nQ. Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a\nprofessor of internal medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for\nmany years on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal\nconsideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a\nposition to recognize any threat to the health of the person before such\na threat could actually become serious?\n\nA. That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal\nmedical man and the great care with which he carried out these\nexperiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility.\nOnly, it\u2019s hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious\ndamage could have occurred at all.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Professor, a little earlier you briefly dealt with the question of\nstarving, of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now\nwant to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of\nseveral days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you\nconsider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid\ncould take place without putting someone\u2019s health in jeopardy?\n\nA. It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst\ntreatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there\npeople have a great deal of water in their system and the water is\nabsorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is\neffected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven, and even more\ndays of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is\nin existence, we would only apply 6 days of hunger treatment. During the\ntime when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there\nwere four women in my clinic, all of whom were there because of high\nblood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53, and 63 years. One had a blood\npressure of 210/100, and 6 days later it had been reduced to 170/100.\nThe third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and 6 days later it dropped to\n180/100. The loss of weight amounted to 3 or 4 kilograms and the\npatients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt\nweak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the\nimproved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent\ndays as being worth forgetting.\n\nQ. Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also\nbe withdrawn?\n\nA. It\u2019s easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry because the\nsupply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude\nsalt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity. Thus,\nappetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely\nbetter to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously.\n\nQ. Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to\nprevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc. are\nadmitted, can you prevent diarrhea?\n\nA. In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if\nyou drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you\nsuffer from constipation.\n\nQ. Yes, but you didn\u2019t quite answer my question. I inquired about the\nindividual doses.\n\nA. Yes, well, I\u2019m trying to say that if you spread it out over a day,\ngiving smaller individual doses instead of giving it all at once, then\nthere isn\u2019t any danger of diarrhea.\n\nQ. Can you describe sea-water as poisonous at all?\n\nA. Absolutely not. There is a trend towards treatment with sea-water\nwhich is increasing, and people drink half a liter of sea-water every\nday for weeks. There can\u2019t be any question of any poisonous quality. In\nfact, people say they feel splendid. The only difference is that in the\ncase of such cures fresh water is administered, too, in the manner of\ntea, coffee, and soup, so that the dehydrating effect of the sea-water\nis counteracted.\n\nQ. Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make\na pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to\nfollow.\n\nHas there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc. of\nsea-water daily was taken and is it to be described as dangerous,\nproviding the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of\ndanger to health?\n\nA. There can\u2019t be any question of there being any danger to health\nduring the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body\nstand up to this continued deprivation of humidity? Sea-water has a\nthree-percent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far,\nwe have assumed that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt\nconcentration. This means that salt will remain in the system,\ncollecting water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no\nimportance, but after 6 or 7 or 8 days, this becomes unpleasant and it\nis to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger. There\nhave been cases of sea rescue when even 17 or more days afterwards\nrecovery was achieved, but I would say that I would never dare to\ncontinue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case\nwith which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the\nsixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the\nquestion.\n\nQ. Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a\nsemipermeable membrane?\n\nA. I don\u2019t understand how one can imagine this. What we are concerned\nwith is the question of how long the human body can survive without\nwater and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the\nwater content of the body and it depends first of all, upon whether\nwater is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell\nliquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which\nbecomes apparent through excess potassium quantities, and this was also\ncontinuously observed and checked during such experiments, and there\nwere no excess potassium quantities such as can be expected after 6\ndays.\n\nQ. Nor would it be right to say that these experiments were not planned\nscientifically and medically, is that correct?\n\nA. Absolutely not.\n\nQ. Could they have been planned differently?\n\nA. I couldn\u2019t imagine how.\n\nQ. Were these experiments in the interests of active warfare, or in the\ninterests of the care of shipwrecked sailors or soldiers?\n\nA. The latter.\n\nQ. In other words, for aviators and sailors who were shipwrecked or\nmight be shipwrecked?\n\nA. Towards the end of the war there was an increase in the number of\npilots shot down as well as of shipwrecked personnel, and it was,\ntherefore, the duty of the hygiene department concerned to consider the\nquestion of how one could best deal with such cases of shipwrecked\npersonnel; that was the reason for this conference. Previously Schaefer,\nas we heard yesterday, had recommended that no liquid should be taken.\nWhen, together with I. G. Farben, he succeeded in eliminating salt and\nbitter salt from sea-water through Wofatit, the problem was really\nsolved scientifically. There were, however, considerable technical\ndifficulties, and it isn\u2019t exactly simple to equip each flier with so\nmuch Wofatit in addition to everything else he has to carry in order to\nprotect him against the danger of shipwreck. That is no doubt why\nEppinger and Heubner were in favor of the experiment, and it was\nunfortunate that Mr. Berka appeared with Berkatit at the same time, and\nimpressed the technicians because his method was more simple and\ncheaper.\n\nQ. Professor, was there any reason to expect symptoms of injury which\nmight appear later than 10 days after the end of the experiment?\n\nA. It was entirely out of the question, even after the seventh day.\nLater injury is out of the question, because the duration of the\nexperiments is too short.\n\nQ. To what do you attribute the loss of weight during such experiments?\n\nA. That is almost entirely the loss of water. As I have already told\nyou, the excess salt supply in the body deprived the body of water. The\nbody must have a supply of water if it is to supply salt. In other\nwords, if the body is not receiving any other water than sea-water, an\nattack on the water held by the body must take place, and therefore loss\nof weight is bound to occur which, however, can be made up very quickly.\n\nQ. What would you say was to be expected in the way of the loss of\nsubstance of the body and how much loss of water?\n\nA. I would say the bulk is the loss of water, but to split this up is\nsomething I consider impossible to do with certainty. You might possibly\ncompare just how much was lost during the time applied by Schaefer when\nthere was considerable hunger and how much was lost in the case of\nBerka.\n\nQ. Does the speed with which the loss of water takes place play an\nimportant part?\n\nA. Yes, of course, a tremendous part. The colored nostras is a\nwell-known example, during which disease the most tremendous loss of\nwater and salt takes place during 24 hours. I knew a case where 10\nliters of water and 150 grams of salt had to be added intravenously\nthrough the veins, the skin, and through the stomach in order to save\nthe life of a person suffering from such an acute loss of water. If, on\nthe other hand, this is spread out over a period of days and if you do\nnot have to expect such a dangerous loss of salt, then the body can\nstand up to it for a much longer period. I might perhaps add that the\nloss of salt is just as dangerous as excess quantities of salt, and also\nin the event of the loss of salt which is always connected with loss of\nwater, considerable losses of weight are suffered. It is well known that\nan expedition on the mountain Monte Rose lost 5 kilograms of salt and\nwater in weight, and that the weight could not be replaced in spite of\nthe addition of water when salt was also added.\n\nQ. Professor, according to the documents at your disposal were these\nexperiments sufficiently well prepared?\n\nA. It was my impression that they were extremely well prepared, and I\nwas particularly impressed by the fact that Beiglboeck had sufficiently\nexamined the participants carefully and had considered the use of three\nof them to be unsuitable since he found a defect of the lungs.\n\nQ. I also want to deal with such preparations\u2014\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I do not think by any stretch of the imagination this\nwitness can testify from the records that Beiglboeck conducted an\nexamination or rejected three experimental subjects. In my opinion it\ndoes not appear from the records, and he can only testify what\nBeiglboeck told him. Unless he can say it does appear in the records, I\nthink it should be stricken.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel has an opportunity of cross-examining the\nwitness at the close of his testimony.\n\nDR. MARX: Professor, would you not say that regulations for these\nexperiments also mean that certain experiments, such as experiments on\none\u2019s self and animal experiments, printed regulations, if you like,\nmust have been in existence or was that true of this case?\n\nA. Yes, a report from Beiglboeck about an experiment carried out upon\nhimself is in existence which describes most efficiently the condition\nin which he found himself during a sea-water experiment, and this\ndescription tallies to the highest possible degree with what my\nvolunteers who submitted themselves to these experiments described. I\nmight deal with that later.\n\nQ. What opinion do you have regarding the experiments which were carried\nout by Sirany in Vienna?\n\nA. There appeared to me to be a lack of critical attitude. I think\nSchaefer had the same impression yesterday.\n\nQ. Are symptoms recognizable regarding the planning of these experiments\nwhich would go beyond the absolutely essential practical purposes and\nwhich would lead to considerable pains or painful feelings or might have\nled to that?\n\nA. Of course it isn\u2019t fun to be thirsty, and that is the major complaint\nin these cases. These people are increasingly thirsty, and they are\ndisappointed to find that drinking sea-water doesn\u2019t decrease but\nincreases their thirst, and towards the end of the experiments there are\ndisturbances of the muscles, and the temper doesn\u2019t exactly improve. It\nis the same in the salt water experiments where there are cramps of the\ncalf because of the lack of water, but the characteristics of that are\nthat these symptoms disappear instantaneously at the very moment when\nthe first glass of water is drunk.\n\nQ. Would you consider it possible that disturbances of the nerve end\nmight appear? Temperature?\n\nA. Temperature doesn\u2019t happen at all, and I can\u2019t imagine there being\ndisturbances of the nervous system at all.\n\nQ. How about fits?\n\nA. In the case of insane people there may appear insane fits, maybe, but\nnot in the case of normal human beings.\n\nQ. If you yourself had been placed in this position, and considering\nyour attitude toward medical ethics, would you have objected to carrying\nout the same type of experiment as was carried out here, if healthy,\nstrong, young men had been at your disposal?\n\nA. I actually did it. Since I was interested in connection with\nsea-water experiments, I called for volunteers among my young doctors,\nand five of them volunteered, among them my youngest son, and they drank\nsynthetic sea-water, having the exact salt content of real sea-water,\ndrinking up to 500 cc.; they got a little food, because they were to\ncontinue on duty during the experiment. The loss of weight varied and\nwas around one kilogram a day. At the end of the experiment, my son was\npretty thin, but after having a cup of tea was fine. Two days later he\nhad regained his lost weight fully. All five participants described the\nexperiment in the same way as Beiglboeck described the experiment\ncarried out on himself. Four of these subjects interrupted the\nexperiment after 5 days. One carried it out for 6 days, and apart from\ncontinuous thirst, he had no complaints. Any serious disturbance or\ndamage is out of the question, and the extraordinary fact was the speed\nwith which all symptoms of thirst disappeared after water had been\ntaken.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, the experiments we were talking about; did they have\na practical valuable aim and did they show a corresponding result?\n\nA. Yes, that is correct. For instance an important observation was made\nwhich Eppinger had expected; he wanted to see if the kidneys did\nconcentrate salt under such extreme conditions to an even higher extent\nthan one expected previously. One thought that it would be something\nlike 2.0 percent but 2.6 or 2.7 percent and record figures of 3.0, 3.5,\n3.6, and 4 percent are shown, so that the fortunate man who is in a\nposition to concentrate 3.6 percent or 4 percent of salt would be able\nto live on sea-water for quite a long period.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, after a question is propounded to you by\nyour counsel, would you pause a moment before giving your answer so that\nthe question may be translated and conveyed and when you begin to make\nyour answer, would you speak a little more slowly?\n\nA. Finally, one unsuspected fact was shown which may be connected with\nthis, and that is that the drinking of small quantities of sea-water up\nto 500 cc. given over a lengthy period turned out to be better than\nunalleviated thirst.\n\nDR. MARX: What do you think of Wofatit generally?\n\nA. It is a wonderful thing.\n\nQ. Is it correct to say that sea-water really assumes the character of\ndrinking water through it?\n\nA. Yes, the only difficulty would appear to be to obtain the drug in\nsufficiently large quantities for a man who is shipwrecked and did not\nhave his luggage; but it is a wonderful discovery.\n\nQ. So, you think that the result of these experiments is not only of\nimportance in wartime, but is also of importance for the problems of\nseafaring nations?\n\nA. Quite right, it is a wonderful thing for all sea-faring nations.\n\nQ. So that both the experiments with Wofatit, as well as the experiments\nmade regarding the symptoms when such a drink was not available, were\nimportant to show, for instance, the result of the consumption of\nsea-water in certain given doses.\n\nA. That is quite correct.\n\nQ. That was only discovered by these experiments?\n\nA. Quite correct.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: On what precisely is your testimony with respect to the\nexperiments by Beiglboeck based?\n\nWITNESS VOLLHARDT: On the records and the descriptions that Beiglboeck\ngave of the experiments.\n\nQ. Precisely what records have you seen of these experiments?\n\nA. The records that the defense counsel had in his hand yesterday or\ntoday.\n\nQ. Doctor, I will have passed up to you a set of records which are\nnumbered from 1 to 44 in red pencil, and I ask you, did you have those\nrecords before you and did you make a study of them?\n\nA. Yes, I had these records, and I asked one of my collaborators who\ntook part in these experiments to read through these records and to make\nexcerpts from them. He happens to be here also.\n\nQ. Who was this collaborator?\n\nA. One of my assistants by the name of Werner. He is in the audience at\nthe moment.\n\nQ. You said something about his having participated in experiments; you\ndon\u2019t mean the Dachau experiments, do you?\n\nA. No. In experiments that I carried out with my students.\n\nQ. Did you personally examine these records at all?\n\nA. I saw them, but I didn\u2019t study every one of them. I left that up to\nthe young man.\n\nQ. And what did the young man do?\n\nA. He gave me a very exhaustive report on them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Your testimony, then, is based upon a summary made by your assistant,\nis that correct?\n\nA. Yes. That is so.\n\nQ. Now what other records were made available to you upon which your\ntestimony is based here?\n\nA. The charts that were filled out in pencil with figures.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, were there any other records that you got which we have not\nheard about, on which your testimony here is based?\n\nA. I cannot say at the moment. I would have to confer with\u2014\n\nQ. I believe that the defense had reports by Becker-Freyseng and by\nBeiglboeck?\n\nA. These were reports on the whole development of the question.\n\nQ. Well, Professor, what sort of reports were they? We have not seen\nthem, you know, and we would like to know on what you are basing your\nopinion before this Tribunal.\n\nA. Descriptions of the whole course that the matter took regarding the\nconference, how the decision was reached, how the experiments were\nplanned, and then Beiglboeck\u2019s report on his own experiments on himself,\nwhich is a very careful description and corresponds exactly to what my\nsubjects experienced when they carried out experiments on themselves.\n\nQ. Did you read and study these experiments carried out by\nBecker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck?\n\nA. Of course.\n\nQ. And they influenced your testimony before this Tribunal; you relied\non them in making your testimony here?\n\nA. From these I had an idea of the situation as a whole; in order to\nform my own opinion I performed experiments myself.\n\nQ. And your testimony here is based in part upon the reports made by\nBecker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck; that is true, isn\u2019t it, Doctor?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And these records made by Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck were not\ncontemporaneous records of these experiments, were they, Professor?\n\nA. I don\u2019t believe so.\n\nQ. They were, rather, essays or reports which they have written up since\ntheir arrest and incarceration; isn\u2019t that true, Professor?\n\nA. That is very possible.\n\nQ. How old a man is this assistant of yours, Professor?\n\nA. Twenty-six.\n\nQ. Twenty-six years old?\n\nA. Twenty-seven.\n\nQ. Twenty-seven years old; has he studied medicine?\n\nA. Of course.\n\nQ. Where did he study?\n\nA. Heidelberg.\n\nQ. Herr Professor, I will ask you to testify from your own memory, and\nif the defense counsel wishes to put your assistant on the stand, they\nare privileged to do so; but I am interested primarily in knowing what\nyou know about your assistant. Now, you did not know he studied at\nHeidelberg until he told you just now?\n\nA. I have 40 to 50 young men at the clinic, and it is impossible for me\nto know of each one where he studied, but I made his acquaintance at the\nclinic. He is a very industrious and intelligent person and for that\nreason I asked him to do this work and take some work off my shoulders.\n\nQ. How long has he been working with you?\n\nA. More than a year.\n\nQ. Working with you about a year, and since that time you have conducted\nthese sea-water experiments yourself?\n\nA. We carried them out shortly before Shrove Tuesday.\n\nQ. Of 1947?\n\nA. Yes, this year.\n\nQ. How did you happen to carry out these experiments; were you requested\nto do so by defense counsel?\n\nA. No. I had been asked very often to interest myself in this matter,\nand I was interested to see for myself the effect of sea-water on the\nexperimental subjects. This was interesting to me because I already had\nconsiderable experience in the field of hunger and thirst.\n\nQ. Were you approached at all with respect to this case before the time\nyou started these sea-water experiments?\n\nA. Yes, that is why I started to interest myself in the matter, because\nI was asked to appear here as a witness, but I carried out these\nexperiments entirely spontaneously, without outside interference and for\nmy own interest.\n\nQ. But the fact that you were approached to come here and testify\ninfluenced your decision to carry out these experiments, is that right?\n\nA. Of course, of course.\n\nQ. And did you make any effort to have these experiments coincide with\nthe conditions which you were told existed in the Dachau experiments?\n\nA. Yes, we made only one distinction in this, namely, that the\nexperimental subjects received roughly 1,600 calories a day, because\nthey were not to interrupt their work. To be sure, as the experiment\nwent on they ate less and less of the 1,600 calories, because thirst\nmade them lose their appetite.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now how many experimental subjects did you use in your experiments?\n\nA. Five of them.\n\nQ. And you say that they were volunteers, your assistants, is that\nright?\n\nA. Yes, they were all doctors, volunteers, and, as I said, also included\nmy youngest son who also happens to be here.\n\nQ. And precisely what happened during these experiments?\n\nA. These persons were assembled in one room, received the same amount of\nsalt each and more or less continued their work. They drank 500 cc. of\nsea-water, and one of them drank 1,000, and they stuck pretty closely to\nthe provisions set down for the experiment.\n\nQ. You say four of them drank 500 cc. of sea-water per day and the fifth\none drank 1,000 cubic centimeters of sea-water?\n\nA. The fifth drank on one day, on the last day I think, an additional\n500 cc. because he was very thirsty.\n\nQ. When did you start the experiments?\n\nA. On the Monday before the beginning of Lent.\n\nQ. And how long did they run?\n\nA. As I said, four broke off the experiment after four days because of\nthe carnival season and one of them stuck it out for six.\n\nQ. Well, you spoke of four days, do you know how many hours they were\nunder the experiments?\n\nA. Five times twenty-four in general and the other one six times\ntwenty-four.\n\nQ. Well, I misunderstood you, or else your testimony has changed; you\nsaid four of the students stayed on the experiments for four days and\none went on for six days. Is that right?\n\nA. No, four did it for five days, four broke off at the end of the fifth\nday, and one stayed until the end of the sixth day.\n\nQ. And you are prepared to testify it was five times twenty-four, is\nthat right, 60 hours [sic]?\n\nA. I would have to check on that for sure in the record, whether it was\nfive times twenty-four or four times twenty-four, or sixteen or\neighteen. Those things didn\u2019t seem very important to me. I was\ninterested primarily in seeing how greatly the persons suffered under\nthe experiments, but the man who did it for six days did do it for six\ntimes twenty-four hours. However, I don\u2019t want to make a statement for\ncertain under oath regarding the number of hours.\n\nQ. Well this little experiment conducted by you, as I take it, had as\nits purpose to find out how much a man suffers, is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You didn\u2019t know that before you conducted this experiment, is that\nright?\n\nA. I assumed that they would be very thirsty, but I wanted to see what\nthe subjective sensations or feelings of the experimental subjects were.\nWhat was most important to me was to know whether these experiments\ncould be characterized as cruel or inhumane or brutal, and if they were\nexperiments which led to a pretty strong sense of discomfort, namely,\nthirst, but did not do any damage to health, that is what I wanted to\nknow.\n\nQ. And your testimony before this Tribunal is based upon those\nexperiments; is that right?\n\nA. No, on both, of course, both on those carried out by Beiglboeck and\non my own.\n\nQ. Well, your judgment was also influenced by what Beiglboeck told you\nabout how much the experimental subjects suffered, is that right?\n\nA. Beiglboeck drew up his own report on his own experiment on himself\nand a general report on whatever complaints the subjects uttered.\n\nQ. What is the experiment that Beiglboeck conducted by himself? You mean\nhe has been undergoing an experiment back in the prison?\n\nA. No, before the experiments began, he carried out a sea-water\nexperiment on himself.\n\nQ. Where did these experimental subjects of yours stay during this\nexperiment? I seem to recall you said they continued their work or\nsomething of that sort.\n\nA. They all stayed in one room where they ate and slept, and this was\ndone to make the conduct of the experiment easier, as they were to\nreceive special rations.\n\nQ. Well, now all five experimental subjects were in one room during the\nwhole course of the experiment, is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And what did they do?\n\nA. They went from this room to wherever they had to work, but they\nreturned to the room for sleeping and eating.\n\nQ. Well, Doctor, we are having great difficulty in really getting a\nclear picture about how this experiment went on. Now you mean to say\nthey carried on their work about the clinic? They didn\u2019t stay in this\nroom the whole time, is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. They actually only ate in the room and slept in the room; is that\nright?\n\nA. That is correct.\n\nQ. Did they leave the clinic at all?\n\nA. I believe that they did not during those days.\n\nQ. But you don\u2019t know?\n\nA. I can\u2019t swear to it.\n\nQ. You can\u2019t swear that they didn\u2019t go to a local cinema during the\ncourse of the experiments for example?\n\nA. No, I can\u2019t swear to that. I just don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. In other words, they had their normal daily life available to them\nduring these experiments?\n\nA. They carried on their daily work and in this case it is perfectly\ncertain that they did not drink any fresh water. They knew perfectly\nwell what the point of the experiment was.\n\nQ. How much food did they get, again?\n\nA. 1,600 calories.\n\nQ. And do you know what the food was?\n\nA. Yes, that is also in the record. It was meat, fat, and what not, but\nI can\u2019t tell you that from memory. However, I could give you the record\nin writing.\n\nQ. In what record? Have we any record on these experiments?\n\nA. Yes. There was a record.\n\nQ. Now, they got absolutely no fresh water during the course of the\nexperiments, is that right?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did they get any other water or fluid other than salt water?\n\nA. No, that was the whole purpose, that they should receive no other\nfluid and that is why they lost their appetite later.\n\nQ. They got no milk and no fruit juices?\n\nA. No, no, that would have violated the whole experiment, and then they\nwould not have lost so much weight.\n\nQ. I can appreciate that, Professor. Where did you get the sea-water\nthat these experimental subjects drank?\n\nA. We manufactured it carefully in the chemical laboratory according to\na chemical analysis of sea-water that can be found in many text books. I\nhave a chemist who was in charge of the laboratory and he made this\nsea-water according to the formula. We couldn\u2019t get any natural\nsea-water for this experiment.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Now, you didn\u2019t keep any of your experimental subjects without any\nwater whatever, did you?\n\nA. Five hundred cc. of sea-water was the liquid they received.\n\nQ. Well, were there not some experimental subjects at Dachau who did not\nget any water at all, sea-water or otherwise?\n\nA. Yes, the first group fasted and thirsted. I have already spoken about\nthat and said that thirst can more easily be tolerated if one is fasting\nat the same time, so that the kidney has as little as possible to do;\nthus the body is able to retain more water.\n\nQ. But you can\u2019t testify to the Tribunal about what pain and suffering\nthose experimental subjects were subjected to, can you? You didn\u2019t run\nany similar experiments yourself?\n\nA. I do not understand you. I carried out these experiments to know what\nsort of suffering the experimental subjects went through.\n\nQ. But you didn\u2019t carry out one where a man fasted for 5 or 6 days\nwithout either food or water. They did carry out such an experiment in\nDachau. So you have no basis to testify about pain and suffering to\nwhich that group of experimental subjects were subjected, do you?\n\nA. I mentioned that at the same time I was having four women fast and\nthirst who had come to the clinic with very high blood pressure and for\nsix whole days these women fasted and thirsted. This so improved their\ncondition that they consequently forgot the unpleasantness involved in\nthe fasting and thirsting. I also mentioned among them one woman who\nweighed only 51.7 kilo, and who lost 3. However, her blood pressure went\ndown from 245/125 to 185/100. I carried out such experiments almost\ndaily in the clinic. That is done by the hundred. And, in the case of\npersons with kidney disease, that is the accepted method so that during\nthe war people from the fronts went through thousands of such hunger and\nthirst cures. I didn\u2019t have to have any control experiment in this; that\nwas furnished daily by the clinic.\n\nQ. And these women went without food and water for 4 days?\n\nA. Six days without food and water.\n\nQ. And what was the result on them aside from their blood pressure? Did\nthey suffer much pain?\n\nA. There is no question of pain in such cases. They simply felt thirst.\nStrangely enough they do not complain of being hungry. The body water\nthat still remains is enough to keep the body metabolism supplied with\nthe necessary chemicals. However, there is a lack of sodium nitrate in\nthe body which, however, can be overcome by giving sodium nitrate. They\nnever complain about hunger, only thirst. Sometimes they complain of a\nfeeling of weakness but fasting for 6 days is nothing very special. As I\nsaid, some people carry out hunger cures for 4 weeks. To be sure, they\ndrink fruit juice during such a long cure. We also make use of it for\ntherapeutic purposes. They will receive fruit juice but that is by no\nmeans so unpleasant as an 8-day long hunger and thirst cure.\n\nQ. And you gave them no compensation for going without food and water\nwhatever? You gave them no injections of any sort?\n\nA. No, no. My whole purpose is to eliminate from the body all the\nunnecessary fluids in the blood so that the blood pressure will drop. I\ngradually bring these people over to a form of nourishment without any\nsalt.\n\nQ. Now you say that four out of five of your experimental subjects broke\noff on the fifth day?\n\nA. Yes. For external reasons only, not because they could no longer\ntolerate it. It just happened that four of the men had dates on the 5th\nday, but the 5th one stayed on until the sixth day and I asked him\nspecifically whether he felt particularly tortured or in pain and he\nsaid no. He said that with the first drink of water he took all\nunpleasantness and discomfort vanished. I observed my son myself. As\nsoon as he drank a cup of tea, he was perfectly all right and 2 days\nafter the experiment he had recovered all the weight he had lost. He had\nlost roughly one kilo a day.\n\nQ. You say these four men had a date on the 5th. You mean they had an\nengagement with a young lady?\n\nA. I do not know what details were planned for the carnival celebration.\nI could simply draw the regrettable conclusion that their interest in\nthe carnival was a little greater than their interest in the experiment.\nBut this does indicate that the experiments did not have a very\ndeleterious effect on them, otherwise they could not have gone to the\ncarnival and enjoyed it.\n\nQ. Well, it might also indicate that they didn\u2019t regard the experiments\nas being very serious and that, even though several men in this dock are\nquite interested in the results of this particular experiment, your four\nyoung assistants didn\u2019t regard it as serious enough to refrain from\ngoing out on a date. Isn\u2019t that about the size of it?\n\nA. I can\u2019t deny that. I wasn\u2019t too pleased by their behavior.\n\nQ. Were these men informed of the seriousness of this undertaking?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. And what reason did you advance to them for undergoing the\nexperiments?\n\nA. Of course, I told them, and they knew, that such sea-water\nexperiments were an issue, but I was perfectly convinced that these\nexperiments could by no means be called inhumane or brutal and\nconsequently we didn\u2019t approach the experiments in too tragic a manner.\nAll we wanted to know was how unpleasant such an experiment was.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_EXAMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL_\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Professor, these subjects upon whom you conducted\nan experiment in your institute were very excellent subjects for such an\nexperiment, were they not?\n\nWITNESS VOLLHARDT: They were characterized by the fact that they were\nmedical men who understood the meaning of the experiment and that I\ncould rely on them. Physically, they certainly were no\nbetter-conditioned, according to the photographs at least, than those\nrather well nourished experimental subjects.\n\nQ. I was not thinking so much of their physical condition, but they were\nmen who were interested in this work, were they not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. The results of the experiment\u2014each upon himself and upon each of his\nassociates\u2014would be interesting to each one, would it not? Is that not\ntrue?\n\nA. I would assume so, yes.\n\nQ. Each one was entirely controlling his own participation in the\nexperiment, was he not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. If, at any time, any one of the subjects felt that the conditions\nwhich he was undergoing in the experiment were becoming too heavy for\nhim, he would have been released from further participation upon his\nrequest, would he not?\n\nA. No doubt he would have reported and he would have said, \u201cI want to\nstep out. This is too much for me.\u201d\n\nQ. That\u2019s what I meant. He would have asked to be released and he would\nhave been immediately released? Well, is it or is it not a fact that a\nhuman being will voluntarily undergo hunger, thirst, pain, discomfort,\nand stand it better when he knows that he is doing it under his own\nvolition with a scientific objective, than a person of equal physical\ncondition will stand such an experiment when, insofar as he is\nconcerned, he has no personal interest whatsoever?\n\nA. No doubt that is correct, and I am perfectly convinced that Professor\nEppinger tried everything he could in order to obtain such volunteers.\nHe was most uncomfortable about the fact that these experiments were\ncarried out in Dachau. He would much rather have seen them carried out\nin Vienna on his own students but, at that time, there weren\u2019t any\nstudents any more. They had all been called up, and medical officers\nwere very scarce so that there was no question of obtaining volunteers.\nHence, in this very tense and difficult time, no subjects could be\nfound, to carry out such a series of experiments as was planned here, in\na hospital or clinic of any kind. It would have been better, more\npractical and more sensible, by all means, if the experiments had been\ncarried out at that time upon medical students, but, unfortunately, that\nwas impossible.\n\nQ. You prefaced your statement, Doctor, by saying that Dr. Eppinger had\nthis sentiment. How do you know that?\n\nA. Because, during the conference, it was mostly Professor Eppinger who\nwas in favor of these experiments being made and, since Professor\nEppinger had earmarked his favorite pupil, Beiglboeck, for the carrying\nout of these experiments, it is a matter of course that Eppinger would\nhave liked nothing better than that these experiments should be carried\nout under his own control in Vienna.\n\nQ. You are assuming that Eppinger would have felt as you would have felt\nunder similar circumstances, is that correct?\n\nA. I know that all those who were interested in these experiments were\nmaking efforts to find places where these experiments could be carried\nout in a military hospital on soldiers or convalescent patients or other\npersons, but, unfortunately, everything turned out to be impossible. You\ncan only imagine the situation if you know how every hospital bed and\nevery doctor was being utilized in this time. That was the final period\nof the war.\n\nQ. You prefaced this last statement by saying, \u201cI know.\u201d Now, how do you\nknow? By any other method than assuming that these gentlemen would have\nfelt as you felt?\n\nA. No. I recollect that I read that in one of the reports, that an\nattempt had been made to carry out the experiments elsewhere and that\none had come across locked doors everywhere. For instance, one had\nBrunswick in mind, I know that by chance, the Luftwaffe hospital at\nBrunswick, and that was impossible. Thus, all inquiries had negative\nanswers.\n\nQ. I gathered from your answer to one of my questions a short time\nago\u2014I would like to return to that subject\u2014that a person of\nintelligence will endure more discomfort, pain, and suffering, pursuing\na voluntary experiment which he knows he can terminate at any moment\nthan a person, probably of less intelligence, would display upon\nundergoing an experiment which he could not stop at his own volition. Is\nthat correct?\n\nA. Well, there is no question but that, for those persons in Dachau, the\nonly bait was the good food before and afterwards and the cigarettes\nthat they had been promised. That was not possible in the case of my\ndoctors. They did it because they were interested and, of course, that\nwould have been by far the best solution if it had been possible.\n\nQ. And, insofar as the subjects at Dachau, if any of them, at any time\nduring the course of the experiments, believed that the pain or\ndiscomfort or whatever it might be called, which they were suffering\nwould not be compensated by cigarettes, or other promises which had been\nmade to them, they would be very anxious then to be released from\nprosecution of that experiment. Is that true?\n\nA. Certainly. That\u2019s why quite a number of experimental subjects\nsecretly drank water, because the strict course didn\u2019t please them too\nmuch.\n\nQ. Well, unlike the experimental subjects in your institute, those\nsubjects would not be particularly interested in the result, would they?\nThey had no scientific interest in the result, did they?\n\nA. No, no. None at all. None whatever.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[47] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947,\npp. 10942-10971.\n\n[48] Eugen Kogon: Der SS Staat; published 1946, Verlag der Frankfurter\nHefte, Frankfurt-Main.\n\n[49] Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck quoted the testimony of the\nprosecution witnesses Stoehr, Pillwein, and Tschofenig and the testimony\nof the defense witness Mettbach who stated that approximately 40 to 50\n_gypsies_ were used for the sea-water experiments and that they wore\neither black or green triangles. Black triangles had to be worn by those\nconcentration camp inmates who were considered asocial and green\ntriangles by those who were considered criminal.\n\n[50] Same as Footnote 49 above.\n\n[51] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 June,\n1 July 1947, pp. 10229-10235, 10508-10545.\n\n[52] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 9,\n10, 11, 12, 17 June 1947, pp. 8666-9028, 9326-9329.\n\n[53] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3 June\n1947, pp. 8400-8493.\n\n 8. EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt,\nRudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng\nwere charged with special responsibility for and participation in\ncriminal conduct involving epidemic jaundice experiments (par. 6 (H) of\nthe indictment). During the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge\nin the case of Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng. On this charge only\nthe defendant Karl Brandt was convicted, and the defendants Handloser,\nRostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick\nwere acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the epidemic jaundice\nexperiments is contained in its final briefs against defendants\nHandloser and Schroeder. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below\non pages 494 to 498. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the\ndefense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for\nthe defendant Handloser. It appears below on pages 499 to 503. This\nargumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 503\nto 508.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HANDLOSER_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Epidemic Jaundice_\n\nFollowing the attack on Russia, epidemic jaundice (hepatitis epidemica)\nbecame a disease of major proportions for the German Wehrmacht. (_Tr. p.\n2707._) In some units, casualties up to 60 percent were reported from\nthis disease. (_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187._) Accordingly, an intensive\neffort was made to discover the causes of and vaccinations against\nepidemic jaundice. Dohmen and Gutzeit of the Army Medical Inspectorate\nand Haagen of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe were among the\ndoctors working on this subject.\n\nDohmen and Gutzeit were attached to the Military Medical Academy and\ndirectly subordinated to Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) The Military\nMedical Academy was, of course, subordinated to Handloser as Army\nMedical Inspector. (_Tr. p. 2740._) Gutzeit was also consulting\ninternist to Handloser. (_Tr. p. 2700._) Dohmen was one of the first to\nisolate a virus which was claimed to be the cause of jaundice. This was\naccomplished by inoculating animals with germs taken from human beings\nsuffering from the disease. (_Tr. p. 2695._) However, considerable\ndivergence of opinion still existed as to whether jaundice was caused by\nbacteria or a virus. (_Tr. p. 3045._) On 1 June 1943, Grawitz, Reich\nPhysician of the SS, requested Himmler to make concentration camp\ninmates available for infection by Dohmen with his virus. He stated that\ncases of death among the experimental subjects were to be anticipated.\n(_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187._) It was not stated whether the deaths were to\nbe brought about for the purpose of performing autopsies (as in the\ncases of the high-altitude experiments), or whether they were to be\nexpected from the disease itself (as in the cases of the typhus\nexperiments).\n\nHimmler consented to the use of eight Polish Jews, who had been\ncondemned to death in the Auschwitz concentration camp, and to Dohmen\u2019s\nconducting the experiments. (_NO-011, Pros. Ex. 188._) The experiments\nwere carried out by Dohmen in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, and\naccording to the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, some of the\nexperimental subjects died as a result. (_NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186._) Even\nthe defense witness Gutzeit, who collaborated closely with Dohmen,\nadmits that Dohmen worked in Sachsenhausen, but stated that this was\nmerely a ruse to avoid turning over the jaundice virus to Grawitz, and\nin reality no infection experiments were performed. (_Tr. p. 2722._)\nGutzeit did not explain, however, why Dohmen, who was in no way\nsubordinated to Grawitz, should have engaged in such ridiculous\nscientific \u201chorseplay.\u201d (_Tr. p. 2758._)\n\nIn weighing the credibility of the testimony of Gutzeit, consideration\nshould be given to the fact that he was a member of the SS himself and\nthat he was closely associated with Dohmen in his work. (_Tr. p. 2760._)\n\nIn June 1944, a conference of experts was called by Handloser for the\npurpose of coordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at\nBreslau and was presided over by Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 7252._) Handloser,\nGutzeit, and Haagen, a consulting hygienist of the Air Fleet, were all\npresent at this conference. (_Tr. p. 2717._) Schreiber assigned groups\nof physicians to work together on jaundice problems. Dohmen, Gutzeit,\nand Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (_Tr. p. 2717._) On 12\nJune 1944, Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign Dohmen to work\nwith him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was commander of the\nMilitary Medical Academy. (_NO-299, Pros. Ex. 190._) Schreiber complied\nwith this request. (_NO-300, Pros. Ex. 191._)\n\nOn 24 June 1944, Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting\nSchreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was\nmaking preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen\nto supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen\nreplied to Gutzeit\u2019s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad\nthat Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated\nthat he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers\nof the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with\nKalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex.\n194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was\nattached to the staff of the defendant Schroeder, stating as follows:\n\n \u201cIn the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and\n my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the\n experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course,\n should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could\n you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain\n the required experimental subjects? I don\u2019t know what sort of\n subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers\n or other people.\u201d (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._)\n\nThe remark about \u201cother people\u201d is an obvious reference to concentration\ncamp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with\nvirulent typhus virus, while the reference to \u201cStrasbourg or in its\nvicinity\u201d, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. (See typhus\nexperiments _supra_.) Herr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder,\nwere well advised on how to procure concentration camp inmates for\nmedical experiments because only a few weeks before Schroeder himself\nhad requested inmates from Himmler for the sea-water experiments.\n(_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)\n\nThe record shows that Dohmen did in fact go to Strasbourg to work with\nHaagen on the direct orders of Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser was\nadvised of this collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2757._)\n\nStill another series of jaundice experiments was planned with which\nHandloser was connected. On 29 January 1945 Mrugowsky wrote to Grawitz\nas follows:\n\n \u201cHauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Dresel, Director of the\n Hygienic Institute of the University of Leipzig, has cultivated\n a virus from persons suffering from hepatitis and succeeded in\n transplanting it on animals.\n\n \u201cIt is necessary to make experiments on human beings in order to\n determine the fact that this virus is indeed the effective virus\n hepatitis epidemica. The plenipotentiary for research on\n epidemics in the Reich Research Council therefore addressed\n himself to me with the request to carry out the above\n experiments.\n\n \u201cI am asking you to obtain authorization from the Reich Leader\n SS to carry out the necessary experiments on 20 suitable\n prisoners who have hitherto never suffered from hepatitis\n epidemica, at the typhus experimental station of the\n concentration camp in Buchenwald.\u201d (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._)\n\nThe plenipotentiary for research on epidemics in the Reich Research\nCouncil who requested these experiments on concentration camp inmates\nwas Generalarzt Schreiber, at the same time commander of Lehrgruppe C of\nthe Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_Tr. p. 5402._) Schreiber\nhad been designated by Handloser for the very purpose of coordinating\njaundice research, and the meeting in Breslau was called to that end.\n\nIn view of this evidence outlined above, it can only be concluded that\nthe jaundice experiments were carried out by subordinates of the\ndefendant Handloser with his knowledge and approval.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT\n SCHROEDER_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS_\n\nIn June 1944 a conference of experts was called for the purpose of\ncoordinating jaundice research. This conference took place at Breslau\nand was presided over by Schreiber. (_Tr. p. 2752._) Handloser, Gutzeit,\nand Haagen were all present at this conference. (_Tr. p. 2717._) Haagen\nadmitted during cross-examination that experiments on human beings were\ndiscussed. That criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates were\ndiscussed is clear from the fact that Schreiber in January 1945\npersonally requested Mrugowsky to make available inmates for hepatitis\nexperiments by Dr. Dresel. (_NO-1303, Pros. Ex. 467._) Schreiber\nassigned groups of physicians to work together on jaundice problems.\nDohmen, Gutzeit, and Haagen were assigned to one of these groups. (_Tr.\np. 2717._) On 12 June 1944 Haagen himself requested Schreiber to assign\nDohmen to work with him. Generalarzt Schreiber at that time was\ncommander of the Military Medical Academy under Handloser. (_NO-229,\nPros. Ex. 190._) Schreiber complied with this request. (_NO-300, Pros.\nEx. 191._)\n\nOn 24 June 1944 Gutzeit wrote to Haagen that he was also requesting\nSchreiber to assign Dohmen to Haagen. He went on to state that he was\nmaking preparations for experiments on human beings and he wanted Haagen\nto supply him with his virus material. (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193._) Haagen\nreplied to Gutzeit\u2019s letter on 27 June 1944 stating that he was glad\nthat Dohmen would be assigned to him as of 15 July. He further stated\nthat he was working with Kalk, Buechner, and Zuckschwert, all officers\nof the Luftwaffe, on jaundice problems and that he had arranged with\nKalk to conduct human experiments with his material. (_NO-125, Pros. Ex.\n194._) On the same date Haagen wrote to his collaborator Kalk, who was a\nconsultant to defendant Schroeder and a specialist on hepatitis (_Tr. p.\n3632_), stating as follows:\n\n \u201cIn the enclosure I send you a copy of a letter from Gutzeit and\n my reply. We must proceed as soon as possible with the\n experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course,\n should be carried out at Strasbourg or in its vicinity. Could\n you in your official position take the necessary steps to obtain\n the required experimental subjects. I don\u2019t know what sort of\n subjects Gutzeit has at his disposal, whether they are soldiers\n or other people.\u201d (_NO-126, Pros. Ex. 195._)\n\nThe remark about \u201cother people\u201d is an obvious reference to concentration\ncamp inmates, upon whom Haagen had long since been experimenting with\nvirulent typhus virus, while the reference to \u201cStrasbourg or in its\nvicinity\u201d, indicates the concentration camp Natzweiler. The witness Olga\nEyer, secretary to Haagen, testified that prisoners were requested for\nthe epidemic jaundice experiments. (_Tr. p. 1759._) Haagen would have\nthe Tribunal believe that he referred to Freiburg and Heidelberg which\nare 60 and 100 kilometers respectively from Strasbourg, while Natzweiler\nwas only a few kilometers away. (_Tr. p. 9579._)\n\nHerr Kalk and his chief, the defendant Schroeder, were well advised on\nhow to procure concentration camp inmates for medical experiments\nbecause only a few weeks before Schroeder himself had requested inmates\nfrom Himmler for the sea-water experiments. (_NO-185, Pros. Ex. 134._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n HANDLOSER_[54]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis_)\n\nThe problem of experiments in the field of hepatitis research consists\nin finding the most efficient treatment of the disease and identifying\nthe virus in order to evolve a vaccine.\n\nDiscussions of this problem were extensive during this trial. The\nindictment on this point applies only when experiments on human beings,\nas understood by the prosecution, such as infection with jaundice germs,\ncould have effects detrimental to health. On this the experts,\nProfessors Gutzeit and Rose, have expressed their opinions. Professor\nGutzeit, as one of the foremost specialists for problems connected with\nepidemic jaundice, on the basis of his extensive practical clinical\nexperience and experiments on his own person, has described the effects\nas follows:\n\n \u201cAs far as I, as clinical physician, can judge, the development\n of vaccines, and of experiments to gain these vaccines, is\n harmless. This harmlessness is shown by the fact that\n spontaneous outbreaks of jaundice are not dangerous in\n themselves. Like every other vaccine, a potential vaccine which\n is being developed for or against hepatitis may cause harmless\n local reactions on the place of vaccination.\u201d\n\nFurthermore he said, \u201cit (epidemic jaundice) is a harmless disease\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 2761_); \u201cit has no damaging after-effect on the liver.\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 2763._) Professor Rose has expressed his expert opinion\nin the following words: \u201cHepatitis epidemica as such is not considered a\ndangerous disease by hygienists.\u201d (_German Tr. pp. 5433, 5434._) Then he\ncontinues that naturally, just as in the case of a nasal cold, so in the\ncase of hepatitis, complications may arise as after-effects, \u201cbut no one\nwould consider hepatitis as a dangerous disease for that reason.\u201d\n(_German Tr. p. 6454._) As to the experiments, Professor Rose says:\n\n \u201cIn Germany, experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried\n out by Eppinger, Vogt, Esser, and Lembel and no incidents\n occurred. All experiments took place without ill effects. This\n is, of course, very limited experimental material, but material\n concerning hundreds of cases which permit a more accurate\n judgment has been published in England and America. Up to date I\n have knowledge of about 60 experiments on human beings for\n hepatitis and no single incident has been reported yet.\u201d\n\nThe prosecuting counsel furnished no proof in this trial that infection\nexperiments with jaundice organisms on unwilling persons took place at\nall in the concentration camps. Whereas in the case of the other facts\nthe prosecution produced medical records or a witness to prove that such\nexperiments had been carried out, this was not possible with regard to\nepidemic jaundice. Proof was limited to the presentation of documents\nwhich one must admit might have given any layman, or even a doctor who\nwas not a hygienist or a clinical physician, the impression that the\nexperiments in question must have been dangerous. The letter of Dr.\nGrawitz dated 1 June 1943 to Himmler (_NO-010, Pros. Ex. 187_) contains\nthe sentence, \u201cWe must expect deaths.\u201d\n\nAccording to the expert opinions expressed by Rose, Gutzeit, and Hoering\nthis view is incorrect and incomprehensible. The experts exclude in\npractice all possibility of death. Rose declares (_German Tr. p. 6455_):\n\n \u201cGrawitz, who had only concerned himself for years with the\n business of administration, did not have sufficient\n understanding of the matter,\u201d or \u201cthat he was cautious to an\n exaggerated degree * * *.\u201d\n\nProfessor Gutzeit (_German Tr. p. 2764_) says of Document NO-010,\nProsecution Exhibit 187:\n\n \u201cThe only way I can explain it to myself is that Grawitz himself\n was not sufficiently informed about this jaundice, the course of\n the disease, and its danger. Certainly Grawitz was no specialist\n on this matter, this jaundice, and has for a considerable time\n been out of touch with practical medicine.\u201d\n\nProfessor Gutzeit gives the mortality figure for jaundice as less than\n0.1 percent; finally he declares (_German Tr. p. 2762_) that severe pain\nand suffering, such as mentioned in the indictment, do not occur when a\npatient is injected with jaundice organisms. A layman can also\nunderstand that over-injection can only produce at the most the disease\nitself, the effects of which have already been represented as harmless.\n\nAs already stated, the prosecution furnished no concrete assertions that\nthe intended experiments were made in Sachsenhausen. Here we are\nspeaking of the time from June 1942. At this time Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen\nwas allowed to work in the concentration camp at Sachsenhausen in\naccordance with permission given by Himmler. Professor Gutzeit worked\ntogether with Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen insofar as he conducted the hepatitis\nresearch work from the clinical side, while Dr. Dohmen was occupied with\nbasic bacteriological research, in the Robert Koch Institute where he\nwas stationed at the time in question and worked under Professor\nGildemeister. Evidence was given by Professor Rose (_German Tr. p.\n6468_) and Dr. Lentz. (_Rose 16, Rose Ex. 12._)\n\nAs a result of the mutual exchange of experience which took place, we\nmust assume that Professor Gutzeit was informed about Dohmen\u2019s research\nwork in this field. Gutzeit also testified upon oath what Dohmen had\nreported to him about his activity in Sachsenhausen. According to this,\nDohmen was only able to escape pressure from Himmler and Grawitz to\nleave him his breeding stocks by apparently acceding to the offer that\nhe should conduct experiments in Sachsenhausen, but in actual fact\nundertaking experiments only on prisoners of concentration camps which\ncould be carried out without any risk of bodily harm or loss of life.\n\nIn like manner the prosecution was obliged to furnish proof with regard\nto the experiments asserted to have been made on concentration camp\nprisoners in Natzweiler. The only witness provided by the prosecution\nfor this, a woman by the name of Eyer, did _not_ confirm what the\nprosecution affirmed, namely that experiments intended by Professor\nHaagen in the research into hepatitis had been carried out in the\nconcentration camp at Natzweiler. (_German Tr. p. 1765._)\n\nDr. Cording testified in an affidavit submitted by Professor Rose:\n\n \u201cFor my training in the study of hygiene and bacteriology I was\n detailed in February 1944 to the Hygiene Institute of Strasbourg\n University where I was engaged, until the military occupation of\n the town on 23 November 1944, almost exclusively on work\n connected with hepatitis (series of inoculations of mice and\n proof of virus in the organs of mice) under Professor Haagen.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cIt did not come to my ears that during the time I was in\n Strasbourg experiments with hepatitis were made on human beings\n within the framework of this cooperation. In the middle of July\n 1944 Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen went from Giessen to visit Professor\n Haagen in Strasbourg for about 2-3 days. During this time he saw\n for himself in the Institute the results obtained from our\n research work in hepatitis. He confirmed that the results of his\n experiments had been similar but that all his research material\n had been destroyed in an air raid on Berlin. At present he was\n busy in Giessen making a fresh start with his own experiments.\n\n \u201cI know for a fact that Dr. Dohmen was not in Natzweiler during\n the time of his visit to Strasbourg. I know nothing of any\n further cooperation between Professor Haagen and Dr. Dohmen.\u201d\n\nThus it is proved that Dr. Dohmen was not at the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp and did not take part in any experiments on human\nbeings there in this particular branch of medicine. In correcting his\naffidavit (_NO-371, Pros. Ex. 186_) the defendant Rudolf Brandt declared\nupon oath that he had no knowledge that these experiments had been\ncarried out in Sachsenhausen and that some of the prisoners died. In\nlike manner he revoked his evidence concerning the cooperation of Dr.\nDohmen and Dr. Haagen in the Natzweiler concentration camp and declared\nthat no facts were known to him about this. (_German Tr. pp.\n1990-1993._) Finally Rudolf Brandt declared in his affidavit (_Handloser\n11, Handloser Ex. 35_) that no facts were known to him from which could\nbe deduced that the defendant Handloser had any knowledge of the\nexperiments in Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.\n\nIf one also takes into consideration Professor Gutzeit\u2019s testimony that\nProfessor Handloser had reported nothing about Dohmen working in the\nconcentration camp in Sachsenhausen or of his activity there, the\nfollowing emerges: Professor Handloser\u2019s answer is correct that he had\nno knowledge that experiments with epidemic jaundice were conducted on\nhuman beings in the concentration camps of Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.\n\nOn the other hand Professor Handloser declares that he had a\nconsiderable interest in the hepatitis research work, as it is also\nestablished that not only his consulting physician Gutzeit but also\nnumerous other offices had concerned themselves with hepatitis research.\nProfessor Handloser gave reasons, confirmed by Professor Gutzeit, why\nhe, as medical officer responsible for the management of health matters\nin the army, had the duty to give importance to the research in order to\nfind out what caused epidemic jaundice. As far as Handloser knew, this\nresearch was carried out in accordance with recognized medical practice,\ni. e., by experiments on animals and on the persons of the experimenters\nthemselves; likewise by unobjectionable clinical examinations of human\nbeings.\n\nThis also emerges from the hepatitis meeting of June 1944 in Breslau.\nProfessor Gutzeit also reported about this meeting and declared upon\noath that six or seven different hepatitis research workers had given\nreports on their experiments and the results obtained. Nothing was said\nabout experiments on human beings. From this Professor Handloser, who\ntook part in the meeting which included the military and civilian\nsector, must have gained the impression that research into hepatitis was\nconducted in a generally recognized medical fashion.\n\nAs it could not be established at this meeting whether the organisms\nbred by the various offices were identical, or whether it was a question\nof different viruses (_German Tr. p. 2737_), the suggestion made by\nGeneralarzt Dr. Schreiber, who as the delegate of the Reich Research\nCouncil for the combat of epidemics was the chairman of the meeting, was\nto the point and served the purpose. His suggestion was that various\nworking groups for hepatitis research be formed in order that results\nobtained on each side might be compared. On both direct and\ncross-examination, Professor Gutzeit gave a convincing explanation for\nhis letter of 24 June 1944 (_NO-124, Pros. Ex. 193_), in which he speaks\nof the experiments \u201c_crucis ad hominem_.\u201d He declared that he had\nprepared with his students and candidates a vaccination with the virus\nmaterial placed at his disposal in Breslau. (_German Tr. pp.\n2739-2740._)\n\nDr. Dohmen\u2019s visit to Strasbourg, which was requested by Haagen, was to\nhave been made in compliance with the suggestion of Dr. Schreiber to\nform a circle of research groups.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\n Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page\n NO-371 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 14 503\n October 1946, concerning experiments to\n determine the cause of epidemic jaundice.\n NO-011 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, 16 June 1943, 504\n concerning epidemic jaundice experiments\n at concentration camp Sachsenhausen.\n NO-299 190 Letter from Haagen to Schreiber, 12 June 505\n 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice\n experiments.\n NO-125 194 Copy of letter from Haagen to Gutzeit, 27 506\n June 1944, concerning epidemic jaundice\n experiments on human beings.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 506\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-371\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 186\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT, 14 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING\n EXPERIMENTS TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE\n\nI, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Experiments to Determine the Cause of Epidemic Jaundice_ (_Hepatitis\n Epidemica_)\n\n3. About the middle of 1943, Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS, wrote to\nHimmler that Dr. Karl Brandt wished to obtain prisoners for\nexperimentation on the causes of a jaundice epidemic. He had been doing\nresearch on this problem with the assistance of Dr. Dohmen, a medical\nofficer attached to the Army Medical Corps and the Robert Koch\nInstitute. Experiments had thus far disclosed that contagious jaundice\nis transferred by a virus and human beings were desired for inoculation\nwith germs which had been cultivated in animals. Grawitz advised that\ndeath of some of the experimental subjects must be expected. He wanted\nto know if Dr. Dohmen could be permitted to carry out the experiments at\nthe Sachsenhausen concentration camp, as desired by Dr. Karl Brandt.\n\n4. Himmler wrote Grawitz that Dr. Dohmen had his permission to conduct\nthe experiments at Sachsenhausen, and for that purpose he had Oswald\nPohl of the WVHA allocate a number of prisoners to be used as\nexperimental subjects. I know that these experiments were carried out\nand that some of the prisoners died as a result.\n\n5. Dr. Eugen Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the\nLuftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation\nagainst epidemic jaundice. As I recall, Dr. Dohmen collaborated with\nHaagen in 1944 at Natzweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings\nwere conducted which resulted in deaths.\n\n6. These experiments were of course well known to Karl Brandt as he was\npersonally furthering them. Handloser and Schroeder must also have known\nof them because Dohmen and Haagen were doctors in the Medical Services\nof the Army and the Luftwaffe respectively. Generalarzt Paul Rostock was\nalso well informed on all research work of this nature.\n\nI have read the above statement in German, consisting of two (2) pages,\nand it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I\nhave had the opportunity to make any changes and corrections in the\nforegoing statement. This statement was given by me freely and\nvoluntarily, without promise of reward and I was subjected to no duress\nor threat of any kind.\n\n [Signed] R. BRANDT\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-011\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 188\n\nNOTE FROM HIMMLER TO GRAWITZ, 16 JUNE 1943, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE\n EXPERIMENTS AT CONCENTRATION CAMP SACHSENHAUSEN\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nDay Book No 1652/43, RF/BN\n\n XIa-/-43\n Field H. Q., 16 June 1943\n\nSubject: Investigation of the cause of the infectious jaundice\n(hepatitis epidemica)\n\nReference: Yours of 1 June 1943\u2014Az.: 420/IV/43\u2014Diary No. 6/43 g.Kdos.\n\n Top Secret\n\nReich Physician SS and Police 4 Copies\nBerlin 3d Copy\n\nI acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 1 June 1943.\n\n1. I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight Jews of\nthe Polish resistance movement condemned to death) should be used for\nexperiments.\n\n2. I agree that Dr. Dohmen should make these experiments in\nSachsenhausen.\n\n3. I agree with your opinion that a real fight against infectious\njaundice would be of unheard [of] value.\n\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER.\n\n2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl,[55] Berlin\n\nCarbon copy forwarded with request that you will duly note.\n\n [Signature] SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-299\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 190\n\n LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO SCHREIBER, 12 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC\n JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS\n\n 12 June 1944\n\nGeneralarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber\nAcademy of Military Medicine\nBerlin NW\n\nDear Generalarzt:\n\nEnclosed I am sending you my hepatitis report for further use. At the\nsame time I would like to use this opportunity to renew my invitation to\nStabsarzt Dohmen. Since I do not know his present address, may I direct\nthis invitation to you and suggest that Dr. Dohmen be assigned to me for\nseveral weeks so that we may discover and possibly work on questions we\nhave in common. This would probably be the quickest way to determine\nwhether we have the same virus or not. A satisfactory date for Dohmen\u2019s\nvisit to begin would be 15 July.\n\nAt the same time I should like to approach the subject of your\nnegotiations for mice. My supplies, and particularly my cultures, are so\ndepleted that they absolutely must be rejuvenated and refilled. You told\nme in Hohenlychen that it is possible for you to secure mice, even in\nlarge numbers. May I ask you to endeavor to secure for me several\nthousand mice of both sexes, preferably only young animals.\n\nThirdly I would like to ask whether the hepatitis research will be\ncarried on in future out of funds of the Reich Research Council? My\nfunds for this branch are now exhausted and I am faced with the question\nas to whether to apply for further funds to my Medical Chief of the\nLuftwaffe or to you. I would be grateful to you to be informed about\nthis shortly.\n\n With kindest greetings and compliments,\n Heil Hitler!\n Very devotedly yours,\n [Signed] HAAGEN\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-125\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 194\n\nCOPY OF LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO GUTZEIT, 27 JUNE 1944, CONCERNING EPIDEMIC\n JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS\n\nOberstabsarzt Professor Dr. E. Haagen,\nConsulting Hygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich\n\n Strasbourg, 27 June 1944\n\nTo: Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Gutzeit\nConsulting Physician to the Army Medical Inspector,\nMedical Clinic of University of Breslau, Hobrechtufer 4\n\nMy dear colleague Gutzeit,\n\nMany thanks for your letter of 24/6/44. I am glad that Herr Dohmen will\ncome here on 15 July. We shall then review all common hepatitis\nquestions and perhaps also set up the experiments together.\n\nI cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human\nexperiments. As you know, I am working with Herr Kalk, Herr Buechner,\nand Herr Zuckschwert. Naturally, I have already arranged with Herr Kalk\nthat we shall undertake that type of experiment with our material. I\nmust therefore first determine the point of view of the others\nconcerned.\n\nI shall be very glad to begin work on the nephritis material from your\nOberstarzt K (?) [sic].\n\n With best greetings,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[56]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: The indictment mentions experiments with hepatitis. A\nletter from Grawitz to Himmler says that you furthered these\nexperiments. Did you yourself do any clinical work on this question?\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I never did any work in connection with hepatitis\nepidemica, for that would have been during the war, as before the war\nthis disease was not given much importance in Germany. During the war I\ndid not deal with this question because I was too busy with other\nthings, and also because such a purely internal disease, although\nperhaps of interest to the hygienist, was relatively uninteresting to me\nas a surgeon.\n\nQ. Did you allocate research assignments on this subject? How about Dr.\nDohmen?\n\nA. I do not know why I should have given a research assignment to Dr.\nDohmen. Of course the question of hepatitis was a question which\ninterested everyone, for it was encountered everywhere in the East. But,\nfor that reason I would not have given special attention to that\ndisease. It had no relation to other things which were of more interest\nto me as a surgeon. I know the letter. I was told about it last year. I\nsaw it here again for the first time this year. It says that I had asked\nGrawitz to have special hepatitis work carried out by Dr. Dohmen. Dr.\nDohmen, the letter goes on, was to obtain seven or eight prisoners for\nthat purpose and the lives of these prisoners would be endangered. It is\nnot clear to me in what connection, and for what reason, my name was\nmentioned as the instigator of hepatitis research, for in all the rest\nof the correspondence, and in all the other documents, there is not even\nthe slightest hint that I had any particular interest in this question,\nor that I was so interested that I would have started the research. I\nnever really knew that the experiments were actually carried out, and I\nnever received any report of results. There are indications contrary to\nthe sense of this letter, especially when it says these experiments are\nto be carried out on persons condemned to death. Hepatitis epidemica is\nnot a disease as dangerous as all that. I have inquired meanwhile, and\nknow that compared with malaria, for example, it is only about a fifth\nor a tenth as dangerous. I have already discussed today my relationship\nwith Himmler and with Grawitz. I did not invent that; that was actually\nthe truth. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that in all the\ncorrespondence concerning hepatitis, one year later, after the first\nletter failed to have the desired effect, Professor Schreiber sought a\nway to approach Himmler in order to have hepatitis research work\ncontinued.\n\nSchreiber was the deputy for epidemic control in the Reich Research\nCouncil, so that I may assume that, for some reason which is not quite\ndear to me, Grawitz possibly confused Schreiber and me in the first\nletter. That is conceivable. The letter is dated 1 June 1943. A short\ntime before that there was a meeting of the Military Medical Academy,\nand probably Grawitz, who was present, talked to Schreiber as well. In\nany case I am not able to give any information about this question of\nhepatitis, and certainly not about any experiments which actually took\nplace. I have no information; I received no report; and I have not heard\nfrom any other source even now that these experiments were really\nconducted. It seems to me significant that the witness Schmidt, who was\nheard here, testified that the experiments were certainly not conducted\nin Strasbourg, as Dohmen, who wanted to conduct them, was there for only\ntwo or three days himself.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[54] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14-15 July 1947,\npp. 10818-10849.\n\n[55] Defendant in Case of United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See\nVol. V.\n\n[56] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5,\n6, 7 Feb. 1947, pp. 2301-2661.\n\n 9. TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken,\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose,\nBecker-Freyseng and Hoven were charged with special responsibility for\nand participation in criminal conduct involving typhus experiments (par.\n6 (J) of the indictment). In the indictment, \u201cspotted fever\u201d was used\nfor the German word \u201cFleckfieber\u201d, but later this was translated as\n\u201ctyphus\u201d. (_See also judgment, Vol. II._) On this charge the defendants\nHandloser, Schroeder, Genzken, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Sievers, Rose,\nand Hoven were convicted, and the defendants Karl Brandt, Rostock,\nGebhardt, Poppendick, and Becker-Freyseng were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the typhus experiments is\ncontained in the final briefs against the defendants Mrugowsky and\nSchroeder. Extracts from them are set forth below on pages 508 to 528.\nThe extract of the prosecution brief against Mrugowsky summarizes\nevidence concerning experiments with old blood plasma, blood\ntransfusions, and withdrawal of blood from inmates of the Buchenwald\nconcentration camp for the purpose of manufacturing a typhus\nconvalescent serum. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the\ndefense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief\nfor the defendant Rose and the final plea and closing brief for the\ndefendant Mrugowsky. These appear below on pages 528 to 554. This\nargumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 555\nto 631.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_\n\n _Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments_\n\nThe attack against Russia in 1941 gave rise to many military medical\nproblems, not the least of which was typhus. The disease reached serious\nproportions in the fall of 1941, and typhus vaccines were so scarce that\nonly doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel in exposed positions\ncould be given inoculations. (_Tr. pp. 3160-3161._)\n\nOne of the most important problems with respect to the increased\nproduction of typhus vaccines was the effectiveness of the so-called\nCox-Haagen-Gildemeister vaccine, which was produced from egg-yolk\ncultures. The effective Weigl vaccine, produced from the intestines of\nlice, was available, but its manufacture was expensive and complicated.\nThe egg-yolk vaccine was relatively simple to produce but its protective\nqualities were not regarded as having been sufficiently proved.\n(_NO-732, Pros. Ex. 451._)\n\nThe entry for 29 December 1941 in the Ding diary proves that a\nconference was held on that date between Handloser, as Army Medical\nInspector; Conti, of the Ministry of Interior; Reiter, of the Public\nHealth Department; Gildemeister, of the Robert Koch Institute; and\nMrugowsky, of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. (_NO-265, Pros.\nEx. 287._)\n\nAt the conference it was decided that the typhus vaccine from egg yolks\nwas to be tested on human beings to determine its efficacy. On the same\nday an earlier conference was held which discussed the same problem. It\ntook place at the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and was attended by\nBieber of the Interior; Gildemeister; representatives of the General\nGovernment in Occupied Poland; officials of the Behring Works of I. G.\nFarben, and Oberstabsarzt Scholz, of the Army Medical Inspectorate. The\nminutes of this conference state that:\n\n \u201cThe vaccine which is presently being produced by the Behring\n Works from chicken eggs shall be tested for its effectiveness in\n an experiment. For this purpose Dr. Bieber will contact\n Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky.\u201d\n\nSince Mrugowsky was not present at this conference, it is obvious that\nother conferences took place in which this matter was discussed with\nhim, which is corroborated in the entry of the Ding diary referred to\nabove.\n\nAs a result of the decision reached at these conferences, the\nexperimental station in the Buchenwald concentration camp under SS\nSturmfuehrer, later Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding-Schuler (hereinafter\nreferred to as \u201cDing\u201d) was established. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. p.\n1154._) The charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky, among other proof,\nshow that the experimental station in Buchenwald was subordinated to the\nHygiene Institute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky from the date of its\nestablishment until the end of the war. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_;\n_NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.)\n\nIn the beginning of 1943, the research station in Buchenwald was\nofficially called the \u201cDepartment of Typhus and Virus Research\u201d of the\nHygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. The experiments were carried out in\nBlock 46, the so-called Clinical Block, with the exception of a few\nexperiments early in 1942. In the autumn of 1943 a vaccine production\ndepartment was established in Block 50. Both Blocks 46 and 50 were part\nof the Division for Typhus and Virus Research. The defendant Hoven was\nthe deputy to Ding in both blocks. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287; Tr. pp.\n1155-1156._)\n\nCriminal experiments on concentration camp inmates without their consent\nwere carried out in Block 46 to test typhus, yellow fever, smallpox,\ntyphoid, para-typhoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria vaccines.\n\nThe typhus experiments in Buchenwald were carried out on a very large\nscale and resulted in many deaths. The manner of execution and the\nresults of the experiments are proved in great detail by the Ding diary\nand the testimony of Kogon as well as other evidence. The first\nexperiment began on 6 January 1942 with the vaccination of 135 inmates\nwith the Weigl, Cox-Haagen-Gildemeister, Behring Normal, or Behring\nStrong vaccines. All vaccinations were completed by 1 February. On 3\nMarch 1942, all of the vaccinated subjects and 10 inmates who had not\nbeen vaccinated (known as the \u201ccontrol group\u201d) were artificially\ninfected with virulent virus of Rickettsia-Prowazeki furnished by the\nRobert Koch Institute. The experiment was concluded on 19 April 1942.\nFive deaths occurred, three in the control group and two among the\nvaccinated subjects. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_; _Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky\nEx. 20_.)\n\nIn later experiments the number of experimental subjects usually varied\nbetween 40 and 60, but the proportion of control subjects was increased.\nApproximately two-thirds of the experimental subjects were vaccinated\nwhile one-third remained without protection. A few weeks after\nvaccination, all experimental subjects were artificially infected with\ntyphus. The course of the disease was then observed in the protected and\ncontrol groups and the effectiveness of the vaccine was determined.\n(_Tr. p. 1168._) Therapeutic experiments were conducted in the same\nmanner with various drugs. For example, between 24 April and 1 June\n1943, experiments were performed to test the effect of acridine\ngranulate and rutenol on typhus. Of a total of 39 inmates used, 21 died.\n(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._)\n\nArtificial infection was accomplished in various ways. In the beginning\nthe skin was lacerated and infected with a typhus culture. Contagious\nlice were used to a limited extent. For the most part, however,\ninfection was brought about by the intravenous or intramuscular\ninjection of fresh blood containing the typhus virus. For the sole\npurpose of maintaining a constant source of infected fresh blood, 3 to 5\ninmates per month were artificially infected with typhus. The use of\nthese so-called \u201cpassage persons\u201d began at least as early as April 1943\nand continued until March 1945. Substantially all of them died. These\nvictims were so much \u201ca matter of course\u201d that their fatalities were not\nincluded by Ding in his diary. (_Tr. pp. 1168-1171._)\n\nAn analysis of the Ding diary proves that a total of 729 inmates were\nexperimented on with typhus, of whom 154 died. To these figures must be\nadded the passage persons, of whom between 90 and 120 died.\n\nSo much for the cold statistics of the experiments. Block 46, where the\nexperiments were carried out, was a horror for every inmate of the\nBuchenwald concentration camp. Everyone selected for the experiments\nexpected to die a slow and frightful death. The man-to-man passage of\nthe typhus virus created a form of \u201csuper\u201d typhus. (_Tr. p. 1168._)\nWhile typhus normally has a mortality of about 30 percent in unprotected\ncases, in an experiment on 13 April 1943 five out of six persons\ninfected died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) Many of the experimental\nsubjects became delirious. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._) In the experiments\nwith acridine and rutenol, the subjects vomited up to seven times a day.\nBronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, subcutaneous\nphlegmones below the larynx, parotitis, gangrene of the shank,\nfurunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores developed as a result of\nthis treatment. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) Experimental subjects who\nsurvived and had a lighter course of the disease because the vaccine\nwith which they were vaccinated was effective were forced to watch the\ndeath struggle of their fellow inmates. There was an iron discipline in\nBlock 46, the cat-o\u2019-nine-tails ruled supreme, and the experimental\nsubjects were completely deprived of the last vestige of personal\nfreedom which they had in the camp. (_Tr. pp. 1172, 1173._)\n\nIt is hardly necessary to state that the experimental subjects used in\nthe typhus, as well as all other experiments in Buchenwald, were not\nvolunteers. One does not normally volunteer to be killed. In the first\nseries of typhus experiments, a number of inmates were duped into\nsubmitting after being told it was a harmless affair and that they would\nget additional food. They were not informed that they would be\nartificially infected with typhus nor that they might die. (_Tr. p.\n1162_; _see also the testimony of Kogon in Case 4,[57] Tr. pp. 731, 732;\nNO-3680, Pros. Ex. 536_.) These subjects cannot be described as\nvolunteers. After the first few experiments, it was no longer possible\nto deceive inmates into offering themselves for the experiments.\nThereafter, up until about the fall of 1943, experimental subjects were\nchosen arbitrarily from among the inmates, whether criminals, political\nprisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves\nsometimes played a role in the selection. In the fall of 1943, the camp\nadministration no longer desired to take the responsibility for the\nselection of the experimental subjects. Ding no longer was satisfied\nwith verbal orders from Mrugowsky to carry out the experiments and he\nasked for written orders. He approached Mrugowsky with the request that\nthe Reich Leader SS should appoint the experimental subjects. According\nto a directive from Himmler to Nebe of the Reich criminal police, only\nthose inmates were to be used who had been confined for 10 years or\nmore. Thereafter, most of the experimental subjects were habitual\ncriminals, many of whom were transported to Buchenwald from other camps.\nBut political prisoners were still included because they were in\ndisfavor with the camp administration or because of camp intrigues. None\nof the experimental inmates had been condemned to death, except a few\nRussian prisoners of war who had not been tried or sentenced. They were\nfrom some 9,500 Russian prisoners of war who were killed in Buchenwald.\nThe experimental subjects were generally in good physical condition.\n(_Tr. pp. 1162, 1163._) The experimental subjects included not only\nGermans, but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen, as well as prisoners\nof war. The testimony of Kogon is applicable not only to the typhus\nexperiments but to the other experiments in Buchenwald as well. (_Tr. p.\n1167._)\n\nThis testimony of Kogon is corroborated by the letter from Himmler to\nthe Chief of the Security Police dated 27 February 1944. He said:\n\n \u201cI agree that professional prisoners be taken for experiments\n with the typhus vaccine. But only those professional criminals\n should be chosen who have served more than ten years in prison;\n that is, not with ten prior convictions but with a total penalty\n of ten years.\n\n \u201cSS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe is to supervise the disposal of these\n inmates. I don\u2019t wish the physician to pick out inmates without\n my counter-control.\u201d (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._)\n\nThe same document shows that Mrugowsky received a copy of this decision\non change in procedure and that it had been arrived at after a\nconference between Mrugowsky and Nebe.\n\nThe testimony of Kogon is further corroborated by the witness\nKirchheimer (_Tr. pp. 1321-1332_) and the affidavit of Hoven. (_NO-429,\nPros. Ex. 281._)\n\nThe defense has contested the authenticity of the Ding diary. It is\nimpossible to determine from the record precisely what their position is\nin that regard. That the diary does not consist of entries made day by\nday is obvious from the face of the document itself. It is rather a\ndocument which periodically summarizes the experiments which in many\ncases lasted several months. Ding also kept a daily diary and work\nreports. (_Tr. p. 1226._) These obviously form the basis of the diary in\nevidence. The defense lays great stress on the fact that page one of the\ndiary was typed with an older ribbon than pages two et seq., and hence\nwas probably typed later. The prosecution has no quarrel with that.\nKogon gave the very obvious explanation that the page was probably\nre-typed when the name of the experimental station was designated as the\n\u201cDepartment for Typhus and Virus Research\u201d. (_Tr. p. 1228._) At best,\nthe reasons for re-typing pages are now a matter of sheer speculation.\nNo valid inference can be drawn from that fact alone. The Ding diary was\ntaken by Kogon from Buchenwald. It was in his exclusive possession until\ndelivered to the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. He testified\nthat he did not alter the document in any respect and that the\nsignatures of Ding, and later Schuler, are genuine. (_Tr. pp.\n1164-1166._) He had no motive for changing the diary. The document was\nauthenticated by the prosecution as being in the same condition as when\nreceived.\n\nThe experts of the defense established that the document was written on\nthe same typewriter with the same kind of paper. Mrugowsky admitted that\nDing\u2019s signature is on substantially all of the pages of the diary.\n(_Tr. p. 5410._) There is no contention they have been forged. A\ncomparison of the admittedly genuine signature of Ding on a vaccination\nchart (_NO-578, Pros. Ex. 284_), and of Schuler on an affidavit signed\nby him after the war (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_), with the signatures of\nDing-Schuler in the diary prove beyond any doubt that the signatures are\nauthentic.\n\nThe defense has not established a single inaccuracy in the Ding diary.\nThe prosecution, on the other hand, has proved the detailed accuracy of\nthe diary time and again by the introduction of independent documents.\nIt will suffice to cite a few examples. The work report of the \u201cDivision\nfor Typhus and Virus Research\u201d for the year 1943, which was sent to\nMrugowsky, substantiates the corresponding entries in the diary in every\ndetail. (_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) The paper written by Ding on the\ntreatment of typhus with acridine derivatives, approved by Mrugowsky,\nchecks to the last detail with the experiment reported by the entries in\nthe diary for 24 April and 1 June 1943. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._)\nMrugowsky\u2019s letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti, Grawitz, Genzken,\nGildemeister, Eyer, and Demnitz reporting on a typhus vaccine experiment\nis in fact a description of the first experimental series in Buchenwald\nas given in the diary. This was a document submitted by the defense.\n(_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) Mrugowsky admitted he was reporting\non that experiment. (_Tr. p. 5414._) The entry in the diary for 19\nAugust 1942 concerning the testing of the Bucharest [Cantacuzino]\nvaccine made available by Rose, is corroborated by Mrugowsky\u2019s letter to\nRose, dated 16 May 1942, asking for the vaccines. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex.\n491._) The entry for 8 March 1944 concerning the experiments with the\nIpsen [Copenhagen] vaccine, which the diary shows were suggested by\nRose, is substantiated by Rose\u2019s letter to Mrugowsky of 2 December 1943\n(_NO-1186, Pros. Ex. 492_), and by Lolling\u2019s letter to Grawitz of 14\nFebruary 1944. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470_; _see also, NO-1189, Pros. Ex.\n471_.) The yellow fever vaccine experiments reported in the diary on 10\nJanuary 1943 are dealt with in a letter from the Behring Works to\nMrugowsky dated 5 January 1943. (_NO-1305, Pros. Ex. 469._) The\nphosphorus bomb experiments are noted in the Ding diary under the dates\nof 19 to 25 November 1943. The report on these experiments dated 2\nJanuary 1944 shows the burning of inmates began on 19 November and ended\non 25 November 1943. (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288._) As to the conference\nheld on 29 December 1941 reported in the Ding diary, Mrugowsky made the\nfollowing statement in a pre-trial interrogation: \u201cI remember that\nmeeting and it occurred to me that there were present Schreiber,\nGildemeister, Ding, and myself.\u201d Mrugowsky admitted in open court having\nmade such a statement. (_Tr. p. 5380._)\n\nThe above analysis of the authenticity and accuracy of the Ding diary,\nwhile not exhaustive, suffices to show that the defense objection to\nthis document is completely without merit. There is scarcely a line in\nthe whole diary which has not been substantiated either by documents or\ntestimony. The diary must be accepted as accurate in its entirety. There\nis no basis whatever for accepting some entries and rejecting others.\nThe defense has presented no credible evidence of _any_ inaccuracies.\nThe living record of the deceased Ding is the best evidence of what\nactually happened.\n\nOther vaccine experiments were carried out in the experimental station\nin Buchenwald. On request of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army,\nyellow fever vaccine containing a live virus was tested in a large-scale\nexperiment on inmates which began on 10 January 1943. The arrangements\nwere made by Schreiber through the defendant Mrugowsky. (_NO-1305, Pros.\nEx. 469._) A very large number of inmates were vaccinated between 13\nJanuary and 17 May 1943 at which time production of the yellow fever\nvaccine was abandoned because of the military situation in North Africa.\nThe results of these experiments were sent to Amt XVI in the SS\nOperational Headquarters, which was the hygiene office under Mrugowsky,\nand to the Army Medical Inspectorate. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)\n\nIn the first part of 1943, Mrugowsky conferred with Handloser concerning\nmultiple vaccinations. (_Tr. p. 3064._) There can be no doubt that this\nwas the motivation for the large scale vaccination experiments on 45\ninmates of Buchenwald between 24 March and 20 April 1943, as set forth\nin the Ding diary. Each person was vaccinated on eight different days\nwithin four weeks against smallpox, typhoid, typhus, para-typhoid A and\nB, cholera, and diphtheria. The report on these experiments was sent to\nMrugowsky\u2019s office. Kogon testified that the experimental subjects were\ngiven para-typhoid bacilli in potato salad. He also stated that the\nexperiments in Buchenwald with diseases other than typhus resulted in\ndeaths, although relatively fewer. (_Tr. pp. 1182, 1183._)\n\nMrugowsky would have the Tribunal believe that he is in no way\nresponsible for the experiments carried out by Ding and Hoven in the\nBuchenwald concentration camp. He testified, in effect, that Ding was\ndirectly subordinated to Grawitz as far as the experiments were\nconcerned. (_Tr. p. 5067._) While he did admit that Ding was\nsubordinated to him for purposes of vaccine production in Block 50 in\nBuchenwald, he said he had nothing whatever to do with the experiments\ncarried out in Block 46. The same contention was made by the defendant\nGenzken. Mrugowsky testified that he was outraged by the idea of\nexperimenting on human beings since he was of the opinion that human\nlife is sacred. (_Tr. p. 5066._)\n\nThe proof, however, is overwhelming that Mrugowsky ordered the\nexperiments carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. In his own pre-trial\naffidavit Mrugowsky stated that the Division for Typhus and Virus\nResearch of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Buchenwald was\nestablished in the beginning of 1942 by Genzken. He admitted that as\nChief of Amt XVI (hygiene) in the SS Operational Headquarters and as\nChief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, he was the immediate\nsuperior of Ding. He stated further that experiments on inmates were\ncarried out by Ding in order to determine the effect of various typhus\nvaccines. He admitted he obtained full knowledge of the work of Ding;\nthat he received reports from him on the experiments, including the\ndeath rates, and that he informed Genzken. (_NO-423, Pros. Ex. 282._)\nThe two charts drawn by the defendant Mrugowsky clearly show that the\nexperimental station in Buchenwald under Ding was directly subordinated\nto Mrugowsky from the time of its establishment until the collapse of\nGermany. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22_; _NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23_.) Mrugowsky\nadmitted Ding\u2019s connection with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\non cross-examination. (_Tr. p. 5371._)\n\nThe pre-trial affidavit of the defendant Hoven who was deputy to Ding\nand certainly in a position to know the facts, states that the Hygiene\nInstitute of the Waffen SS under Mrugowsky received all the reports on\nthe experiments in Block 46 and that Ding received orders directly from\nMrugowsky. Hoven outlined the chain of command as: Grawitz, Genzken,\nMrugowsky, and Ding. Ding went to Berlin for discussions with Mrugowsky\nnearly every second week. Mrugowsky visited the home of Ding on one of\nhis trips to Buchenwald. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._)\n\nKogon testified that Ding reported personally to Mrugowsky on the\nexperiments, and when he did not go to Berlin himself, he reported\nregularly every three months in writing. (_Tr. pp. 1155-1186._) The\nreports on the experiments carried out in Block 46 were sent to\nMrugowsky in Berlin. (_Tr. p. 1160._) Ding\u2019s official correspondence was\nprimarily with Mrugowsky. (_Tr. p. 1157._) The instructions for the\nexecution of the experiments came from Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1163,\n1219._) In the late summer of 1943 Mrugowsky became the sole chief of\nDing and issued all orders to him. (_Tr. p. 1202._) Mrugowsky occupied\nsuch an important position that it would have been dangerous for Ding to\ncontact Grawitz over his head. (_Tr. p. 1241._) Mrugowsky visited the\nexperimental block in Buchenwald on several occasions. (_Tr. pp. 1244,\n1245_; _Tr. p. 1329_.)\n\nThe proof outlined above as to Mrugowsky\u2019s responsibility is repeatedly\nsupported by documentary evidence. Ding\u2019s work report for the year 1943,\nwhich lists the experiments carried out in Block 46, was sent to\nMrugowsky and carried the letterhead \u201cHygiene Institute of the Waffen\nSS, Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Weimar-Buchenwald.\u201d\n(_NO-571, Pros. Ex. 285._) This work report covers the experiments in\nBlock 46 and the production of vaccines in Block 50, which conclusively\nproves that Mrugowsky\u2019s assertion that his responsibility was limited to\nBlock 50 is completely false. The same report shows that Mrugowsky\ninspected the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in Buchenwald on 3\nSeptember 1943, and that Ding had several conferences with Mrugowsky.\nMrugowsky\u2019s own secretary admitted that Ding\u2019s reports about his\nexperiments on inmates went via the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\nto Grawitz. (_Mrugowsky 38, Mrugowsky Ex. 13._)\n\nMrugowsky received Ding\u2019s report on the treatment of typhus with\nacridine derivatives. (_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286._) This report speaks of\nclinical tests on human beings who were afflicted with typhus, but\nMrugowsky knew that Ding experimented by artificially infecting the\nsubjects. (_Tr. p. 5066._) The report shows on its face that 21 of the\nexperimental subjects died and that the inmates who survived had to\nfight severe complications of the disease. This same experimental series\nis reported in the Ding diary under the entries for 24 April and 1 June\n1943.\n\nThe first experimental series on typhus carried out in Buchenwald\nbetween 6 January and 19 April 1942 in which 145 inmates were used as\nexperimental subjects was the basis of a report by Mrugowsky to Conti,\nGrawitz, Genzken, Eyer, and Demnitz, dated 5 May 1942. (_Mrugowsky 10,\nMrugowsky Ex. 20._) Five of the subjects died as a result of these\nexperiments. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)\n\nThe experiments with the Cantacuzino vaccine from Bucharest, reported in\nthe Ding diary under the entry for 19 August 1942, were ordered by\nMrugowsky. This vaccine was furnished by the defendant Rose, who\nrequested Mrugowsky to arrange for the experiments. On 16 May 1942\nMrugowsky wrote to Rose stating that Grawitz had consented to the\nexecution of the experiments and that the vaccine should be sent to him\n(Mrugowsky). He also agreed to conduct experiments to determine whether\nthe louse could be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient. This, of\ncourse, necessitated the infection of the experimental subject with\ntyphus. (_NO-1754, Pros. Ex. 491._) As a result of these experiments,\nfour of the subjects died. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)\n\nThe typhus experimental series No. VIII, during which the Ipsen vaccine\nfrom Copenhagen was tested, was also ordered by the defendant Mrugowsky.\nOn 2 December 1943 Rose asked Mrugowsky to have the Ipsen vaccine tested\nin Ding\u2019s experimental station in Buchenwald. (_NO-1186, Pros. Ex.\n492._) Mrugowsky expressly denied, during cross-examination, that he was\never approached by Rose to have the Copenhagen [Ipsen] vaccine tested in\nBuchenwald. He stated that: \u201cIf he had come to me I would have sent him\non to someone else. I would have said: \u2018My dear man, that does not have\nanything to do with me.\u2019\u201d (_Tr. pp. 5434, 5435._) On 21 February 1944\nMrugowsky was notified that 30 \u201cappropriate gypsies\u201d would be made\navailable for testing the Ipsen vaccine. (_NO-1188, Pros. Ex. 470._)\nMrugowsky was further advised on 29 February 1944 that the experimental\nsubjects would be designated by the office of Nebe of the Reich criminal\npolice. (_NO-1189, Pros. Ex. 471._) The Ding diary proves that the\nexperiments with the Ipsen vaccine began on 8 March 1944 with 30\nexperimental subjects, of whom six died as a result of the experiments.\n\nOn 12 August 1944 the defendant Mrugowsky ordered Ding to carry out\nexperiments to determine the infectious character of blood of slight\ncases of typhus compared with that of serious cases. (_NO-1197, Pros.\nEx. 472._)\n\nMrugowsky ordered a series of experiments to determine whether the\ncourse of typhus could be tempered by intravenous or intramuscular\ninjection of typhus vaccine. Of the 25 experimental subjects used, 19\ndied. This experiment was carried out between 11 November and 22\nDecember 1944. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Experiments with Old Blood Plasma and the Production of Blood Plasma and\n the Typhus Serum_\n\nExperiments with old blood plasma were conducted on inmates in\nBuchenwald by order of Mrugowsky at the request of the Military Medical\nAcademy. Blood transfusions were carried out in order to determine\nwhether old blood plasma could be used without danger, especially\nwithout danger of shock. Several series of experiments were performed,\neach with 10 to 20 experimental subjects. Some of the victims died,\nprobably due to the combined effect of shock and poor physical\ncondition. Mrugowsky received reports on these experiments. (_Tr. pp.\n1190-1192_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.)\n\nThe entries for 26 May and 13 October 1944 in the Ding diary show that\nblood was withdrawn from inmates recovering from typhus for the purpose\nof making a typhus convalescent serum. The witness Kogon testified that\nthis work was done by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck on order from\nMrugowsky. Ellenbeck obtained the blood from typhus convalescents in\nBlock 46 from the summer of 1944 until the spring of 1945. Blood was\ntaken from these experimental subjects regularly, usually in amounts\nbetween 250 and 350 cubic centimeters. Taking the blood from the\nconvalescent patients meant an extraordinary burden on them and a number\ndied. While the precise cause of death could not be definitely\nascertained under the circumstances, there is no doubt that the\nwithdrawal of blood was a contributing factor. (_Tr. pp. 1192, 1193._)\n\nKogon further testified that Ellenbeck, on orders from Mrugowsky,\nsystematically selected invalids and old persons, especially Frenchmen,\nwho were in the so-called \u201clittle camp\u201d of Buchenwald, for the purpose\nof withdrawing blood to be used in making blood plasma. The horrible\nconditions in the \u201clittle camp\u201d were vividly described. The blood was\ndemanded from the victims and was taken from them. Sometimes extra food\nwas given to these starving patients. (_Tr. pp. 1194-1196._) Upon being\nasked whether any of these blood donors in the \u201clittle camp\u201d in\nBuchenwald died from this blood-letting, Kogon replied:\n\n \u201cThe question shows that it is very difficult to gain a real\n concept of the \u2018little camp\u2019 at Buchenwald. The people died\n there in masses. During the night corpses were lying in the\n blocks naked because they were thrown out of the bunks by the\n other prisoners so that they would have a little more space.\n Even the smallest pieces of clothing were torn off by those who\n wanted to survive. It is impossible to determine if anybody died\n as the direct and immediate result of the taking of blood,\n because many people fell and died while walking around in the\n \u2018little camp\u2019.\n\n \u201cBut it is beyond doubt to anyone who knew the conditions there,\n that the taking of blood\u2014even if a small measure of strength\n was given to these people as far as food was concerned\u2014was a\n considerable contributing factor in the death of very many of\n them.\u201d (_Tr. p. 1196._)\n\nEllenbeck also conducted research concerning the oxygen content of the\nblood of human beings in various stages of exhaustion and artificially\nproduced starvation oedema. Mrugowsky gave his approval to these\nexperiments. (_Tr. pp. 1257-1266._)\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration\n Camp_\n\nThe appearance of Haagen as a defense witness requires consideration of\nhis testimony on these experiments.\n\nHaagen testified that in the summer of 1943 the defendant Rose, as\nconsulting hygienist to the Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe, prevailed upon him to resume active status as consulting\nhygienist to the Air Fleet Physician Reich. Haagen also accepted a\ntyphus research commission from the Luftwaffe and as a result of this\ncommission and his position in the Luftwaffe, he carried out certain\ntyphus experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9564, 9565._)\n\nHaagen stated that Stabsarzt Graefe was assigned to him at the Hygiene\nInstitute of the University of Strasbourg in 1942 by the Luftwaffe and\nthat Graefe acted as his assistant. Graefe was militarily subordinated\nto Luftgau Physician 7 but technically subordinated to Haagen. (_Tr. p.\n9582._) Haagen was also militarily subordinated to Luftgau Physician 7.\n(_Tr. p. 9563._)\n\nHaagen had developed a murine typhus (rat typhus) vaccine which\ncontained an attentuated virulent (living) virus. (_Tr. pp. 9596,\n9597._) Haagen testified that he performed compatability tests with this\nvaccine on 28 inmates of Schirmeck concentration camp, which was a\nsub-camp of Natzweiler. Eight inmates were vaccinated with .5 cc. of\nthis virulent vaccine, ten with .5 cc. [of virulent vaccine], and ten\nwith a dead vaccine plus .5 cc. of the virulent vaccine. Three\nadditional inmates were vaccinated with a dead vaccine for purposes of\ncomparison. He stated that no serious reactions occurred as a result of\nthese vaccines. (_Tr. p. 9603._) All of these vaccinations were carried\nout in the month of May 1943 and no vaccinations occurred after that\ndate, according to Haagen. (_Tr. p. 9636._) In the fall of 1943 Haagen\ntransferred his activities to Natzweiler on the alleged ground that he\nfelt a typhus epidemic was more likely there than in Schirmeck. (_Tr. p.\n9603._) He requested through Hirt that 100 concentration camp inmates be\nput at his disposal in Natzweiler for purposes of these experiments.\nThese inmates were transferred from Auschwitz to Natzweiler during the\nmonth of November 1943, 18 of whom died on the way. Haagen found the\nremainder unsuitable for his purposes and requested an additional 100\nwhich were made available during December 1943. He testified that of\nthese, 40 inmates were subjected to a series of two vaccinations by\ninjection to bring about immunity and a third vaccination by\nscarification to test the immunity. For purposes of comparison, a second\ngroup of 40 inmates designated as \u201ccontrols\u201d was given only the third\nscarification vaccination. The same vaccine was used for all of these\nalleged vaccinations and was a new vaccine containing an attenuated\nvirulent Rickettsia-Prowazeki virus (louse typhus). The scarification\nvaccine applied to both groups of subjects contained a smaller quantity\nof vaccine than the first two injection vaccinations given to the group\nimmunized. In the first group the injected vaccine produced what Haagen\ndescribed as the normal vaccine reaction. Substantially the same\nreaction occurred in the control group which received only the third\nscarification vaccine. The reaction was no more serious than in those\nwho were vaccinated by injection. (_Tr. pp. 9615-7._)\n\nHaagen admitted that the subjects used by him both in Schirmeck and\nNatzweiler were of many different nationalities, among whom were gypsies\nand Poles. (_Tr. p. 9607._) He further testified that these inmates were\nnot volunteers because, as he said, he was only carrying out protective\nvaccinations. (_Tr. pp. 9541-2._)\n\nHaagen stated that the only reason he performed these vaccinations in\nSchirmeck and Natzweiler was because he was asked to do so by Kramer,\ncamp commandant in Natzweiler. He and Kramer were disturbed about the\npossibility of a typhus epidemic in the middle of 1943, although he\ntestified that in fact no typhus cases actually occurred until March\n1944. (_Tr. pp. 9594-5._) He went to Schmireck only because he and\nKramer feared an epidemic. (_Tr. p. 9600._)\n\nHaagen\u2019s testimony, as outlined above, is completely incredible on its\nface as well as in view of the documents which were submitted by the\nprosecution and available to Haagen at the time he testified. Firstly,\nit is utterly ridiculous to credit his statement that he went to\nSchirmeck and Natzweiler only because he feared an epidemic. It is\nridiculous to suppose that a concentration camp commander, on his own\ninitiative, sought medical assistance from doctors in the towns\nsurrounding a concentration camp. The WVHA, to which all concentration\ncamps were subordinated, had a very elaborate medical system and it is\nunthinkable that a local camp commander would ask aid from an outsider.\nSecondly, it is ridiculous to suppose that Haagen, out of the kindness\nof his heart and the fear of an epidemic spreading beyond the confines\nof the camp, would use his precious typhus vaccine to protect the\nmiserable wretches who were imprisoned in the concentration camps.\nHaagen himself stated that he had very little typhus vaccine. (_Tr. p.\n9613._) It has been repeatedly testified to during the course of this\ntrial that typhus vaccines were critically short in Germany during the\nwar and that there were not even sufficient quantities to vaccinate\ndoctors, nurses, and other personnel exposed to special danger. That\nthis vaccine would be used to protect concentration camp inmates is\nunthinkable. Thirdly, it is ridiculous to suppose that any scientist\ncould have possibly thought that vaccinating 28 inmates in Schirmeck and\n80 in Natzweiler could have had any possible effect on the likelihood of\na typhus epidemic.\n\nThat Haagen perjured himself with respect to what he was really doing in\nNatzweiler during the course of his typhus experiments is clearly\nevident from his own letter of 27 June 1944 to Hirt. In a letter of 9\nMay 1944 to Hirt, Haagen requested that an additional 200 persons be\nfurnished to him for his experiments. (_NO-123, Pros. Ex. 303._)\nSupplementary to this request, he stated in his letter of 27 June 1944\nthat, \u201cin the subsequent inoculations with virulent typhus which are to\nbe made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must\ncount on sickness particularly in the control group which has not\nreceived the protective vaccines. These after-inoculations are desirable\nin order to establish unequivocally the effectiveness of the protective\nvaccines. This time 150 persons will be used for the protective vaccine\nand 50 for the control inoculations.\u201d (_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._)\n\nIt should be noted specifically that in the letter quoted above, Haagen\npointed out to Hirt that sickness was to be expected in the control\ngroup which had not received the protective vaccine. Haagen testified\nthat this additional group of 200 inmates requested by him was merely\nfor the purpose of vaccination, just as he had done in December 1943 and\nJanuary 1944 on the 80 experimental subjects. He added that in May he\nhad enough vaccine for 200 more persons and he was merely trying to\nincrease the protection in the camp. (_Tr. p. 9613._) The falsity of\nHaagen\u2019s testimony is clearly apparent from the statement in the letter\nthat sickness was expected in the _control group_. He had previously\ntestified that there was no reason whatever to expect any more serious\nreaction to the scarification vaccination in the control group than to\nthe injected vaccine in the immunized group. (_Tr. p. 9618._) Indeed,\nthere was every reason to expect that the vaccine injected in the\nimmunized group would bring about a more serious reaction since more\nvaccine was given by injection than by scarification. Haagen applied a\nmuch larger quantity of the vaccine in the first two injections of the\nimmunized group than in the scarification vaccination of both the\nimmunized and the control group. The same vaccine was used throughout.\n(_Tr. p. 9710._) The method of vaccination, whether by injection or\nscarification, has no effect on reaction to the vaccine. Haagen\nspecifically testified that \u201cif we vaccinate by scarification we can\nexpect that the effect of the vaccine will be the same as if we inject\nsubcutaneously or intramuscularly.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9710._)\n\nHaagen was quite unable to reconcile his statement in his letter to Hirt\nof 27 June 1944 that \u201cone must count on sickness, particularly in the\ncontrol group\u201d with his testimony that there was no difference in the\nreaction to the vaccine as between the immunized and control groups.\nIndeed, the only possible interpretation of his letter is that instead\nof vaccinating the immunized and control groups by scarification, he, in\nfact, infected them with typhus. Haagen knew that the unprotected\ncontrol subjects would become ill with typhus. Haagen also had no\nexplanation for the letter of Kahnt, Chief of Staff to Schroeder, of 29\nAugust 1944, in which he was asked \u201cwhether it may be assumed that the\ntyphus epidemic prevailing at Natzweiler at present is connected with\nthe vaccine research.\u201d (_NO-131, Pros. Ex. 309._) He testified that he\nhad completed his vaccinations of the 80 experimental subjects during\nJanuary 1944 and that all of his serological examinations were finished\nno later than February 1944 and that the experimental subjects were\nreleased from confinement. Haagen submitted a report to the Luftwaffe no\nlater than May or June 1944 to the effect that the vaccine had been a\nsuccess. (_Tr. pp. 9627-9._) There was no reason whatever for Kahnt and\nRose to address such an inquiry to Haagen when he had long since\ncompleted his experiments, according to his testimony, and submitted a\nsuccess report to the Luftwaffe at least two months before the inquiry.\nIt is quite impossible that vaccine tests which caused no typhus in the\nvaccinated persons could cause typhus in other persons, as suggested by\nRose during his examination. Moreover, it should be noted that Kahnt\u2019s\nletter clearly indicated an understanding on his part that Haagen\u2019s\nvaccine research in Natzweiler was contemporaneous with the epidemic.\nThis, Haagen testified, he could not understand. Haagen also had\nconsiderable difficulty explaining why, in his letter of 19 September\n1944, in reply to Kahnt\u2019s inquiry, he didn\u2019t state that he had conducted\nno vaccinations or experiments in Natzweiler since January 1944 and that\nhis vaccinations had caused no illness in the subjects, let alone caused\na typhus epidemic. Haagen simply stated in his letter that, \u201cWe hereby\ninform you that no connection existed between the cases of typhus in\nNatzweiler and the examinations dealing with typhus vaccine _that is to\nbe tested_.\u201d [Emphasis added.] (_NO-132, Pros. Ex. 310._) Indeed, Haagen\nhimself stated in his reply that the vaccine was still under test,\ncontrary to his testimony before this Tribunal.\n\nHaagen would have the Tribunal believe that he had no typhus virus\nstrain which was pathogenic to human beings, that he could not have\nbrought on a serious case of typhus even had he tried to do so. (_Tr.\npp. 9608, 9612._) In the very same breath he testified \u201cthat there was\nconsiderable danger of infection in working about the laboratory and\nthat he gave his assistants a \u201crisk bonus.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9608._)\n\nHaagen testified that he performed no vaccinations after January 1944.\nHe reiterated this time and again during the course of his examination.\n(_Tr. pp. 9614-5._) When asked his reason for not vaccinating during the\ntyphus epidemic in Natzweiler in the spring and summer of 1944, which\noffered an opportunity to test the anti-infectious effect of his vaccine\nunder natural conditions, he lamely answered that he had to make so many\nofficial military trips that he had no time. (_Tr. p. 9614._) Although\nhe had sufficient vaccine to justify his asking for 200 additional\nexperimental victims in May 1944, his only effort in the typhus\nepidemic, according to his testimony, was to send them decontamination\nequipment. (_Tr. p. 9614._) It is not readily apparent, to say the least\nof it, just why some other doctor or an assistant of Haagen could not\nhave performed the vaccinations which Haagen would have the Tribunal\nbelieve he was so anxious to have done for the protection of the camp.\n\nAll of the above contradictions and falsifications appear upon the face\nof Haagen\u2019s testimony as well as from the documents which he had so\ncarefully studied before his appearance. The documents submitted to him\nduring cross-examination reveal his testimony to have been perjurious\nfrom start to finish. Haagen repeatedly testified that he carried out no\nvaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943. He stated that in Schirmeck he\nonly performed a single vaccination and not the series of vaccinations\nto test \u201canti-infectious immunity\u201d because at that time his \u201cknowledge\nhadn\u2019t progressed so far.\u201d (_Tr. p. 9636._) In connection with the Ipsen\nvaccine, about which Rose had corresponded with him, he especially\ndenied that he ever proposed to Rose that experiments be carried out\nwith it. Haagen\u2019s letter to Rose of 4 October 1943 squarely contradicts\nhim on both of these significant points. (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._) He\nstated in his letter that:\n\n \u201cI already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on\n human beings. _The serum titer is considerably higher, also\n after a single vaccination, in comparison with three\n vaccinations with deactivated vaccines._ I regret that it was\n not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the\n vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to\n provide suitable persons for vaccination, but have not received\n an answer yet. _We are now performing a further vaccination of\n human beings_; I shall report later about the result. I guess we\n will then have reached the point of being able to recommend the\n introduction of our new vaccine for the time being without\n infectious experiments.\u201d [Emphasis added.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn this same letter of 4 October 1943, Haagen discussed Rose\u2019s report\nconcerning the Ipsen vaccine from Copenhagen. He concluded his letter by\nstating: \u201cIf we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test\nvaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as\nwell on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our\nmaterial be used parallel with the Ipsen tests.\u201d Thus, Haagen testified\nfalsely when he said that he did not propose experiments with Ipsen\nvaccine. In his letter he very specifically proposed performing\nanti-infectious experiments with the Ipsen vaccine as well as his own\nvaccine. This again proves that the use of the phrase \u201cinfectious\nexperiments\u201d could not possibly mean multiple vaccinations with living\ntyphus vaccine. The Ipsen vaccine was a dead vaccine; it contained no\nattenuated virulent virus. Three vaccinations with a dead vaccine could\nnot be designated an \u201cinfectious experiment\u201d even by Haagen. (_Tr. p.\n9655._) Moreover the defense\u2019s own proof shows that the Ipsen vaccine\nhad already been tested for tolerability and found comparable with other\nvaccines used by the Wehrmacht. This is clear from Rose\u2019s letter to the\nBehring-Works and Haagen, among others, dated 29 September 1943. (_Rose\n88, Rose Ex. 21._) It is quite clear that the only type of experiment\nleft open for the Ipsen vaccine was precisely the kind that Haagen\nproposed, namely, after-infection of the vaccinated and control subjects\nwith typhus.\n\nHaagen was further impeached by the notes kept on his typhus experiments\nby his assistant, Miss Crodel. (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) Haagen\ndefinitely identified these notes as having been written by Miss Crodel.\n(_Tr. p. 9691._) Miss Crodel had been an assistant of Haagen\u2019s for many\nyears and he found her most reliable. (_Tr. p. 9701._) He conceded that\nMiss Crodel was very careful in her work. (_Tr. p. 9697._) On page three\nof the notebook appears a series of entries dating from 30 April 1943 to\n27 January 1944 concerning a series of experiments in Schirmeck. The\nentry for 19 May 1943 shows that two out of four mice injected with his\nvaccine died. The entry for 26 May reads: \u201c(4 weeks) 3-6, 0.5 _per\nperson_ and 6 mice 0.5 i. p., 5 dead, after 10, 14, 14 days, the rest\nafter 4 weeks.\u201d This entry proves that on that date human beings were\ninoculated with Haagen\u2019s vaccine. To say the least of this entry, five\nmice who were similarly vaccinated died as a result. The phrase \u201cthe\nrest after 4 weeks\u201d can obviously refer also to deaths among\nexperimental persons since it is quite impossible that this phrase could\nbe used to refer to the one remaining mouse. The entry for 6 July\nindicates that on that date Haagen and his assistants appeared in\nSchirmeck for the purpose of withdrawing blood from ten persons, who had\nbeen previously vaccinated, for a Weil-Felix reaction test. The entry\ngives the serum titer value of eight of the experimental subjects. The\nentry is ended with the laconic note, \u201cthe other two were not here\nanymore.\u201d This entry is conclusive corroboration of the testimony of the\nwitness, George Hirtz, who stated that Haagen had tested his vaccine at\nSchirmeck in the summer of 1943. Approximately 20 Polish inmates were\nused in these experiments and, following the inoculations, two of the\nexperimental subjects died. Hirtz testified that he himself sewed up the\nbodies of the inmates in paper bags and delivered them for cremation.\nThe other experimental subjects had reactions such as high fevers,\nshock, and impairment of speech. (_Tr. pp. 1293-1299._) His testimony is\nfurther corroborated by Haagen himself, who stated that two groups of\nten inmates were inoculated by him in Schirmeck. The entry in the Crodel\nnotes obviously has reference to one of these groups of ten, and upon\narrival of Haagen and his assistants in the camp for the purpose of\nwithdrawing blood, it was found that two of the subjects had died.\n\nThe entry for 4 October 1943 on page three of the Crodel notes reads\n\u201c(six months) inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, Tube\u20142 cc. distilled\nwater, 0.5 per person.\u201d (_NO-3852, Pros. Ex. 521._) This proves not only\nthat Haagen testified falsely when he stated that he carried out no\ntyphus vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943 but also that multiple\nvaccinations with his vaccine were performed. This entry bears the same\ndate as Haagen\u2019s letter to Rose, referred to above, which also stated\nthat he was performing further vaccinations. The last entry on page\nthree is dated on the original as 27 January 1943 and reads: \u201c(9 months)\nmixed with the same amounts (as 21 May) distilled water tube, 20 persons\n1.1 cc. each.\u201d The date 1943 is obviously a mistake on the part of Miss\nCrodel in making the entry. This is proved by the fact that the period\nof time indicated in parentheses in the notes refers to the period of\ntime the vaccine had been stored. Haagen so admitted. (_Tr. p. 9711._)\nThus the reference \u201c(9 months)\u201d means that the vaccine being used in\nthat series of experiments had been stored for nine months since 30\nApril 1943, the date of the first entry on page three and the time the\nvaccine was first prepared. That 1943 in the original entry should\nreally be 1944 also is apparent from page four of the notes wherein the\nlast entry is for 27 January 1944. It is a common mistake for one to use\nthe date of the old year during the first month of the new year.\n\nHaagen inoculated another group of ten persons in Schirmeck on 10\nOctober 1943 and 20 more on 27 January 1944 as seen from the entries on\npage four of the Crodel notes. Again on page five of the original, the\nentry for 14 October 1943 proves that ten persons were inoculated _for\nthe third time_ with 1.0 cc. of Haagen\u2019s new vaccine. That this entry\nrefers to the virulent murine vaccine and not to the Gildemeister dead\nvaccine can be seen from the preceding entry which speaks of four\ncontrol persons being inoculated three times with Gildemeister vaccine.\nThis fact is further apparent by comparing the quantity of the\ninjections plus the amount of distilled water used per tube of Haagen\u2019s\nnew vaccine as set forth in other entries.\n\nThe entry for 25 May 1944 on page 7 of the Crodel notes states that 30\npersons were inoculated in Natzweiler. \u201cThe inoculation took place\nduring the incubation period (in a transport containing also sick\npeople). Thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June, of\nthese, two died.\u201d Haagen had repeatedly testified that he performed no\nvaccinations after January 1944 in Natzweiler. Not only did he perform\nexperiments after January 1944, but as proved by the entry quoted above,\nsubjects died during the course of such experiments. By his own\ntestimony Haagen proves that these entries deal with an experiment\nduring which the subjects were artificially infected with typhus.\nAlthough the entry euphoniously states that the vaccinations \u201ctook place\nduring the incubation period,\u201d Haagen testified, as had been repeatedly\nsuggested by the prosecution, that it is impossible to know when persons\nare in the incubation period. The incubation period is that time between\nthe infection and the first manifestations of the disease. Accordingly,\nit is impossible to know that a vaccination takes place during the\nincubation period unless the person has been artificially infected so\nthat the date of infection is known. (_Tr. pp. 9701-2._)\n\nIt is significant to note also that the chart on page 14 of Miss\nCrodel\u2019s notes uses the word \u201cnachimpfung,\u201d meaning after-vaccination or\nre-inoculation, in connection with multiple vaccination experiments on\ntwo mice (both of which incidentally died), rather than the word\n\u201cnachinfektion,\u201d meaning after-infection or subsequent infection, which\nwas repeatedly used by Haagen in his letters concerning experiments on\nhuman beings.\n\nHaagen testified that the defendant Schroeder visited him on 25 May\n1944, the very day on which he was carrying out experiments in\nNatzweiler. (_Tr. p. 9632._) While it is, of course, entirely possible\nthat Schroeder may have visited Haagen on 24 or 26 May, rather than on\n25, the fact is quite clear that in any event Haagen\u2019s very important\nexperiments on typhus were discussed with Schroeder, contrary to the\ntestimony of both men. The same is true with respect to the visit of the\ndefendant Becker-Freyseng which took place shortly after that of\nSchroeder (_Tr. p. 9569_) and of Rose who visited Haagen both in 1943\nand 1944. (_Tr. p. 9570._) Haagen\u2019s statement that Becker-Freyseng came\nall the way from Berlin to discuss with him the procurement of rabbits\nand mice is as incredible as the rest of Haagen\u2019s testimony.\n\nThe defendant Schroeder testified that Haagen\u2019s research assignment was\nnot secret and attempted to argue on that basis that nothing criminal\ncould have happened. (_Tr. p. 3654._) Without pausing to point out the\nstupidity of such an argument, suffice it to say that Schroeder\u2019s\ntestimony was proved to be false by a list of research assignments\nissued by Schroeder\u2019s office in 1944. Haagen\u2019s typhus work was\nclassified secret. (_NO-934, Pros. Ex. 458._)\n\nThe testimony of the witness Nales corroborates the proof outlined\nherein above: That Haagen performed experiments to test the immunity of\nhis vaccine by artificially infecting the subjects with typhus. Nales, a\nDutch citizen, was arrested by the Gestapo in 1940 for allegedly\nparticipating in a resistance movement. Although he was tried and\nacquitted, he was committed to Buchenwald concentration camp in April\n1941. In March 1942 he was transferred to Natzweiler and in November\n1942 he became a nurse in the Ahnenerbe experimental station there.\n(_Tr. pp. 10409-12._) He stated that in the latter part of 1943, 100\ngypsies were sent to Natzweiler from Auschwitz for Haagen\u2019s typhus\nexperiments. Haagen found them physically unsuitable and thereafter an\nadditional 90 gypsies were shipped in. These were divided into two\ngroups and confined in separate rooms in the Ahnenerbe experimental\nstation. One group was vaccinated against typhus. Approximately 14 days\nlater, both groups were artificially infected with typhus. As a result,\nabout 30 of the subjects died. Nales nursed the victims himself and saw\nthe bodies. He talked to the subjects frequently and knows they did not\nvolunteer, as indeed Haagen himself admitted on the stand. The gypsies\nwere of various nationalities including Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and\nGermans. (_Tr. pp. 10419-23._)\n\n * * * * *\n\nHaagen\u2019s long continued activity in Schirmeck and Natzweiler can be\nclearly seen from his account book on research tasks on yellow fever and\ntyphus. His work in Schirmeck began as early as 20 April 1943. He was\nplacing telephone calls to Schirmeck late in August 1944, over a year\nafter Haagen\u2019s alleged \u201clast vaccination\u201d there. These accounts were\ncharged to the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_NO-3837, Pros. Ex.\n542._) They were in such detail as to reveal on their face his activity\nin the concentration camps. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519._)\n\nHaagen admitted that by infection experiments one could mean only one of\nthree things\u2014(1) subsequent artificial infection with typhus, (2)\nvaccinations of large groups of people and then studying efficacy during\na natural epidemic, and (3) Weil-Felix reaction tests carried out before\nand after a subsequent vaccination. (_Tr. p. 9601._) He admitted that\nthe prosecution\u2019s interpretation of \u201cinfection experiments\u201d and\n\u201csubsequent infection\u201d was equally consistent with his own. (_Tr. p.\n9611._) He admitted that the word \u201cnachimpfung\u201d (subsequent vaccination)\ncould have been used as well as \u201cnachinfektion\u201d (subsequent infection).\n(_Tr. p. 9611._)\n\nThere are no refined questions of documentary interpretation presented\nto the Tribunal. The simple issue is whether Haagen committed crimes\nduring the course of his experiments. There is no dispute that these\nwere \u201cexperiments\u201d. Haagen repeatedly used the word in his own letters.\nThere is no dispute that the inmates used as subjects were\nnonvolunteers, among whom were nationals of German occupied countries.\nHaagen admitted as much. The documents and the testimony prove that a\nsubstantial number of subjects were killed during the course of these\nexperiments. Against this overwhelming proof stands the testimony of\nHaagen and Rose, both of whom perjured themselves repeatedly on the\nstand. Indeed, their own testimony is the best circumstantial proof as\nto the criminality of the experiments. One does not gratuitously testify\nfalsely. Those who fear the light of truth commit perjury. These men\nregard their oaths as lightly as they did the lives of their helpless\nvictims.\n\nThe guilt of Rose and Haagen is the measure of the guilt of Schroeder.\nAs a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, Haagen was subject to his orders.\n(_Tr. p. 3636._) The office of Schroeder issued the research assignments\npursuant to which these experiments were carried out. It provided the\nfunds with which to carry them out. It received reports on the\nexperiments and knew they were performed on concentration camp inmates.\n(_Tr. p. 1758._) Schroeder was himself in Strasbourg at the very time\nthe experiments were going on. His guilt is clear and unequivocal.\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n ROSE_\n\n _Statements Regarding the Question of Responsibility of the\n Defendant Rose for the Typhus Experiments of Professor Eugen\n Haagen in the Concentration Camps at Schirmeck and Natzweiler\n and the Question of the Participation in These Experiments_\n\nIn order to reach a decision on the question of whether punishable\nbehavior on the part of the defendant Rose is established, the Tribunal\nwill have to examine the following: Did Professor Rose, in his capacity\nas consulting hygienist with the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, have\nany commanding authority or the right and obligation of supervision at\nall over Professor Eugen Haagen at the University of Strasbourg? Did the\ndefendant Rose participate in a penally relevant form in the experiments\nwith typhus vaccine conducted by Haagen in the concentration camps at\nNatzweiler and Schirmeck? If so, the question of whether Haagen made\nhimself liable to punishment or not can be left completely undecided.\n\nAs far as the first question is concerned, one thing is certain. Above\nall, Professor Haagen was a full professor at the University of\nStrasbourg at the time and also director of the Institute for Hygiene at\nthis University. At the same time he was consultant on hygiene for the\ncivil administration of Alsace. (_German Tr. p. 9526._) During the war,\nin addition to this, he was a part-time consulting, hygienist with an\nAir Fleet. Finally, he applied for so-called research assignments for\nhis experiments, including his typhus experiments, that is, in practice,\nfinancial aid.\n\nFirst of all, it must be ascertained in which of his many capacities\nProfessor Haagen conducted his experiments. In this connection the facts\nare perfectly clear. As a witness, Professor Haagen himself explained\nthat he requested and received the research assignments which made\npossible his experiments, not as an officer of the Luftwaffe, but as\ndirector of a civilian research institute. As usual, therefore, the\ninitiative was taken by the scientist. (_Becker-Freyseng 70,\nBecker-Freyseng Ex. 48; Tr. pp. 6251-3_; _German Tr. pp. 7941-2, 8399,\n9583-5_.) The correctness of this description can be seen from the\nletter of Professor Haagen, submitted by the prosecution, addressed to\nthe rector of the University of Strasbourg, dated 7 October 1943.\n(_NO-137, Pros. Ex. 189._) In this letter Haagen requests his _civilian_\nsuperior, the rector of the University of Strasbourg, for special\nprivileges for the Institute for Hygiene of the University (i. e., a\ncivilian institution) based on the research commissions assigned to him.\n\nThe fact that the position of Professor Haagen was also interpreted by\nthe Luftwaffe in this manner can be seen, for example, from the style of\nthe letters addressed to him in matters relevant to his research and\nvaccine production assignments. They are not clothed in the manner of\nmilitary orders, but possess the character of correspondence with a\ncivilian office which was not subordinate to the Luftwaffe, either in\nthe matter of receiving orders or of being under its supervision. A\nnumber of those invested with such research assignments have described\nto the Tribunal how they accepted these assignments for opportunistic\nreasons, e. g., to obtain priority grading and to protect their\npersonnel from being drafted to military service. However, the fact that\nno subordinate relationship or supervisory right arose through the\nacceptance of such an assignment, can be seen likewise from the numerous\nstatements of the recipients of such Luftwaffe assignments. (_Schroeder\n30, Schroeder Ex. 22_; _Schroeder 31, Schroeder Ex. 23_;\n_Becker-Freyseng 79, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 63_; _German Tr. p. 6720_.)\nObligations arose solely with regard to the computation of the money\nallowed, the reporting of any possible results achieved, as well as the\nmention of assistance in the event of a scientific publication.\n\nMoreover, such financial aid is in no way limited to Germany but is\ncommon in many countries. No responsibility for possible errors and\ncrimes, which the recipients might commit, can result from such\nfinancial assistance. As a matter of fact, Haagen never received a\nspecial individual assignment to carry out a certain series of\nexperiments, but he was accorded, as per request, assistance for \u201ctyphus\nresearch.\u201d However, financial assistance for typhus research is\nsomething quite normal. Incidentally, Haagen not only utilized the means\nput at his disposal by the Luftwaffe, but also contributions from the\nReich Research Council and, most important, the personnel and equipment\nof his institute. Therefore, his typhus research was not a part of his\nmilitary activities but was carried out within the scope of his civilian\nactivities. Also, the fact that a reserve officer of the Luftwaffe,\nnamely, Staff Physician [Stabsarzt] Graefe, appears as a collaborator in\nhis typhus research work, alters none of the facts of the case. It is\ntrue that Graefe was a reserve officer in the same way as Haagen.\nHowever, his main profession was that of assistant in the Institute for\nHygiene of the University of Strasbourg, and in this capacity he was\nsubordinate to Professor Haagen who was, of course, the director of this\ninstitute. He was in no way subordinate to Haagen in the military sense,\nbut to the Air Force Area VII. (_German Tr. p. 9718._) Staff Physician\nGraefe, who was drafted into the Luftwaffe, was transferred, therefore,\nfor purposes of further training, to the civilian institute where he\nworked as an assistant in peacetime. Such incidents occurred quite\nfrequently in order to enable research activities in civilian institutes\nto be continued in wartime. As a result of this assistance given in\nrespect of personnel, these civilian offices did not fall under the\ncommand and supervision of the military authorities.\n\nThe fact that Professor Haagen felt himself to be completely independent\nin his research activities can also be seen unequivocally from the fact\nthat he procured further assistance from other offices disregarding his\nsubordinate position with respect to the military. This means, without\ngoing through the military channels which were prescribed as binding in\nmilitary matters. In his capacity as Oberstabsarzt of the Luftwaffe, he\ncould not deal with the Reich Research Council without informing his\nsuperior thereof. Even less could he deal with the Reich Leader SS, with\nother offices of the SS, or, for example, with the Generalarzt\nSchreiber, who belonged to the army. He was, however, well able to do\nall of this in his capacity as director of the Institute for Hygiene of\nthe University of Strasbourg. The correctness of this statement is shown\nmost clearly in the important point, namely the procurement of\nexperimental subjects in the concentration camps. In this case he did\nnot conduct negotiations through military channels via the Medical\nInspection of the Luftwaffe, but through his civilian channels, through\nthe mediation of his university colleague, Professor Hirt, via the\nAhnenerbe. He never informed his military superiors of these\nnegotiations nor asked for their assistance therein, for as matters\nwere, there was no reason to do so. The files show quite clearly that\nProfessor Haagen had already conducted his experiments on prisoners in\nSchirmeck in May of 1943 in the same way as he continued them until the\nmiddle of 1944. In May of 1943, however, Haagen was\u2014in a military\nsense\u2014on leave of absence, and as far as his activities were concerned\nhe was in no way subject to the supervision of the Luftwaffe. His\nappointment as consulting hygienist did not ensue until after 14 July\n1943, because the letter from the Reich Minister of the Luftwaffe dated\n14 July 1943 was not addressed to Consulting Hygienist Haagen, but to\nStaff Physician [Stabsarzt] Haagen, who had been given leave to work in\nhis institute. (_NO-297, Pros. Ex. 316._) After his appointment as\nconsulting hygienist, however, his research activities do not differ in\nany way from those which he performed before this appointment. They\nremained civilian research activities as formerly.\n\nFurther attention should be called to the fact that the Luftwaffe showed\nno special interest in Professor Haagen\u2019s research work. The only real\ninterest of the Luftwaffe might have been in the actual production of\nvaccine. They tried to influence him in this connection, but without\npractical success. The Luftwaffe received no typhus vaccine from Haagen.\nHis research activities had no connection with the wishes of the\nLuftwaffe regarding production; they were even in conflict with these\ninterests.\n\nThe prosecution, it is true, has submitted a number of accounts from\nwhich it can be seen that telephone calls to Schirmeck and Natzweiler\nwere paid for from Luftwaffe funds. (_NO-3450, Pros. Ex. 519_; _NO-3837,\nPros. Ex. 542_.) Even if one were to consider the fact proved that these\ncalls were in connection with his work in concentration camps, the whole\nnature of the accounts shows that Haagen treated his research work as a\nunit and divided the costs according to his own point of view among the\ndifferent funds which had been placed at his disposal. The purpose\nserved by the telephone calls cannot be inferred from the accounts\nalone. The arbitrary division of costs can be seen, for example, from\nthe fact that a whole series of expenditures entered under \u201cInfluenza\nAccount\u201d referred to his typhus work. The department receiving the\nexpense sheets had no possibility of checking in detail the purpose to\nwhich each enumerated item was put, and who the participants in the\ntelephone conversations were.\n\nSufficient facts have already been produced to show that, in general,\nthe Luftwaffe bore no responsibility for the research activities of the\nUniversity Professor Haagen. Nevertheless, it is proposed to examine the\nquestion of whether a responsibility on the part of the defendant Rose\nfor Haagen\u2019s research work can be deduced from the fact that Professor\nRose was consulting hygienist with the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe;\nbecause the prosecution is mainly attempting to construe responsibility\non the part of the defendant Rose from (1) the existence of the research\nassignments given by the Luftwaffe; and (2) the fact that Professor\nHaagen belonged to the Luftwaffe as a reserve officer.\n\nThere can be no doubt that Haagen was the medical officer of the\nLuftwaffe. First of all, he was consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet\n1 until the year 1941. Then he was given leave to work in his Institute\nfor Hygiene until a certain time, which must have been shortly after 14\nJuly 1943. Then he became consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet\n\u201cMitte\u201d which was later renamed Air Fleet \u201cReich\u201d.\n\nHowever, he did not conduct his experiments in his capacity as\nconsulting hygienist. The tasks of a consultant did not include\nscientific research. They lay in other fields. Professor Haagen was\nnever subordinate to the defendant Rose even in this military position\nas consulting hygienist of an Air Fleet. On the other hand, the\ndefendant Rose had neither commanding authority, and neither the right\nnor the duty of supervision as far as Haagen was concerned.\n\nFrom a military standpoint Haagen was subordinate to his air fleet\nphysician in every respect. Incidentally, the defendant Rose had no\nsuperior rights nor supervisory obligations either with respect to\nProfessor Haagen or to all the other consulting hygienists of the\nLuftwaffe. His official duties were exclusively limited to consultations\nwith the Medical Inspector, that is, the Chief of the Medical Service of\nthe Luftwaffe. (_Compare Rose 6, Rose Ex. 6_; _Rose 7, Rose Ex. 7_;\n_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_; _Handloser 12, Handloser Ex. 12_; _Tr. pp. 2987,\n6259_; _German Tr. p. 3346_.)\n\nThere is no need to comment further on the fact that the defendant Rose\nparticularly did not possess such rights and obligations with respect to\nHaagen in his capacity as a research scientist and director of the\ninstitute of the University of Strasbourg, which was in no way\nsubordinate to the Luftwaffe. The correctness of these statements was\nunequivocally confirmed on the witness stand during my examination, not\nonly by Professor Haagen himself (_German Tr. pp. 9679-80_) but also by\nthe defendant Schroeder, who, after all, should know, having been the\nformer Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p.\n3734._) These facts should be sufficient to show that the defendant Rose\nhad neither the power of command and neither the right nor obligation of\nsupervision over Professor Haagen.\n\nWe still have to examine the second question of the possible\nparticipation of the defendant Rose in Professor Haagen\u2019s research work\nin the concentration camps at Natzweiler and Schirmeck.\n\nIt is incontestable that the defendant Rose was cognizant of the fact\nthat the Luftwaffe gave several research assignments to Professor\nHaagen, and that the reports issued by Haagen within the framework of\nthese assignments were sent to him for his information. However, these\nreports never contained details from which a criminal activity on the\npart of Professor Haagen could have been inferred or assumed. Even the\nprosecutor, Mr. McHaney, during his interrogation of the defendant\nRostock, expressly declared that even he doubted whether Haagen would\nhave disclosed such details. (_German Tr. p. 3346._) This interpretation\ncorresponds completely with the facts. Professor Haagen\u2019s reports\nconsisted purely of scientific research work which was designated for\npublication. No reader could gather that they were based on illegal\nexperiments. A plan of experiments was never submitted by Haagen in\ndetail.\n\nAs has already been stated, it is true that the defendant Rose knew of\nthe research commissions which had been assigned to Professor Haagen by\nthe Luftwaffe. According to the nature of his official position,\nhowever, he exercised no influence on the assignment of such\ncommissions. There were no misgivings about the assignments as such, for\nnothing of a suspicious or objectionable nature could be seen from their\nformulation. (_Becker-Freyseng 37, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 23._)\n\nThis situation is not altered by the fact that the defendant Rose\nvisited Professor Haagen twice in Strasbourg during the course of the\nwar, the first time in the year 1943 and the second time in 1944.\nClearly outlined assignments were dealt with on both occasions. During\nthe first visit the question was discussed whether Haagen wished to\nreassume in addition the functions of a consulting hygienist of an Air\nFleet. The second visit resulted from the desire of the medical\ninspection of the Luftwaffe that Haagen should comply with the request\nrepeatedly made to him, to take up the production of vaccine. This\nsecond visit further served the purpose of discussing the question of a\nparticularly expensive but necessary installation for reproducing\nvarious climates for the rabbit hutch in Professor Haagen\u2019s Institute.\n\nThe reasons just mentioned for these two visits will be substantiated by\ndocuments submitted. The question regarding Professor Haagen\u2019s\nassumption of the functions of a consulting hygienist with the Air Fleet\n\u201cMitte\u201d is mentioned in the letter from Rose addressed to Haagen, dated\n9 June 1943, (_NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) the procurement of the climate\ninstallation in Document NO-2874, Prosecution Exhibit 520. Moreover, the\nfirst of these two documents just mentioned shows quite clearly that the\ndefendant Rose had no influence on the assignment of research\ncommissions to Haagen. In answering a question from Haagen relevant to\nthis matter, Rose had to limit his reply to the statement that the\ncompetent expert was absent.\n\nIn examining the relationship between Rose and Haagen, their further\nexchange of correspondence must also be mentioned.\n\nRose met Haagen when they were both division chiefs at the Robert Koch\nInstitute in Berlin from 1937 until 1941. Both were specialists in the\nfield of research into infectious diseases. Haagen specialized in virus\ndiseases including typhus. The defendant Rose specialized in tropical\ndiseases, parasitology, and vermin control. This fact explains the\nexistence of a scientific private correspondence, part of which can be\nfound in the files. According to the testimony of the witness, Olga\nEyer, this correspondence was extremely cursory and consisted of only\nfive to six letters from 1941 to 1944, during which time Fraeulein Eyer\nwas Haagen\u2019s secretary. (_German Tr. p. 1781._)\n\nThe prosecution is obviously in possession of the entire exchange of\ncorrespondence between Rose and Haagen. The letters the prosecution has\nsubmitted from this correspondence deal with two subjects: The first\ngroup consists of the two letters of 5 June 1943 and 9 June 1943\n(_NO-305, Pros. Ex. 295_; _NO-306, Pros. Ex. 296_) which contain an\nanswer to the questions on the production technique of typhus vaccine.\nRose, who himself is not a specialist in this field, had requested\ntechnical information and had received it. (In passing, it should be\nstated that the 30 to 40 persons mentioned in this exchange of\ncorrespondence signified the required manpower figure and not possible\nexperimental subjects, as the prosecution asserts.) (_German Tr. p.\n9063._)\n\nThe principal letter of Haagen to Rose, dated 4 June 1943, which is\nmentioned in Rose\u2019s reply dated 9 June 1943, would clear up the matter\nabsolutely unequivocally. Unfortunately, it has not been submitted by\nthe prosecution.\n\nThe second part of the correspondence between Rose and Haagen concerns\nthe attitude of Haagen to the Copenhagen vaccine. Among others, Rose had\nalso informed Professor Haagen, one of the leading German\ntyphus-research scientists, about the result of his conversation with\nDr. Ipsen in Copenhagen, as can be seen from the distribution of the\nreport on the Copenhagen trip. (_Rose 22, Rose Ex. 21._) This second\npart of the correspondence developed as a result of the transmission of\nthis strictly scientific information, and the following letters from it\nwere introduced by the prosecution during the trial:\n\nLetter from Haagen to Rose dated 4 October 1943 (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex.\n520_).\n\nLetter from Haagen to Rose dated 29 November 1943 (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex.\n490_).\n\nLetter from Rose to Haagen dated 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex.\n298_).\n\nProfessor Rose furnished a detailed explanation of this exchange of\ncorrespondence during his direct examination. At the time he was only in\npossession of his aforementioned letter to Haagen dated 13 December\n1943, whereas the two other letters were still withheld by the\nprosecution. Although, as a result of this, he was put in the difficult\nposition of having to testify regarding an exchange of correspondence\nwhich took place four years ago, only a part of which he had available\nfor reference, the correctness of his statements was completely\nconfirmed in the essential points by the two other letters which were\nnot introduced until later in the trial. (_Tr. p. 6281._) It can be seen\nquite definitely from the first paragraph of Haagen\u2019s letter to Rose\ndated 4 October 1943 that the actual interest of the defendant Rose lay\nin inducing Professor Haagen to produce a proven vaccine.\n\nThe question hinged on the climate installation which was necessary for\nthe production of the Giroud vaccine from the lungs of rabbits. It was\nonly necessary to establish an additional production plant for the\nLuftwaffe because the vaccine concerned was obtained from dead typhus\nbacilli and had been introduced for some time. At the end of his letter\nProfessor Haagen once more refers to this purely technical question of\nproduction. In his letter Haagen also expresses his opinion and\nvaluation of the Ipsen method. The penultimate paragraph of this letter\nis particularly important. It describes the great importance Professor\nHaagen attached to the serological experiments in weighing the results\nof the vaccination and of the state of immunity. He writes in this\nconnection:\n\n \u201cI generally regret that, in judging immunity, much too little\n consideration is being given to the serological reaction. My\n experiments with the nonphenolized vaccine particularly proved\n again that the titer of agglutination should be considered. No\n doubt, much greater importance must again be attached to the\n serological result when judging the state of immunity in\n accordance with our present opinion on the course of the\n infection of the virus diseases, especially in their initial\n stages.\u201d (_NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520._)\n\nAt the end of his letter, Haagen suggests that his own vaccines and the\nIpsen vaccine be compared by examination. This is unequivocal proof of\nthe proposal having been made by Haagen. The defendant Rose had not the\nslightest reason to assume that Professor Haagen intended to perform an\nimmunity check with a virulent virus causing disease in human organism,\nsince the Professor particularly stressed the importance of serological\nmethods when testing the condition of immunity. On the contrary, he had\nto assume that Professor Haagen considered such an infection\nsuperfluous.\n\nThe prosecution objects to the fact that Haagen, when discussing the\nplanned experiments in his correspondence with Rose, used such terms as\n\u201cexperiments of infection\u201d and \u201csubsequent infection.\u201d But Professor\nRose knew that Haagen was engaged in the development of live vaccine\nnonpathogenic to human beings. He even mentioned this in his lecture on\ntyphus and malaria at Basel in 1944. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) Every\nexpert knows that the application of living virus for the purpose of\nprotective vaccination is a procedure of infection.\n\nHe was aware that Haagen worked on the further development of the method\nevolved by the Frenchman Blanc. This, too, can be found in the same\npassage of his Basel lecture mentioned above. The fact that the term\n\u201csubsequent infection\u201d was used by Professor Haagen in distinguishing\nprotective vaccinations from live and weakened vaccines could in no way\nsurprise or startle him. (_Rose 69, Rose Ex. 59_; _Rose 60, Rose Ex.\n60_; _Tr. pp. 6295-6_; _German Tr. 9639_.)\n\nIt must be pointed out in this connection that the notes of the\nNatzweiler camp physician himself distinctly describe the vaccination\nwhich Haagen had occasionally called \u201csubsequent infection,\u201d as\n\u201cvaccination\u201d. His entries of 22 March 1944 state that \u201cthe actual\n\u2018vaccination\u2019 will now be carried out after two protective vaccinations\nhave taken place.\u201d (_German Tr. p. 9782._)\n\nThe report taken from the Tropical Diseases Bulletin which I introduced\nin this trial shows, however, quite clearly that these infections were\nnot dangerous and could, in the main, be controlled. (_Rose 58, Rose Ex.\n58._)\n\nThis report states that the Blanc live typhus vaccine was used by the\nFrench Government in Algeria in 3.5 million cases to combat typhus, and\nthat as a result of these protective vaccinations, real typhus illness\nwas found in only 5-6 cases per thousand. If one compares this figure of\n5-6 per thousand with the total number of the vaccinations, it appears\nthat in the course of this vaccination action carried out by the French\nGovernment, 17,500 to 21,000 cases of typhus illness took place as a\nresult of vaccination. This result may justly give weight to the\nassumption that the French Government considered these incidents a\njustifiable and tolerable risk in view of the extent of the threatened\ndanger.\n\nIt would be unfair to blame the defendant Rose for having taken no steps\nat all on learning that another research scientist, namely Haagen (who\nwas not subordinated to him) was using a method which he knew was widely\npracticed. He had much less reason to do so since it was Haagen who\ntried by preliminary vaccinations with dead vaccines to avoid and to\nreduce the extent of the vaccination reactions and the danger of\nsickness as a result of the vaccination. Haagen\u2019s reports and\npublications only deal with this object of a preliminary vaccination\nwith dead vaccines and of the subsequent vaccination with a live,\nvirulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings (subsequent infection).\nThis field, with which he was not so familiar, was described in detail\nby the defendant Rose in his direct testimony. When interrogated,\nProfessor Haagen, as the actual originator of the plans, substantially\nenlarged and in some instances corrected this description.\n\nIt does not seem feasible to me to classify as criminal, experiments\nwhich tend to make more bearable and less dangerous a recognized method\nalready applied on millions of people.\n\nIn addition, there is no reply from the defendant Rose to this letter\nfrom Professor Haagen of 4 October 1943. It is not certain whether he\nactually received it. However, the possibility that he did receive it\ncannot be denied.\n\nChronologically, the next letter in this correspondence is Haagen\u2019s\nletter to Rose of 29 November 1943. (_NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490._) The\ndefendant Rose cannot remember ever having received this letter.\n\nIt is true that after this letter had been submitted to him by the\nprosecution during cross-examination, Professor Rose assumed that he\nmust have received it, judging by the date and the conditions of the\npostal service at that time. (_Tr. p. 6428._) However, he was misled\nwhen making this statement by a mistake in the reproduction. Whereas\nthis letter is actually dated 29 November 1943, the date on the letter\nis given as 29 November 1942 in the German mimeographed copies\ndistributed by the prosecution in the course of the cross-examination.\nThus it was sent at a time when large quantities of mail were destroyed\nin trains or at post offices by the heavy air raids on German towns and\ncommunications. According to the resultant state of affairs, it is\nprobable that he actually did not receive this letter. In this very\nletter Professor Haagen mentions that 18 of the 100 inmates had already\ndied en route. The answers the defendant Rose gave on cross-examination\nbefore this letter had been submitted to him show clearly that he could\nnot remember such information. (_Tr. p. 6424-5._) He would hardly have\nbeen able to forget such a gruesome report if he had actually received\nthis letter.\n\nIt also cannot be stated that the defendant Rose could only have written\nhis letter to Haagen of 13 December 1943 (_NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298_) after\nhaving received Haagen\u2019s letter of 29 November 1943. Prosecuting\ncounsel, Mr. McHaney, however, alleged this when cross-examining Rose\n(_Tr. p. 6431_) thus causing confusion in the mind of the defendant\nRose. For, in reality, Rose\u2019s letter of 13 December 1943 is the reply to\na further letter from Haagen dated 8 December 1943, as appears clearly\nfrom the introductory sentence in Rose\u2019s letter of 13 December 1943.\nFrom this state of affairs it can only be concluded that either\nProfessor Haagen did not mail this letter at all\u2014perhaps in view of the\ninformation contained therein about the unfavorable conditions of health\nof the inmates\u2014or else the defendant Rose did not receive the letter\nbecause it was destroyed along with a lot of other mail of the same date\nin the heavy air raids. The prosecution, no doubt, would not have failed\nto introduce this letter into evidence if the defendant Rose had replied\nto Haagen\u2019s letter dated 29 November 1943. Professor Haagen\u2019s suggestion\nin his letter of 4 October 1943 that the Copenhagen vaccine be tested,\nis again dealt with in Rose\u2019s letter of 13 December 1943. In this letter\nRose exclusively speaks of the testing of vaccine, without mentioning\ninfections at all. In the letter a parallel is drawn to the Buchenwald\ntyphus experiments only insofar as he indicated the advantage of the\nsimultaneous testing of several vaccines. On direct examination, that\nis, prior to the submission of other documents which give greater\nclarification to the whole matter, the defendant Rose stated quite\nclearly and in agreement with subsequent evidence and the later\ntestimony of Haagen, that the point in question was the application of\nthe Copenhagen vaccine for preliminary vaccination, aiming at the\nweakening of the vaccination reaction in connection with subsequent\nvaccination with a live, avirulent vaccine nonpathogenic to human\nbeings.\n\nThe two biologically parallel conditions which are obvious to every\nlayman, one, the weakening of a reaction following vaccination with a\nlive vaccine, and two, the weakening of a natural sickness, were\nexplained in detail by Professor Rose on direct examination. (_Tr. p.\n6281._)\n\nFinally, it must be emphatically pointed out that the plan discussed in\nthis correspondence to test the effect of the Copenhagen vaccine on the\nweakening of vaccination reactions followed by the application of the\nnew live avirulent typhus vaccine pathogenic to human beings as compared\nwith other vaccines, was not carried out at all. After Haagen had\nsucceeded in weakening the reaction in another way, namely by long\nstorage, he was no longer interested in the Copenhagen vaccine.\n(_Becker-Freyseng 62_[58]; _German, Tr. 9614-5_.)\n\nTherefore, there only remains the examination of the question of whether\nthe defendant Rose was responsible for Haagen\u2019s activities, knowing that\nProfessor Haagen had performed experiments on inmates with live\navirulent typhus vaccines still in the testing stage. Apart from the\ncorrespondence discussed just now (part of which did not deal with\nexperiments at all, while the other part referred to the discussion of\nan experimental plan which had been temporarily under consideration),\nthe defendant Rose was only informed of Haagen\u2019s activities through the\nlatter\u2019s reports which were sent to him for information and comments by\nthe chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, through official\nchannels. These, however, either contained simple information about the\nfact that Professor Haagen had asked for and received a commission for\nresearch, or else they were scientific publications containing nothing\nto which objections could be made.\n\nThe prosecution concluded from the letter of the Luftwaffe Medical\nAcademy, dated 7 July 1944 to the Luftlottenarzt Reich [Air Fleet\nPhysician Reich] that Haagen must have infected human beings with\nvirulent typhus bacilli which were pathogenic to human beings because\n\u201ccontrol persons\u201d were mentioned in this letter. (_NO-128, Pros._ _Ex.\n307._) This letter approves the publication of Professor Haagen\u2019s work\nand that of his assistant Crodel: \u201cExperiments with a New Dried Typhus\nVaccine.\u201d This work which had been submitted to the defendant Rose prior\nto publication actually shows clearly that these controls were meant to\nbe a comparison of the results of serological examinations on patients\nfrom the camp epidemic with the serological examinations on persons\nprotectively vaccinated. Haagen, whose main interest was in serological\nexaminations, as already mentioned, had no reason whatsoever to perform\nartificial infections since the epidemic in the concentration camp at\nNatzweiler offered an abundance of persons for the purposes of\ncomparison.\n\nFinally it must be stated, in addition, that the experimental plans\ndiscussed in Haagen\u2019s letter of 27 June 1944 to Professor Hirt never\nbecame known to the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate nor to Rose.\n(_NO-127, Pros. Ex. 306._) Moreover, the general development of the\nsituation (Haagen\u2019s absence from Strasbourg, evacuation of the camp at\nNatzweiler, etc.,) shows that this planned experiment could never have\nbeen performed. The truth of this statement is further clearly proved by\nthe testimonies of the witnesses Broers and Nales, according to which no\nmore typhus vaccinations took place after April 1944.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n MRUGOWSKY_[59]\n\nThe prosecution stated in its plea: If Grawitz were still alive, he\nwould sit here as one of the principal defendants on the defendants\u2019\nbench. This is certainly true. But Grawitz passed sentenced on himself.\nAnd what does the prosecution do? It indicts Mrugowsky instead of\nGrawitz. It does not consider in its arguments that Mrugowsky was not a\nprivate person but a medical officer in the Waffen SS, that is a\nsoldier, and that Grawitz and Himmler were his military superiors. It\nspeaks of conspiracy but it does not examine thereby to what extent a\nconspiracy may be conceived when military subordination plays its part.\nIn its summing-up, both written and oral, the prosecution merely\nsubmitted the original allegations of the indictment. It completely\nignored the evidence produced by the defendants, and merely pointed out\na little scornfully that this evidence was mostly composed of\naffidavits. But this is no fault of the defendants. They would have\npreferred to be able to produce counter-proof taken from their own\nrecords. But all the documents belonging to the defendants and to other\noffices, from which the prosecution evidence emanates, are in the hands\nof the prosecution. It merely submitted those parts of the documents\nwhich, torn from their context, seem to incriminate the defendants. On\nthe other hand, the prosecution made it impossible for the defendants to\nfind the records connected with the prosecution evidence which would\nensure a complete elucidation of the true facts.\n\nI would ask the Tribunal to consider in particular this difficult\nposition of the defendants with regard to evidence. It places particular\nemphasis on the old legal principle that the defendant is considered not\nguilty until his guilt has been proved, and in doubtful cases the Court\nis to decide in favor of the defendant.\n\nThe charges against Mrugowsky are composed of three groups:\n\n(1) The typhus experiments and the aconitine execution which did not\nconcern volunteers. In these cases the Tribunal will have to consider\nwhether state emergency contended by Mrugowsky really existed, and if\nso, if the typhus experiments and the aconitine execution were\njustified. If the answer is in the affirmative, then neither the typhus\nexperiments nor the aconitine execution is criminal, since there is no\nobjection raised as to the manner in which they were performed. If the\nquestion is answered in the negative, then the next consideration is, if\nand to what extent Mrugowsky participated in them and if he is\nresponsible under criminal law.\n\n(2) The second group consists of the actions of Ding which he performed\non his own initiative, e. g., his participation in a killing by phenol\nand the poison experiment on 6 persons.\n\n(3) The third group consists of the protective vaccinations for which\nvolunteers were available, according to the evidence produced by the\nprosecution.\n\nThe defendant Mrugowsky is indicted first of all for his alleged\nparticipation in the typhus experiments at Buchenwald and in other\nmedical experiments. In its submission of evidence, the prosecution\ntreated these experiments as criminal and as experiments performed by\ndoctors. During the examination of the experts, Professor Leibbrandt and\nProfessor Ivy, the prosecution also treated these medical experiments as\nexperiments performed by doctors and asked the experts if these\nexperiments were to be considered as admissible from the point of view\nof medical ethics.\n\nI am convinced that the experiments on which the prosecution bases its\nindictment were in no way experiments which originated from the\ninitiative of the executive physicians themselves. The experiments were\na form of research work necessitated by an extraordinarily pressing\nstate emergency, and ordered by the highest competent governmental\nauthorities.\n\nProfessor Ivy also admitted that there is a fundamental difference\nbetween the physician as a therapeutist and the physician as a\nscientific research worker. When asked by Dr. Tipp: \u201cSo you admit that\nto the physician as a therapeutist, the physician who cures, other rules\nand, therefore, other paragraphs of the oath of Hippocrates apply,\u201d he\ngave the answer: \u201cYes, I do, very definitely.\u201d\n\nConsequently, experiments on human beings, performed for urgent reasons\nof a public character and ordered by the competent authorities of the\nstate, cannot simply be considered as criminal merely because the\nexperimental persons chosen by the state for the research work were not\nvolunteers.\n\nThe prosecution ought to have brought additional evidence with regard to\nthe individual experiments to prove why they were criminal, apart from\nthe fact that the experimental persons were not volunteers.\n\nThe largest space in the indictment against Mrugowsky is taken up by the\ntyphus experiments at Buchenwald. The prosecution does not contend that\nMrugowsky participated in them personally, but I further think I have\nproved in my written arguments that he neither suggested nor ordered nor\ncontrolled these experiments; that he did not further them nor even\napprove of them.\n\nNevertheless for precaution\u2019s sake, I also must prove that the\nexperiments in question were not illegal and that under no aspect can\nthey be considered as criminal since they were caused by an urgent state\nemergency. This proof can be produced in a particularly impressive\nmanner in the case of the typhus experiments.\n\nIn the Flick trial,[60] the prosecution submitted Document NI-5222 which\nI have offered to the Tribunal. (_Mrugowsky, Ex. 99._) This document,\nwhich comes from the Labor Office Westphalia and is dated 3 February\n1942, states that according to information from military quarters, until\nrecently the number of Soviet prisoners of war dying of typhus was still\n15,000 _daily_.\n\nI think I need no longer emphasize that a most pressing state emergency\nis considered to exist if from one single epidemic there are, I repeat,\n15,000 deaths daily in the camps for Russian prisoners alone.\n\nOn the other hand, the prosecution stated that from the beginning of\n1942 until the beginning of 1945, a total of 142 persons died as a\nresult of the typhus experiments at Buchenwald. I place these two\nfigures intentionally at the beginning of my argument. They show that\nduring the entire period of the experiments in Buchenwald, the number of\nfatalities amounted to one percent of the toll taken _every day_ by\ntyphus in the _Russian prisoner camps alone_ in winter 1941-42. In\naddition to these victims in the Russian P. W. camps, one has to\nconsider the enormous number of people who died of typhus among the\ncivil population of the occupied eastern territories and the German\nArmed Forces.\n\nIt is clear that under these conditions drastic measures had to be\ntaken. When judging the typhus experiments carried out in the\nconcentration camp Buchenwald one must not forget that Germany was\nengaged in war at the time. Millions of soldiers had to give up their\nlives because they were called upon to fight by the state. The state\nemployed the civil population for work according to state requirements.\nIn doing so it made no distinction between men and women. The state\nordered employment in chemical factories which was detrimental to\nhealth. It ordered work on the construction of new projectiles which\ninvolved considerable danger. When unexploded enemy shells of a new type\nwere found at the front, or unexploded bombs of new construction were\nfound after an air raid at home, it ordered gunnery officers to dismount\nsuch new shells or bombs with the aid of assistants in order to learn\ntheir construction. This implied great danger. Then the fillings of the\nnew shells and bombs had to be examined by analytical chemists to\ndetermine their composition. In certain cases this work was detrimental\nto the health of the chemists and their assistants and always\nconsiderably dangerous.\n\nIn the same way the state ordered the medical men to make experiments\nwith new weapons against dangerous diseases. These weapons were the\nvaccines. The fact that during these experiments not only the\nexperimental persons but also the medical men were exposed to great\ndanger was proved when Dr. Ding infected himself unintentionally at the\nbeginning of his typhus experiments and became seriously ill with\ntyphus.\n\nWith regard to such medical experiments, one has to agree on principle\nwith the opinion of Professor Ivy and Professor Leibbrandt that such\nexperiments may only be performed on volunteers. But even Professor Ivy\nadmitted that there is a difference between those cases in which a\nscientific research worker starts such experiments on his own initiative\nand the cases in which the competent organs of the state authorize him\nto do so. He answered the question of whether the organ of the state is\nresponsible in the affirmative; but he added that this has nothing to do\nwith the moral responsibility of the experimenter towards the\nexperimental subject.\n\nIf the experiment is ordered by the state, this moral responsibility of\nexperimenter towards the experimental subject relates to the way in\nwhich the experiment is performed, not to the experiment itself.\n\nThe prosecution did not contest that the experiments at Buchenwald were\ncarried out correctly. By way of precaution, I offered evidence for the\ncorrect execution in my closing brief.\n\nIn answer to a question by Dr. Sauter, Professor Ivy observed that he\ndid not think the state could take the responsibility of ordering a\nscientist to kill a man in order to obtain knowledge.\n\nThe case with the typhus experiments is different. No order was given to\nkill a man in order to obtain knowledge. But the typhus experiments were\ndangerous experiments. Out of 724 experimental persons, 154 died. But\nthese 154 deaths from the typhus experiments have to be compared with\nthe 15,000 who died of typhus _every day_ in the camps for Soviet\nprisoners of war, and the innumerable deaths from typhus among the\ncivilian population of the occupied eastern territories and the German\ntroops. This enormous number of deaths led to the absolute necessity of\nhaving effective vaccines against typhus in sufficient quantity. The\nnewly developed vaccines had been tested in the animal experiments as to\ntheir compatibility.\n\nI explained this in detail in writing.\n\nThe Tribunal will have to decide whether, in view of the enormous extent\nof epidemic typhus, in view of the 15,000 deaths it was causing daily in\nthe camps for Russian prisoners of war alone, the order given by the\ngovernment authorities to test the typhus vaccines was justified or not.\nIf the answer is in the affirmative, then the typhus experiments at\nBuchenwald were not criminal, since the prosecution did not contest that\nthey were carried out according to the rules of medical science. In this\ncase, any responsibility of Mrugowsky for these experiments is excluded.\nIf, on the other hand, the Tribunal answered the question in the\nnegative and declared the typhus experiments at Buchenwald to be\ncriminal, then examination would have to be made as to whether Mrugowsky\nwas responsible for them in any way.\n\nIn my written statement I explained in detail that Block 46 at\nBuchenwald, where the experiments were carried out, was not subordinate\nto Mrugowsky, but that Dr. Ding worked under the immediate orders of\nGrawitz. Out of the extensive evidence I offered to prove this fact, I\nonly want to stress, one, the letter addressed by Grawitz to Mrugowsky\nin which Grawitz declared explicitly on 24 August 1944 that he gave his\n_consent_ for the series of experiments he mentioned in the letter to be\nperformed in Block 46 at Buchenwald, and two, the letter addressed by\nMrugowsky to Grawitz on 29 January 1945 in which he suggests the testing\nof a jaundice virus and writes: \u201cPlease obtain permission from the Reich\nLeader SS to perform the infection experiments _in the typhus\nexperimental station of the concentration camp Buchenwald_.\u201d\n\nThese two letters demonstrate that even in autumn 1944 and early in 1945\nMrugowsky could still only have performed a series of experiments in\nBlock 46 with special permission. This refutes the assumption of the\nprosecution that Block 46 was subordinate to Mrugowsky.\n\nBut above all, I want to stress again the affidavit given by Dr. Morgen\non 23 May 1947 in which he stated that when he investigated the\noccurrences in Block 46 at Buchenwald, Dr. Ding showed him an order\nsigned by Grawitz in which Ding was commissioned explicitly to carry out\nthe experiments.\n\nDr. Morgen has further stated that he had to report to Grawitz\npersonally about the result of his investigations as an examining\nmagistrate at Buchenwald. The results here, too, according to the\naffidavit given by Dr. Morgen showed that Grawitz ordered the\nexperiments. On this occasion he called Dr. Ding \u201chis man,\u201d and said he\nwould be very sorry if the investigation caused any charges to be\nbrought against Dr. Ding, since he had employed him for the experiments.\nMorgen emphasized that the name of Mrugowsky was not mentioned in the\ncourse of his conversations with Ding and Grawitz. This clearly shows, I\nthink, that Mrugowsky had nothing to do with Block 46 at Buchenwald. As\nfurther evidence that Ding was actually subordinate to Mrugowsky in\nBlock 46, the prosecution referred to the sketches designed by\nMrugowsky. (_NO-416, Pros. Ex. 22 and NO-417, Pros. Ex. 23._) These\npictures show that the Division for Typhus and Virus Research in\nBuchenwald was subordinate to Mrugowsky; Mrugowsky does not deny this.\nDivision for Typhus and Virus Research was only Block 50. Block 46 was\ncalled as formerly \u201cExperimental Station of the Concentration Camp\nBuchenwald.\u201d Mrugowsky\u2019s letter just quoted shows this. Block 46 was\nmerely attached to the Division for Typhus and Virus Research without\nestablishing thereby any relationship of subordination to Mrugowsky.\nThis is described and proved in detail in my closing brief.\n\nFrom the two sketches designed by Mrugowsky, showing that the Division\nfor Typhus and Virus Research was under his control from its\nestablishment to the end of the war, nothing can be deduced, therefore,\nabout whether he was Ding\u2019s superior in Block 46.\n\nThis fact and the further evidence brought in my closing brief\ndemonstrate that Block 46 at Buchenwald was not subordinate to\nMrugowsky. Therefore, Mrugowsky bears no responsibility for the typhus\nexperiments in Block 46.\n\nIn this connection, I want to emphasize that Mrugowsky never denied that\nhe knew the typhus experiments at Buchenwald were ordered by Grawitz and\ncarried out by Dr. Ding. He never denied that he saw, for instance, the\nreport about the series I of the experiments, which he rewrote in his\nletter of May 5, 1942, and that he saw Ding\u2019s essay about acridine which\nDing sent to Grawitz for approval to publish 18 months after the\nexperiments were completed, and which Grawitz then gave to Mrugowsky to\nreturn to Ding. But from this knowledge, no responsibility on the part\nof Mrugowsky can be deduced for the typhus experiments. The experiments\nwere ordered by Himmler and Grawitz as his highest military superiors.\nAs a medical officer of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky had no possibility at\nall of opposing these experiments ordered by his superiors. When Grawitz\nfirst suggested the experiments, he resisted at once, and induced him to\nask for a decision from Himmler as the highest superior. Himmler decided\nagainst Mrugowsky. Under these conditions Mrugowsky could do no more.\nHis opposition, however, resulted in the fact that he was not\ncommissioned with the experiments, but that Ding received the order for\nexecution.\n\nNor has the prosecution brought any evidence to show that Mrugowsky\nsubsequently intervened in any way in the typhus experiments at\nBuchenwald; that he furthered them, or participated in them in any way.\nOn account of the fact that Mrugowsky knew about the typhus experiments,\nno charge can be made against him under criminal law, because neither in\nlaw nor in fact had he any possibility of preventing the experiments or\nenforcing their cessation later on.\n\nThe prosecution further based its charge against Mrugowsky on the\ndepositions of several witnesses to the effect that he had been Ding\u2019s\nchief in Block 46, also insofar as the experiments carried out by Ding\nin Block 46 were concerned. I have energetically contested this. All the\nstatements produced by the prosecution in this respect originate from\nDing. None of these statements comes from anybody who worked in Block 46\nhimself. It is significant that the prosecution has not been able to\nsubmit one single order given by Mrugowsky to Ding for the execution of\ntyphus experiments, although its witness, Balachowsky, stated that Kogon\nhad managed to collect and secure extensive evidence which he had handed\nover to the American Army. If there had been any written orders from\nMrugowsky to Ding, the latter would certainly not have destroyed them\nfor the sake of his own protection, and Kogon would have given them to\nthe American Army with his other documents. It is true that the witness\nKogon (whose unreliability I shall prove later) maintains that Mrugowsky\ngave mostly only oral orders to Ding. But he further testified that from\nthe year 1943 onwards, Ding was no longer satisfied with oral orders\nfrom Mrugowsky but asked for them to be given in writing. In spite of\nthis, not a single written order from Mrugowsky to Ding concerning the\nexecution of a series of typhus experiments was produced.\n\nThe only witness who might be able to state from his own knowledge\nanything about the order given to Ding in respect of the typhus\nexperiments is the witness Dr. Morgen. I just indicated that Morgen saw\nthe order given by Grawitz to Ding for the execution of the typhus\nexperiments, and that Grawitz personally told Dr. Morgen that Ding was\nhis man at Buchenwald and said he employed him there.\n\nThe error of the witnesses, who stated that Mrugowsky had been Ding\u2019s\nchief, results from the fact that Ding was dependent on Mrugowsky in\nrespect of the production of vaccine in Block 50 and also concerning his\nactivity as a hygienist. I proved in my closing brief that from 1942 to\n1945 Ding was only working on the typhus vaccine experiments for about\n2\u00bd months, if one adds up all the hours he worked on them. All the rest\nof his activity in approximately 3 years was devoted to the vaccine\nproduction and the work of a hygienist, that is, work in which he was\nMrugowsky\u2019s subordinate. It is comprehensible that during the\napproximate period of 33 months when he worked for Mrugowsky, he\nreceived many more orders from him than from Grawitz for the execution\nof the 13 typhus vaccine experiments. It is, therefore, comprehensible\nthat the main part of his correspondence under these circumstances was\ncarried on with Mrugowsky.\n\nIn consequence of the description of the prosecution which hardly spoke\nof anything except the typhus vaccine experiments, and only produced\ndocuments thereon, the impression was certainly given that the typhus\nvaccine experiments were Ding\u2019s main activity at Buchenwald. That is not\nso. In his main activity at Buchenwald, Ding was Mrugowsky\u2019s\nsubordinate. Therefore, because his main correspondence was with\nMrugowsky and he called Mrugowsky his superior, one cannot assume that\nalso in respect of the typhus vaccine experiments there was some\nconnection between Mrugowsky and Ding, and that Mrugowsky participated\nin these experiments in any way or was responsible for them. The\nprosecution did not deny that such double subordination, as it existed\nbetween Ding on the one hand and Grawitz and Mrugowsky on the other, is\npossible in a military organization and happened frequently. I can refer\nalso in this respect to the statement in my closing brief.\n\nThe testimony of the witness Kogon and Ding\u2019s diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex.\n287_) are the chief items of evidence submitted by the prosecution\nagainst Mrugowsky. This is why, in my closing brief, I explained in\ndetail that neither Kogon\u2019s statement nor the Ding diary furnish any\nsubstantial proof. As to Kogon\u2019s testimony, I want to emphasize once\nmore the principal points:\n\nKogon described on the witness stand the dramatic circumstances under\nwhich he pretends to have saved the so-called Ding diary. I needn\u2019t\npoint out that the particular occurrences which happened when he saved\nthe diary would have impressed him so much that he would not forget them\nif his statement were true. Therefore, he couldn\u2019t possibly give a\ndifferent description of this event on several different occasions. In\nfact, in the doctors\u2019 trial and in the Pohl trial,[61] he gave two\nreports about the way he allegedly saved the diary. These reports differ\nso fundamentally and in a manner which could only be possible if his\ncontention that he saved the diary is untrue, and the descriptions he\ngives of this event are pure invention.\n\nKogon stated in the doctors\u2019 trial that Ding sorted the secret documents\nto be burned in Block 46. While Ding and Dietzsch went into the\nadjoining room for a moment, he threw the diary and a heap of papers\ninto a box to save them from destruction. Two days later he had told\nDing that he had saved the diary and a heap of other papers from being\ndestroyed and received permission to fetch them from Block 46;\notherwise, he wouldn\u2019t have been able to get them out. He fetched them\nand kept them ever since. This description is quite plausible and would\nbe hard to refute if there was not Kogon\u2019s own testimony in the Pohl\ntrial.\n\nIn the Pohl trial, the same Kogon testified about three months later\nthat he was standing with Ding and Dietzsch at the same table when the\nsecret documents were sorted for destruction. Suddenly Ding pushed the\ndiary and other papers towards him. He took them and carried them to\nBlock 50, together with Ding. Ding did not know at this time that Kogon\nhad the diary and the other documents with him, but he told Ding this on\nthe same day.\n\nA more striking contradiction than these two statements about the saving\nof the diary is hardly possible. If Kogon had really saved the diary in\nthe way he described in the doctors\u2019 trial, then the moment when he\nthrew the diary into the box and his reflections during the two days\nbefore he told Ding that the diary had not been burned would have\nremained indelibly in his memory. He would have remembered the way from\nBlock 46 to Block 50 to fetch the diary and the way back with the diary\nso well, that a different description would be impossible. Also, if the\npreservation of the diary had occurred in the way described by Kogon in\nthe Pohl trial, it certainly would have been recollected by him so\nclearly that a different description would also be impossible. So the\ntwo descriptions about the preservation of the diary, differing so\nfundamentally from each other, can only be explained in two ways. Either\nKogon\u2019s statement is untrue and he didn\u2019t save the diary at all\u2014in this\ncase, if he told the Tribunal a falsehood about such an important point,\nthen his whole testimony is unreliable\u2014or Kogon must have such a bad\nmemory that his contradictions in his testimony can be explained\ntherefrom. In this case, too, his entire testimony would have no\nprobative value on account of his bad memory.\n\nThe Dietzsch testimony submitted by me speaks against the correctness of\nKogon\u2019s statement on the saving of the diary. Dietzsch states that\nduring the destruction of the secret documents in Block 46 Ding tore up\nthe diary in his presence and threw it into the lighted stove where it\nwas burned. Dietzsch declared explicitly that Ding made sure that all\nthe documents were entirely burned after the destruction of the papers\nwas finished.\n\nI should say that Dietzsch\u2019s statement combined with the contradiction\nbetween the two statements of Kogon\u2019s proves that what Kogon said about\nthe saving of the diary is a falsehood.\n\nIn my closing brief I dealt in detail with still further points on which\nthe statements made by Kogon in the doctors\u2019 trial and in the Pohl trial\ncontradict each other in a similarly marked manner concerning the\npreservation of the diary. It will not be necessary to repeat all these\narguments here. I should like to refer the Tribunal to them.\n\nThe second main evidence of the prosecution against Mrugowsky is the\ndiary which is said to have been saved. The two fantastic descriptions\nof the saving of the diary given by Kogon are unreliable. Therefore,\nDietzsch must be believed. He said that Ding burned the original diary\nof Block 46 in his presence. This statement is supported by the opinion\ngiven by the handwriting experts, Zettner and Nastvogel, treated in\ndetail in my closing brief.\n\nIn the meantime the prosecution declared while discussing the Beiglboeck\nevidence that it could have handwriting examined to determine the date\nof its origin at an institute in Frankfurt and also documents\ninvestigated in every way. The prosecution thereupon stressed explicitly\nthat I also had the Ding diary examined by experts.\n\nThe Ding diary is of importance for the prosecution for the charges\nagainst several defendants. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have\nfound it more important to have the genuineness of the Ding diary\nexamined rather than the Beiglboeck documents. Ding signed in ink. So\nthe institute at Frankfurt would have been able to ascertain without any\ndifficulty whether the signature on the first page is several years\nolder than the signature on the last page. Furthermore, the institute\ncould have ascertained without any difficulty whether the whole diary\nfrom the end of the year 1941 till spring 1945 was written on exactly\nthe same paper or not. But the prosecution did not hand the diary to\nthis institute for examination. This fact shows that it was itself\nconvinced that such examination would not have given a result favorable\nto the prosecution.\n\nIn my opinion, this is a particularly strong argument for the assumption\nthat the diary was really composed and written subsequently. I also want\nto refer the Tribunal to my closing brief with reference to this point.\nThe probative value of a diary lies in the fact that the man who kept it\ncannot foresee the future development when making his entries. Therefore\nit is to be presumed that the entries portray the events objectively and\nin their entirety. If a document which is subsequently composed is given\nthe external form of a diary, one can deduce therefrom the intention to\ninfluence the reader in a certain direction and also to deceive him for\nthis purpose. That is the reason why any record written subsequently and\nmade up in the form of a diary has no probative value.\n\nThe prosecution tried to show that the Ding diary is of probative value\nby comparing its contents with a number of documents having the same\ncontents as the entries in the diary. In my closing brief I dealt with\nthese documents in detail and proved that they all, without exception,\ncame from Ding. All documents which the prosecution compared with the\ndiary, Ding still had at hand when he made the belated compilation after\nthe original diary had been burned. They are vouchers he used for the\nentries he made in the diary we have now. Therefore, it cannot be\ndeduced from the conformity of these documents and the diary that the\nlatter is good evidence.\n\nOne of the documents the prosecution compared with the diary is the\nso-called work report of Ding. This work report is really only a draft\nwhich was not signed and was not sent to Mrugowsky. I explained this in\ndetail in my closing brief and offered evidence for it. According to\nKogon\u2019s statement, this draft of the report was written in Block 50 by\nthe second compound clerk. Such draft has no probative value unless it\nis signed by the person who should sign it. In this instance, it would\nhave been Ding. Mr. Hardy admitted that this work report was only\nprepared for signature by Ding. He thereby admitted that it was not\nsigned. Therefore, the draft has no probative value. If these three main\nelements of evidence fail, Kogon\u2019s statement, the work report, and the\nDing dairy, the chief part of the evidence brought forward against\nMrugowsky fails.\n\nThe prosecution contended in its summing-up that the experimental\nsubjects volunteered neither for the typhus experiments nor for the\nother experiments at Buchenwald. In respect of the other experiments,\nthis is not correct. I shall deal with this later. In respect to the\ntyphus experiments, it may be correct that most of the experimental\nsubjects did not volunteer.\n\nOn the other hand, the closing brief of the prosecution shows no\nallegation for the period up to the fall of 1943 that Mrugowsky had\nanything to do with the selection of the prisoners for the experiments.\nThis is correct and was also put in in my closing brief. In autumn 1943\naccording to the contentions of the prosecution, again relying on\nKogon\u2019s testimony, Ding is said to have asked Mrugowsky for the\nexperimental subjects to be chosen by the Reich Leader SS. This\nstatement of Kogon\u2019s is also untrue. I have pointed this out in detail\nin my written statement.\n\nIn this connection, the prosecution mentions Himmler\u2019s order of 27\nFebruary 1944 relating to the selection of the prisoners by the Reich\npolice agency. But this order of Himmler was not given pursuant to a\nsuggestion made by Mrugowsky. It is really due to the attempts of Dr.\nMorgen. He explained this accurately in his affidavit of 23 May 1947,\nwhich I offered in evidence.\n\nSo it is an established fact that until autumn 1943 Mrugowsky had\nnothing to do with the selection of the prisoners, and that from this\ntime on, the prisoners for the typhus experiments were chosen by the\nReich criminal police agency pursuant to Himmler\u2019s order suggested by\nDr. Morgen, so that _after_ this time Mrugowsky had _also_ nothing to do\nwith the choice of the prisoners.\n\nThe prosecution calls the typhus experiments criminal, in particular,\nbecause control persons were used and above all because of the alleged\n\u201cpassage persons\u201d.[62] As to the control persons, I explained at length\nin my closing brief that such vaccine experiments are impossible without\nthe use of control subjects and lead to no practical result without\nthem.\n\nIf one takes the Ding diary for information, it appears that in a number\nof test series the cultural virus used was no longer pathogenic to human\nbeings. If no control persons had been infected, the fact that the\nexperimental persons were not taken ill would have been explained as a\nconsequence of the protection obtained by the vaccination. This would\nhave led to entirely wrong deductions and to the use of inferior\nvaccines in practice. If one considers the typhus experiments as\nadmissible, the use of control subjects is, therefore, indispensable. I\nexplained this in detail in my closing brief.\n\nOn the other hand there was no justification for the use of passage\npersons who were infected merely in order to have live virus always on\nhand. I have demonstrated in my written arguments that such passage\npersons were never used. Until April 1943 there was no reason to use\nthem. For until April 1943 it is stated explicitly in the Ding diary\nthat in each series of experiments the infection was performed by means\nof cultural virus bred in the yolk sacs of hens\u2019 eggs which Ding\nobtained from the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. After 11 April 1943,\nDing infected with fresh blood taken from persons suffering from typhus.\nBut during this period, too, the use of passage persons was superfluous\nbecause Ding always had persons at his disposal who had contracted\ntyphus spontaneously, and he could take the fresh infected blood from\nthem.\n\nIf the prosecution had wanted to bring evidence to show that passage\npersons were used in Block 46, this could have been done best of all by\nDing and Dietzsch. The prosecution produced statements from both in\nwhich the question of the passage persons is not mentioned. The\nprosecution knew from the examination of Mrugowsky on the witness stand\nthat he denied the use of passage persons. When I said at the end of the\npresentation of my evidence that I did not call Dietzsch to the witness\nstand but only offered an affidavit from him, Mr. Hardy asked the\nTribunal for permission to interrogate Dietzsch on certain facts.\n\nHowever, he never produced a record of such an interrogation. This is\nfurther evidence that Dietzsch did not confirm the use of passage\npersons. All the witnesses who testified on the use of passage persons\ndid not work in Block 46. They, therefore, know nothing from their own\nobservation, but only through third persons. Dr. Morgen discovered\nnothing about passage persons during his investigations as an examining\nmagistrate in Block 46 in Buchenwald. So there is no conclusive evidence\nof any kind to show that passage persons were used in Block 46. On the\ncontrary, I proved in my closing brief that passage persons actually\nwere _not_ used.\n\nIf the Tribunal were, nevertheless, to assume that the use of passage\npersons was proved, there would be no guilt of Mrugowsky involved in the\nuse of these passage persons because I demonstrated that Ding was not\nhis subordinate in respect of his activity in Block 46, and also there\nis no evidence whatever to show that he even as much as knew about the\nuse of passage persons.\n\nIn my written statements, I then dealt in detail with the experiments\nwith acridine preparations within the framework of the typhus\nexperiments. I proved that Ding did not obtain these preparations from\nMrugowsky but from the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. There is no evidence\nwhatever to show that Mrugowsky had any knowledge of these experiments\nperformed by Ding.\n\nDing\u2019s report on the acridine experiments submitted for publication was\nhanded to Mrugowsky by Grawitz only about 18 months after the\ntermination of the experiments. Therefore, no charge can be made against\nMrugowsky under criminal law for the experiments with acridine\npreparations which caused a particularly high number of deaths.\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Convalescence Serum, Blood Conservation, and Blood Serum Conservation_\n CONVALESCENCE SERUM\n\nIn Ding\u2019s diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_) two entries are found\nconcerning the taking of blood for the purpose of extracting\nconvalescence serum. During the period from 26 May to 12 June 1944,\n6,500 cc. of blood were taken from 15 defervescent typhus patients, and\nbetween 13 October and 31 October 1944, 20,800 cc. of blood were taken\nfrom 44 defervescent typhus patients. The blood was taken between the\n12th [14th] and the 21st day following the disappearance of the fever.\nThus an average of 465 cc. for each patient can be calculated. The\nwitness for the prosecution, Kogon, has testified on this question.\n(_Tr. pp. 1192-3._) His statement contains several serious\nmisinterpretations. In the first place, it must be stressed that the\ntaking of blood from a convalescent patient by no means constitutes an\n\u201cexperiment,\u201d as indicated by Mr. McHaney. What would be the experiment\nin that case? The only thing to find out is whether the person in\nquestion is suitable or not for the taking of blood.\n\nEven Kogon admits that the taking of blood from convalescent patients is\nan ordinary procedure. I have proved the same thing through Mrugowsky\n14, Mrugowsky Exhibit 37. The same appears from the affidavit of the\nexpert, Professor Dr. Siebeck. (_Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38._) There\nit says:\n\n \u201c* * * It is correct that in the case of typhus, convalescence\n serum is frequently used for therapeutical purposes * * *.\u201d\n\nThe expert, Professor Dr. Vollhardt, also confessed to the same opinion.\nIt is then a fact that the taking of blood from former typhus patients\nduring convalescence is, in principle, in accordance with medical usage.\n\nIt has been proved that no objections can be raised against the\ntreatment in Block 46. Accordingly, it is very improbable that the\nphysician in charge should have exposed particularly asthenic patients\nto the taking of blood. The witness Dorn has stated that the delivery of\ndrugs to Block 46 took place through the prison hospital and that he\npersonally discharged the deliveries twice a week. Furthermore, the\nexamining judge, Dr. Morgen (_Mrugowsky 23, Mrugowsky Ex. 26_)\ndemonstrated that even in 1944\u2014\n\n \u201c* * * the treatment and supply of the sick persons was careful\n and good in every respect. According to the impression I gained,\n the sick persons were treated similar to those in a good\n military hospital.\u201d\n\nThis is also confirmed through the indictment of Morgen against Koch.\n(_NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526._)\n\nConsequently, there is no reason to doubt that they were in a condition\nfavorable to the taking of blood and that this constituted no danger for\nthem. Mrugowsky expressed his opinion on this question during his\nexamination. (_Tr. p. 5166._) He pointed out that the taking of blood in\na quantity not exceeding 500 cc. is in complete compliance with medical\nregulations and that the convalescent patients received additional food\nas compensation for the loss of blood. In his affidavit Dr. Ellenbeck\npropounded his view concerning the extraction of typhus convalescence\nserum. (_Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex. 110._) From this it appears that\nEllenbeck also received blood from patients belonging to the Waffen SS,\nconsequently not exclusively from prisoners in the concentration camps.\nIn the above-mentioned document (_Mrugowsky 15, Mrugowsky Ex. 38_)\nProfessor Siebeck expressly points out:\n\n \u201cIt is at least quite improbable, if not impossible, for human\n beings, who are in the convalescent stage of typhus, to be so\n harmed by a single bloodletting of 439 cc. that they die after a\n certain period has elapsed in consequence of the loss of blood.\u201d\n\nThe same opinion is endorsed by Professor Dr. Vollhardt.\n\nIn face of this evidence no support is to be found for the assertion of\nKogon that many convalescent patients died at that time, nor for his\nsuspicion that they died as a consequence of the taking of blood. The\nresult of this exposition then is that:\n\n1. The taking of blood for the purpose of extraction of convalescence\nserum is not an experiment but a medical measure. It is not criminal but\ncustomary throughout the world.\n\n2. The bleedings were carried out according to the regulations of\nmedical science.\n\n3. The quantities taken were below the usual limit, probably even very\nfar below.\n\n4. It is absolutely impossible that any person whatsoever died as a\nconsequence of the taking of blood.\n\nOn the other hand, the blood pressure of persons convalescing from\ntyphus, in particular, is often too low. Their blood vessels are still\nnot as elastic as before. In such cases, a withdrawal of blood within\nthe normal limits is very often a practiced method of relieving the\ncirculation.\n\n PRESERVATION OF BLOOD SERUM\n\nFurthermore, Kogon states that Dr. Ellenbeck carried out the taking of\nblood in the small camp to obtain a stock of blood serum. (_Tr. p.\n1192._) Kogon further states that in the part of the Buchenwald\nconcentration camp, where blood was taken, there were enough volunteers\nand they received additional food. He answered the question as to\nwhether anybody died as a consequence of the taking of blood as follows:\n\n \u201c* * * It is impossible to establish whether anybody died\n directly or indirectly as a consequence of the taking of blood *\n * *.\u201d\n\nDr. Ellenbeck made the following statement concerning that question:\n\n \u201cFrom the fall of 1944 onwards, as far as I know by request of\n the leading physician of the concentration camps, the department\n for the conservation of blood produced a conserved blood serum\n to be used for the emergency treatment of prisoners since drugs\n became more and more scarce. I had nothing whatsoever to do with\n the drawing of blood and the supply. I had the blood sent to\n Berlin. On account of reasons to be found in the aerial warfare,\n the production of this conserved blood serum was only very\n small.\n\n \u201cKogon maintained that SS medical personnel from Berlin drew the\n blood for this conserved blood serum. That is untrue. No SS\n medical personnel came from Berlin to Buchenwald in order to\n fetch blood, but ordinary couriers came who were not in a\n position to draw the blood.\u201d (_Mrugowsky 120, Mrugowsky Ex.\n 110._)\n\nTherefore these amounts of blood, too, were only small. Ellenbeck can\nstate positively that such stocks of serum were not made for other\npurposes in his laboratory. The medical officer of the concentration\ncamp gave him the order. The stocks of serum he had prepared were made\navailable to him again. * * *\n\n \u201cTo the question as to whether people died after the removal of\n blood, I refer to the above-quoted statements of the\n specialists, Professor Dr. Vollhardt and Professor Dr. Siebeck.\u201d\n\nI would also like to point out that according to Kogon\u2019s statement, Dr.\nEllenbeck himself saw to it that the prisoners actually received their\nadditional food after the removal of blood. The prisoners volunteered\nfor the removal of blood and received additional food for it. That\nsomebody died as a consequence of the removal of blood is a statement\nwithout any basis.\n\nI cannot imagine how a criminal character can be attached to this\nremoval of blood. The taking of blood from volunteers is not criminal in\nany way.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of defendant 555\n Hoven, 24 October 1946, concerning\n typhus and virus experiments.\nNO-265 287 Diary of the division for typhus and 557\n virus research at the Institute of\n Hygiene of the Waffen SS, 1941 to 1945\n (Ding diary).\nNO-257 283 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Erwin 572\n Schuler, 20 July 1945, concerning\n typhus experiments.\nNO-571 285 1943 work report for department for 573\n typhus and virus research.\nNO-121 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 15 November 578\n 1943, concerning prisoners to be used\n as experimental subjects for tests with\n typhus vaccine.\nNO-122 298 Letter dictated by Rose, addressed to 579\n Haagen, 13 December 1943, concerning\n experimental subjects for vaccine\n experiments.\nNO-123 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 March 1944, 580\n concerning experiments conducted with\n typhus vaccine and requesting\n experimental subjects.\nNO-139 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to Haagen, 7 581\n March 1944, concerning reports on\n yellow fever virus experiments\n requested by a Japanese medical\n officer.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nRose 16 Rose 12 Extracts from the affidavit of Professor 581\n Otto Lenz, director of the Robert Koch\n Institute in Berlin.\nRose 46 Rose 20 Extract from a certified statement, 4 582\n March 1947, of J. Oerskov, M. D.,\n director of the State Serum Institute\n in Copenhagen.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 583\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 586\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 595\nExtracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Eugen Haagen 606\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946,\n CONCERNING TYPHUS AND VIRUS EXPERIMENTS\n\nI, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Typhus and Virus Experiments_\n\n4. In the latter part of 1941 an experimental station was established in\nthe Buchenwald concentration camp in order to determine the\neffectiveness of various typhus vaccines. This section was called the\n\u201cTyphus Experimental Station\u2014Division for Typhus and Virus Research\u201d\nand was under the direct supervision of Dr. Ding, alias Schuler. This\nexperimental station was set up in Block 46 of the camp. The Hygiene\nInstitute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, under the command of Dr. Joachim\nMrugowsky, received all the reports of these activities and Dr. Ding\ntook orders from Mrugowsky. In the early days, that is, between 1941 and\nthe summer of 1943, Dr. Ding had many meetings in Berlin with Dr. Karl\nGenzken concerning his work at Buchenwald in connection with the typhus\nexperiments. Dr. Ding told me that Dr. Genzken had a special interest in\nthese matters and that he sent him reports at various times. Dr. Ding\nalso said that Dr. Karl Genzken was one of his superiors. From my\nassociation with Dr. Ding, I understood that the chain of command in the\nsupervision of the typhus experimental station was as follows:\nReichsarzt SS Grawitz, Genzken, Mrugowsky, and Ding.\n\n5. I can recollect that Dr. Genzken gave orders to Dr. Ding in January\n1943 to enlarge the experimental station. At this time Block 60 was\ncleaned out and made into a station for the production of the various\nvaccines to be used in the experiments at Block 46. From this time on\nthe experimental station was known as the \u201cDivision for Typhus and Virus\nResearch of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\u201d. Then in the summer\nof 1943, Dr. Genzken turned all his duties over to Dr. Mrugowsky, and\nfrom that time on Genzken no longer actively participated in these\nmatters. I can recall meeting Dr. Mrugowsky in the home of Dr. Ding on\none of his visits to Buchenwald.\n\n6. Inasmuch as I was constantly associated with Dr. Ding at Buchenwald,\nwe became very friendly. I frequently discussed matters with Ding and\nvisited his experimental station from time to time. As a matter of fact,\nDr. Ding had to go to Berlin for discussions with Dr. Mrugowsky and\nothers nearly 3 days out of every two weeks, and on such occasions I was\nin charge of the typhus institute. However, when Ding went to Berlin the\nexperiments were discontinued until he returned.\n\n7. The experiments in Block 46 in the Buchenwald concentration camp were\nconducted as follows: One group of victims was first vaccinated with the\ntyphus vaccine and then infected with the typhus virus. In order to\ncontrast the effectiveness of the vaccine, another group of inmates was\nmerely infected with the typhus virus without previous vaccination.\nBetween the autumn of 1942 and the summer of 1943 about 500 inmates of\nthe Buchenwald concentration camp were used in these experiments. During\nmy time about 10 percent of the total number of the inmates used, died\nas a result. I heard that a larger number of the victims died after my\ntime, that is, about 20 percent.\n\n8. The selection of inmates to be used for the purposes of medical\nexperiments in Block 46 by the Division for Typhus and Virus Research\nwas as follows: Whenever Dr. Ding needed human beings for his work, a\nrequest was made to the office of the camp commandant and referred to me\nfor action. Usually a man named Schober, an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer,\nnotified me to select the necessary number of prisoners for these\npurposes. In accordance with this request I selected various inmates, at\nrandom, from the roster of the camp. They were placed on a list over my\nsignature and returned to Schober, who often removed certain names from\nthe list for political reasons. In the event of particular prisoners\nbeing removed from the list, I was requested to select substitutes in\norder to provide Dr. Ding with the desired number of victims. After I\nreturned the completed list to Schober, it was given to Dr. Ding for\napproval. He made a final check to ascertain, from a medical point of\nview, the physical condition of the selected inmates and to determine\nwhether or not they met with his requirements.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-265\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 287\n\nDIARY OF THE DIVISION FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH AT THE INSTITUTE OF\n HYGIENE OF THE WAFFEN SS, 1941 TO 1945 (DING DIARY)\n\n_29 Dec 41_:\n\nConference between Army Sanitation Inspection [Inspector], General Chief\nSurgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; State Secretary for the Department of\nHealth of the Reich, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti; President Professor\nReiter of the Health Department of the Reich; President Professor\nGildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute (Reich Institute to Combat\nContagious Diseases) and SS Standartenfuehrer and Lecturer [Dozent] Dr.\nMrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene, Waffen SS, Berlin.\n\nIt has been established that the need exists to test the efficacy of,\nand resistance of the human body to, the typhus serum extracted from the\negg yolks. Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on\nhuman beings must be carried out.\n\n_2 Jan 42_:\n\nThe concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the typhus\nvaccines. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Ding is charged with these tests.\n\n_5 Jan 42_:\n\nPreliminary test A:\n\nPreliminary test to determine the surest and most practical way of\ninfecting human beings artificially. Five experimental subjects received\nintramuscular and subcutaneous injections of vitelline membrane diluted\n1:25 with an emulsified Rickettsia-Prowazeki strain from the Robert Koch\nInstitute in doses of 1 cc. Infection was not possible.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_10 Jan 42_:\n\nPreliminary test B:\n\nPreliminary test to establish a sure means of infection: Much as in\nsmallpox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with vitelline membrane\nculture virus (strain Rickettsia-Prowazeki, Robert Koch Institute)\nthrough 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm.\n\nAll experimental subjects used for this test fell ill with genuine\ntyphus. Incubation period 2 to 6 days.\n\n_20 Jan 42_:\n\nPreliminary report of reactions to vaccinations. Through continuous\nblood pictures a strong surplus of neutrophile myelocytes was\ndiscovered.\n\n_20 Feb 42_:\n\nCase history and charts of the preliminary tests to establish a sure\nmeans of infection sent to Berlin.\n\n1 death out of 5 sick.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_6 Jan 42_:\n\n_1 Feb 42_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series I_\n\nVaccination for immunization against typhus using the following\nvaccines:\n\n1. 31 persons with Weigl vaccine from the intestines of lice from the\nInstitute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command,\nKrakow.\n\n2. 35 persons with vaccine from vitelline membrane cultures made by the\nCox, Gildemeister, and Haagen process.\n\n3. 35 persons with vaccine \u201cBehring Normal\u201d (1 egg in an emulsion of 450\ncc. vaccine. Mixture of 70 percent Rickettsia Mooseri and 30 percent\nRickettsia-Prowazeki).\n\n4. 34 persons with \u201cBehring Normal\u201d \u201cBehring Strong\u201d (1 egg emulsified\nin 250 cc. solvent).\n\n5. 10 persons for control.\n\n_3 Mar 42_:\n\nAll persons vaccinated for immunization between 6 Jan 42 and 1 Feb 42,\nand the 10 control persons were infected with a virus culture of\nRickettsia-Prowazeki in the presence of Professor Gildemeister. SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding infected himself in the process (laboratory\naccident).\n\n_17 Mar 42_:\n\nVisit of Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose (Head of the\nDepartment for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute) to the\nexperimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with typhus\nexcept two who, as was established later, had already had typhus during\nan epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr.\nDing fell sick with typhus and is in the hospital in Berlin. SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, station medical officer of the Waffen SS in\nWeimar, is supervising the stations in the meantime (Blocks 44 and 49).\n\n_19 Apr 42_:\n\nFinal report on the 1st typhus vaccine research series: Stone Block 46\nwill be made available for the purpose of these typhus experiments.\n\n5 deaths (3 control persons, 1 \u201cBehring Normal\u201d, and 1 \u201cBehring\nStrong\u201d).\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_19 Aug 42_:\n\n_4 Sep 42_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series II_\n\nVaccination for immunization against typhus using the following\nvaccines:\n\n1. 20 persons with vaccines made by the Durand and Giroud process\n(Pasteur Institute, Paris) from rabbit lungs.\n\n2. 20 persons with vaccine made by the process of Combiescu, Zotta, and\ncollaborators from dog lungs. (Producer: Cantacuzino, Bucharest.) This\nvaccine was made available by Professor Rose, who received it from Naval\nDoctor Professor Ruge from Bucharest.\n\n_15 Oct 42_:\n\nArtificial infection of all persons vaccinated for immunization between\n19 September 1942 and 4 October 1942, and 19 persons for control with\nvitelline membrane virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki).\n\n_25 Oct 42_:\n\nInfection has started with all persons experimented on.\n\n_20 Nov 42_:\n\nCharts and case history sent to Berlin.\n\n4 deaths of control persons.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_10 Sep 42_:\n\n_10 Oct 42_:\n\nUnit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the Pasteur Institute\nin Paris to Professor Giroud.\n\n_22 Oct 42_:\n\n_5 Nov 42_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series III_\n\nVaccination for immunization against typhus of 20 persons with vaccine\nmade according to the process of Giroud, Paris. (This vaccine was\nbrought from Paris by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding immediately after\nproduction.)\n\n_30 Nov 42_:\n\nArtificial infection with vitelline membrane material from the Robert\nKoch Institute of the 20 persons vaccinated for immunization and of 6\ncontrol persons. This research series was observed for 6 weeks and then\nabandoned without results, as no sickness broke out in the control\ngroup.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_27 Oct 42_:\n\n_8 Nov 42_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series IV_\n\nVaccination for immunization of 20 persons with a vaccine from\nintestines of lice made by the Weigl process (sent by lecturer Dr. Haas\nof the typhus institute \u201cEmil v. Behring\u201d in Lvov),\n\n_30 Nov 42_:\n\nTo test the effect of the immunization, the infection is to be carried\nout with lice suffering from typhus. The lice and their cages must be\nburnt immediately, as the latter became leaky during transport, and\ntherefore represent a danger of epidemic in Buchenwald camp.\n\n_3 Dec 42_:\n\nNewly sent lice applied to 15 persons (5 immunized and 10 persons for\ncontrol). The lice must again be destroyed, as the cages are not tight.\n\nReport made that infection with live typhus lice is not possible because\nthe danger to the camp inmates is too great.\n\n_4 Jan 43_:\n\nDue to infection by lice on 3 December 1942, five persons show short\nnontypical illness.\n\nThe research series is concluded.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\n\n_15-18 Dec 42_:\n\nUnit of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to the opening of the\ntyphus research institute \u201cEmil v. Behring\u201d in Lvov in the General\nGovernment (lecturer Dr. Haas).\n\n_28-31 Dec 42_:\n\nVaccination for immunization against diphtheria of the Reserve Battalion\nof the Leibstandarte SS \u201cAdolf Hitler\u201d (approx. 2,500 men), because of\nthe outbreak of an epidemic.\n\nInspection of quarters and advice to the medical officer on the fighting\nof the epidemic.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n _1943_\n\n_1 Dec 42_:\n\n_20 Dec 42_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series V_\n\nTo determine the immunization effect, 20 persons are being actively\nvaccinated for immunization with \u201cEM\u201d vaccine of the Behring Works\u2014Dr.\nDemnitz\u2014(vaccine in which vitelline membrane as well as chicken embryos\nwere used).\n\n_26 Jan 43_:\n\nArtificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP No. 223 and 226\n(Rickettsia-Prowazeki\u2014strain from Robert Koch Institute).\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_9 Jan 43_:\n\nBy order of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, SS\nGruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS Dr. Genzken, the\ntyphus research station at the Buchenwald concentration camp becomes the\n\u201cDivision for Typhus and Virus Research.\u201d The head of the division will\nbe SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station medical\nofficer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, will\nsupervise the production of vaccines. The Chief of the WVHA, SS\nObergruppenfuehrer and Lt. General of the Waffen SS, Pohl, has ordered\nthe extension of the block of stone buildings.\n\nSS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding is at the same time appointed chief\ndepartmental head for special missions in office XVI (Hygiene), of\noffice group D (medical affairs of the Waffen SS) of the SS Main\nOperational Headquarters.\n\n_10 Jan 43_:\n\n _Therapeutic Experiments with Acridine and Methylene Blue_\n\nAt the suggestion of the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. the following were\ntested as typhus therapeutica:\n\n_a._ Preparation 3,582 \u201cAcridine\u201d of the chemical pharmaceutical and\nsero-bacteriological department in Frankfurt-on-Main, Hoechst, Professor\nLautenschlaeger and Dr. Weber.\n\n (Therapeutic experiment A)\n\n_b._ Methylene Blue, tested in an experiment on mice by Professor\nKiekuth, Elberfeld.\n\n (Therapeutic experiment M)\n\n_26 Jan 43_:\n\nArtificial infection with vitelline membrane virus OP Nos. 223 and 226:\n\n20 persons for therapeutic experiment A: Acridine.\n\n20 persons for therapeutic experiment M: Methylene Blue.\n\n7 persons for control.\n\n_20 Feb 43_:\n\nThe control persons from the typhus infections of the 26 January 1943\nshow no typical typhus symptoms; in the groups, vaccine \u201cEM\u201d of the\nBehring Works, Acridine, Methylene Blue, about \u00bc are also not sick, the\nremainder have medium typhus.\n\nThe research series was designated to the manufacturer as \u201cnegative,\u201d\nsince the persons for control could not be infected properly.\n\nOne death in therapeutic experiment Acridine.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_10 Jan 43_:\n\n _Yellow Fever Vaccine Tests_\n\nThe Behring Works, Marburg-Lahn, the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, and\nthe Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the Army High Command in\nKrakow were commissioned by the Army High Command to manufacture the\nyellow fever vaccine of Beltier and collaborators. Since a live virus is\nbeing handled, a test is to be performed on 5 persons for safety\u2019s sake\nfrom each vaccine charge.\n\nAt the same time 50 persons are to be vaccinated _once_ with OP No. 25\nof the Robert Koch Institute, which has already been tested for its\nharmlessness, to determine the decrease of working capacity.\n\nThe results of the yellow fever vaccine tests are to be sent to office\nXVI in the SS Main Operational Headquarters, in duplicate, who will\nforward one to the manufacturer, and one to the Army High Command,\nattention: Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt, Army Medical Inspectorate.\n\n _List of Tested OP Numbers_\n\n Manufacturer \u2502 \u2502\n No. 1. Behring Works, Marburg. \u25021, 2, 4. \u250213 Jan-26 Jan 43.\n 2. Robert Koch Institute, \u250228, 30, 37, 38, \u250211 Jan-26 Jan 43.\n Berlin. \u2502 39. \u2502\n 3. Robert Koch Institute, \u250246, 47, 48, 49, \u250230 Jan-8 Feb 43.\n Berlin. \u2502 50. \u2502\n 4. Behring Works, Marburg. \u25024, 5, 6, 7, 8, \u250230 Jan-8 Feb 43.\n \u2502 9, 10, 11, 12,\u2502\n \u2502 13, 14, 15, \u2502\n \u2502 16, 17, 18, \u2502\n \u2502 19, 20, 21, \u2502\n \u2502 22, 23. \u2502\n 5. Army High Command, Krakow. \u250219, 21, 22, 23, \u25029 Feb-22 Feb 43.\n \u2502 25, 26, 27. \u2502\n 6. Behring Works, Marburg. \u250224, 25, 26, 27, \u250211 Feb-22 Feb 43.\n \u2502 28, 29, 30, \u2502\n \u2502 31, 32, 33. \u2502\n 7. Behring Works, Marburg. \u250234, 35, 36, 37, \u250225 Feb-7 Mar 43.\n \u2502 38, 39, 40, \u2502\n \u2502 41, 42, 43. \u2502\n 8. Army High Command, Krakow. \u250228, 29, 30, 32, \u250225 Feb-7 Mar 43.\n \u2502 34. \u2502\n 9. Robert Koch Institute, \u250254, 55, 57, 58. \u250225 Feb-7 Mar 43.\n Berlin. \u2502 \u2502\n 10. Behring Works, Marburg. \u250254, 55, 56, 57, \u25026 May-17 May 43.\n \u2502 58, 59, 60, \u2502\n \u2502 61. \u2502\n\nProduction is being abandoned for the time being because of the military\nsituation.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_3 Feb 43_:\n\n _Sterility Experiment with an Egg Vaccine_\n\nA package was sent to us with a small bottle of 20 cc. typhus vaccine\nfrom egg-yolk cultures. Op No. 35 of 15 October 1942. A second injection\non 8 December 1942, a third injection on 13 December 1942, of a typhus\nvaccination for immunization was carried out on Sister Lilli Boehm, born\non 3 April 1912, by resident surgeon Dr. von Eysmond. Towards evening a\ntemperature of 104\u00b0 F. (40\u00b0 C.). Forty-eight hours after the last\nvaccination, death in coma in the German clinic in Kovno.\n\n_Section protocol_: Typhus (No. 2033, University of Kovno, pathological\ninstitute, Dr. Starkus).\n\n_Investigation_: Material vaccinated on\n\n 1. 2 percent Schraegagar }\n 2. Bouillon }\n 3. 2 percent Glucose Bouillon}\n 4. Tarrozzi } No growth after 48 hours\n 5. Blood slide }\n 6. Klauberg slide }\n\nDuring animal experiments, guinea pigs and mice were vaccinated\nintraperitoneally and under the skin of the back. No pathological\nsymptoms at all.\n\n_Results_: The vaccine not responsible for the death. Vaccination took\nplace during the incubation period.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_8 Feb 43_:\n\nVisit of Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer from the Institute for Typhus and Virus\nResearch of the Army High Command in Krakow and Oberstabsarzt Dr.\nSchmidt from the Army Medical Inspectorate.\n\n_22 Feb 43_:\n\n _Examination of Unknown Bacteriological Material_\n\nDuring August 1942 Soviet parachutists were dropped in the Marienburg\ndistrict; they carried in their baggage amphiole material, which was\nturned over by the RSHA (Dept. IV A/2 Book No. 2152/439 on 25 Feb 1943).\nThey were dysentery bacteriophaga which could be clearly diagnosed by\nanimal and culture experiments; this can be used for therapeutic\npurposes in cases of diarrhea.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_28 Feb 43_:\n_6 Mar 43_:\n\nUnit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure\nlaboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research, and\nthe Institute of Hygiene.\n\n_23 Mar 43_:\n\nConference between SS Sturmbannfuehrer Barnewald, SS Sturmbannfuehrer\nDr. Ding and SS Hauptscharfuehrer Schlesinger of department W 5, W V H A\nconcerning the breeding of rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice as\nexperimental animals for the experimental department.\n\n_25 Jan 43_:\n_28 Feb 43_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Research Series VI_\n\nTo determine the immunization effect, the following were actively\nvaccinated for immunization:\n\n20 persons with vaccine \u201cZuerich\u201d from the hygiene institute of the\nUniversity of Zuerich (lungs of mice), and\n\n20 persons with vaccine \u201cRiga\u201d from the serum institute of the\nUniversity of Riga (Professor Darsin, from vitelline membrane cultures).\n\n_31 Mar 43_:\n\nArtificial infection with egg Rickettsia (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of the\nRobert Koch Institute, Berlin.\n\n_11 Apr 43_:\n\nThe infection of 31 March 1943 has not resulted in any sickness so far.\n\n_28 Apr 43_:\n\nExperimental series abandoned.\n\n DR. DING\n S Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_7 Mar 43_:\n\nExamination of the water and inspection of the concentration camp Vught,\nnear Hertogenbosch.\n\n_8 Mar 43_:\n_10 Mar 43_:\n\nInspection of billets in Apeldoorn-Arnhem and vicinity. Advising chief\nsurgeon of the commander of the Netherlands re a diphtheria epidemic in\nApeldoorn.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_24 Mar 43_:\n_20 Apr 43_:\n\nCarrying out of a large scale experiment on 45 persons by the process of\nthe hygiene institute of the Waffen SS by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer\nDr. Mrugowsky.\n\nVaccinations were made on 8 different days within 4 weeks against\nsmallpox, typhoid, paratyphus A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria.\n\nCompatibility was generally good. Exact records and report were\ndelivered on 27 April 1943 to department chief of office XVI.\n\nIt led partly to a strong decrease in working capacity, loss of\nstrength, increase of temperature, and swelling of the lymph glands.\nTyphoid and smallpox were not vaccinated on the same side of the body,\notherwise great swelling of the lymph glands takes places.\n\nThe diphtheria adsorbat vaccine led to about 20 cases of strong\nformation of abcesses. Where still in the camp, the persons were again\nvaccinated for smallpox within \u00bc year.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_31 Mar 43_:\n\n _Therapeutic Experiments \u201cAcridine Granulate\u201d and \u201cRutenol\u201d_\n\nFor the therapeutic experiments \u201cAcridine Granulate\u201d (A. Gr) and Rutenol\n(R), 40 persons were infected with egg Rickettsia.\n\n_11 Apr 43_:\n\nAfter observation lasting several weeks, no sickness started. Report to\nSS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and President Professor\nGildemeister. The strain \u201cMatelska\u201d of the Robert Koch Institute, which\nwas highly virulent until a year ago, apparently is no longer pathogenic\nto humans. A new means of artificial infection must therefore be found,\nwhich will lead to typhus with certainty.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_11 Apr 43_:\n\nPreliminary Experiment C:\n\nTo determine a sure means of infection, experiments with fresh blood\nfrom persons stricken with typhus were made. Infection took place as\nfollows:\n\n3 persons\u20142 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously.\n\n2 persons\u20142 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly.\n\n2 persons\u20142 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously.\n\n2 persons\u2014after scarification.\n\n2 persons\u2014with a vaccinating scalpel cutaneously.\n\nThose infected intravenously contracted typical, serious typhus and died\nfrom failure of the circulatory system. The other experimental subjects\ncomplained only of minor discomfort, without becoming hospital cases.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_13 Apr 43_:\n\nPreliminary Experiment D:\n\nThe following were infected:\n\n6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intravenously.\n\n6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood intramuscularly.\n\n6 persons with 2 cc. each of fresh blood subcutaneously.\n\n6 persons by scarification.\n\n6 persons by means of vaccinating scalpel cutaneously.\n\nThe 6 _intravenously_ infected persons again contracted very serious\ntyphus; 5 died.\n\nOf the 6 infected intramuscularly, one person contracted medium typhus.\nThe others had no serious complications, and were not hospital cases.\n\nThe surest means of infection to produce typhus in humans is, therefore,\nthe intravenous injection of 2 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_13 and 14 Apr 43_:\n\nUnit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A.\nG., Hoechst. Conference with Professor Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber, and\nDr. Fussgaenger concerning the experimental series \u201cAcridine Granulate\nand Rutenol\u201d in the concentration camp Buchenwald.\n\nVisit to Geheimrat Otto and Professor Prigge in the Institute for\nExperimental Therapeutics in Frankfurt/Main.\n\n_24 Apr 43_:\n\n _Therapeutic Experiments Acridine Granulate (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2)_\n\nTo carry out the therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol,\n30 persons (15 each) and 9 persons for control were infected by\nintravenous injection of 2 cc. each of fresh typhus-infected blood. All\nexperimental persons contracted very bad typhus.\n\n_1 Jun 43_:\n\nCharts and case history completed.\n\nThe experimental series was concluded.\n\n21 deaths (8 with Acridine Granulate, 9 with Rutenol, 5 control).\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_27 Apr 43_:\n_1 May 43_:\n\nUnit of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris to procure\nlaboratory material for the Division for Typhus and Virus Research and\nthe Hygiene Institute.\n\n_10 Jun 43_:\n\n _Typhoid-Therapeutic Experiment \u201cOtrhomin\u201d_\n\nAt the suggestion of the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin (Professor Dr.\nLockemann) the effect of a new therapeuticum of the Rhoda\nseries\u2014Otrhomin is to be tested on humans. For this purpose, 20 persons\nof the series \u201cOtrhomin\u201d and 20 persons for control (10 immunized, 10\nnot immunized) were infected on 10 June 1943 and on 18 June 1943 with 2\ncc. each of typhoid bacteria in a physical salt solution, given in\npotato salad. Of the 40 persons, 7 became slightly sick, 23 more\nseriously. Furthermore, there were 6 ambulatory cases. Four persons did\nnot show any symptoms.\n\n_28 Jul 43_:\n\nCharts and case history of the series \u201cOtrhomin\u201d completed and sent to\nBerlin.\n\n_5 Aug 43_:\n\nCharts and case history of the control series completed and sent to\nBerlin.\n\n_10 Aug 43_:\n\nDelivery of the records to Reich Senior Medical Counsellor Christiansen\nin the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The experimental series was\nconcluded.\n\n1 death (control not immunized).\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_28 May 43_:\n_18 Jun 43_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VII_\n\nCarrying out of typhus vaccination for immunization with the following\nvaccine:\n\n1. 20 persons with vaccine \u201cAsid\u201d.\n\n2. 20 persons with vaccine \u201cAsid Adsorbat\u201d of the Anhaltinischen\nSerumwerke G. m. b. H., Berlin 7.\n\n3. 20 persons with vaccine \u201cWeigl\u201d of the Institute for Typhus and Virus\nResearch of the Army High Command, Army (OKH) Krakow (Eyer).\n\n_27 Aug 43_:\n\nInfection of\u2014\n\n20 persons in the series \u201cAsid\u201d.\n\n20 persons in the series \u201cAsid Adsorbat\u201d.\n\n20 persons in the series \u201cWeigl\u201d.\n\n10 persons for control by intravenous injection of \u00bc cc. each of fresh\ntyphus-infected blood, strain Bu II, Passage I.\n\nAll experimental persons got very serious typhus.\n\n_7 Sep 43_:\n\nChart and case history completed. The experimental series was\nconcluded\u2014\n\n53 deaths (18 with \u201cAsid\u201d, 18 with \u201cAsid Adsorbat\u201d, 9 with \u201cWeigl\u201d, 8\ncontrol).\n\n_9 Sep 43_:\n\nCharts and case histories delivered to Berlin.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_8 Nov 43_:\n_17 Jan 44_:\n\n _High Immunization Experiment with Fraenkel Vaccines_\n\nAccording to an immunization plan of the Fraenkel high immunization for\nhumans, the compatibility of Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid (Formol-Toxin of\nbacterium perfringens) of humans was tested.\n\nAt first 15 experimental subjects were vaccinated 3 times at intervals\nof 14 days with 1 cc. Fraenkel-A1. F. T. (Fraenkel-Toxoid absorbed in\naluminum hydroxide).\n\nAfter an interval of 14 days, vaccinations with Fraenkel-Formol-Toxoid\n(Formol-Toxin of bacterium perfringens) as follows:\n\n 20 Dec 43 1 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm.\n 26 Dec 43 2 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm.\n 31 Dec 43 4 cc. subcutaneously left upper arm.\n 3 Jan 44 6 cc. subcutaneously right upper arm.\n 6 Jan 44 9 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest.\n 10 Jan 44 12 cc. subcutaneously both upper arms.\n 14 Jan 44 15 cc. subcutaneously right and left chest.\n\n_17 Jan 44_:\n\nObservation of vaccination reactions completed and sent away.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_19 Nov 43_:\n_25 Nov 43_:\n\n _Phosphorus-Rubber Incendiary Bomb Experiment_\n\nTo test the preparation \u201cR 17\u201d on fresh phosphorus burns and to test\n\u201cEchinacine\u201d ointment and \u201cEchinacine extern\u201d for the later treatment of\nwounds from phosphorus burns (all from the Dr. Madaus Works in\nDresden-Radebeul), burning tests were carried out on five experimental\nsubjects on the above-mentioned dates with phosphorus, matter taken from\nan English incendiary bomb found near Leipzig.\n\n_5 Jan 44_:\n\nRecords delivered to the Reich medical officer of the SS with the\nrequest to forward it to the Dr. Madaus Works.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_30-31 Dec 43_:\n\n _Special Experiment on 4 Persons in the Koch-Hoven Case_\n\nBy order of SS Gruppenfuehrer Nebe, the experiment was carried out in\nthe presence of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_21 Dec 43_:\n_16 Jan 44_:\n\n _Control of Blood Plasma_\n\nBy order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 18 capsules of\nblood plasma were tested on 18 experimental persons for their\ncompatibility on humans.\n\n_17 Jan 44_:\n\nTest records sent away.\n\n_25 Jan 44_:\n_19 Feb 44_:\n\n _Control of Blood Plasma_\n\nBy order of the Military Academy of Medicine, Berlin, 30 more capsules\nof blood plasma were tested on 30 experimental persons for their\ncompatibility on humans.\n\n_22 Feb 44_:\n\nTest papers sent to Reich medical officer of SS by courier.\n\n DR. DING\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n_22 Jan 44_:\n_31 Jan 44_:\n\n _Vaccine Preliminary Experimental Series \u201cWeimar\u201d_\n\nTo test compatibility and the immunization effect, five persons were\nimmunized by three vaccinations with typhus vaccine \u201cWeimar\u201d (producer:\nHygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, Division for Typhus and Virus\nResearch). On 22 Jan 44, 0.5 cc., on 27 Jan 44, 1.0 cc., on 31 Jan 44,\n1.0 cc. were injected subcutaneously in the left or right upper arm.\n\nFor comparison, 5 persons were immunized on the above-mentioned dates\nwith 0.5 cc., 0.5 cc., and 1 cc. of typhus egg-culture vaccine \u201cAsid\u201d\n(Anhaltinische Serumwerke, Berlin) and 5 persons were immunized with\ntyphus vaccine \u201cGiroud\u201d (produced by the Pasteur Institute, Paris, from\nrabbit lungs), 1 cc. each.\n\n_25 Feb 44_:\n\nTwenty persons (15 immunized and 5 for control) were infected by\nsubcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood.\n\nDonor: G * * * Nr 713, 36 years old (6th day of sickness)\n\n Strain Bu IV/Passage 13.\n\nAll those infected fell sick with slight to serious typhus.\n\n_5 Apr 44_:\n\nChart and case history completed.\n\n_25 Apr 44_:\n\nThe experimental series was concluded\u2014\n\n5 deaths (1 Asid, 1 Weimar, 3 Control).\n\n DR. DING\n\n_8 Mar 44_:\n_18 Mar 44_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series VIII_\n\nSuggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Oberstarzt Professor Rose\nthe vaccine \u201cKopenhagen\u201d (Ipsen-Murine vaccine), produced from mouse\nliver by the National Serum Institute in Copenhagen, was tested for its\ncompatibility on humans.\n\n20 persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular injection\ninto the Musculus Glutaeus Max. on the following dates: 8 Mar 44, 0.5\ncc.; 13 Mar 44, 0.5 cc.; 18 Mar 44, 1.0 cc.\n\n10 persons were contemplated for control and comparison.\n\n4 of the 30 persons were eliminated _before_ the start of the artificial\ninjection, because of intermittent sickness.\n\n_16 Apr 44_:\n\nThe remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 Apr 44 by\nsubcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood. Donor: W * *\n* No. 763, 27 years old (6th day of sickness)\n\n Strain Bu VII/Passage 1.\n\nThe following fell sick:\n\n_a._ 17 persons immunized; 9 medium, 8 seriously.\n\n_b._ 9 control persons; 2 medium, 7 seriously.\n\n_2 Jun 44_:\n\nThe experimental series was concluded.\n\n_13 Jun 44_:\n\nChart and case history completed and sent to Berlin.\n\n6 deaths (3 Kopenhagen, 3 Control).\n\n DR. DING\n\n_26 May 44_:\n_12 Jun 44_:\n\n _Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_\n\nTo produce FFRS, 6,500 cc. blood were taken from 15 typhus convalescents\nbetween the 14th and 21st day after the fever had subsided, and sent by\ncourier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters, office group D, office\nXVI (blood conservation) attn: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ellenbeck, in\nBerlin-Lichterfelde.\n\n DING\n\n_22 May 44_:\n_16 Jun 44_:\n\n _Control of Blood Plasma_\n\nBy order of the Military Academy for Medicine, Berlin, 44 capsules of\nblood plasma were tested on 44 experimental persons for their\ncompatibility on humans.\n\n_19 Jun 44_:\n\nTest protocol sent to the senior hygienist of the Reich Medical Office\nof the SS and Police, Berlin.\n\n DING\n\n_17 Jul 44_:\n_27 Jul 44_:\n\n _Typhus Vaccine, Experimental Series IX_\n\nThe typhus vaccine \u201cWeimar\u201d, produced by the Division for Typhus and\nVirus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS,\nWeimar-Buchenwald, was tested according to orders for its efficacy on\nhumans.\n\nThis vaccine was produced from rabbit lungs according to the process\nDurand-Giroud. It contains virus (Rickettsia-Prowazeki) of\nself-isolating types deadened and suspended in 2/00 Formol.\n\n20 persons were immunized on the following dates with 1 cc. each: 17,\n22, 27 July 1944.\n\nThe vaccinations were made subcutaneously on the right or left upper\narm.\n\nFor comparison 20 persons were immunized at the same time with \u201cWeigl\u201d\nvaccine, produced from lice by the Army High Command in Krakow according\nto regulations.\n\nFurthermore, 20 persons were provided for control purposes.\n\n_6 Sep 44_:\n\nThe 60 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous injection of\n1/10 cc. fresh typhus-infected blood each into the right upper arm.\n\nAll persons fell sick as follows:\n\n_a._ \u201cWeimar\u201d\u20149 slightly, 7 slightly to medium, 4 medium.\n\n_b._ \u201cWeigl\u201d\u20146 slightly to medium, 8 medium, 6 seriously.\n\n_c._ Control\u20141 medium, 19 seriously.\n\n_17 Oct 44_:\n\nThe experimental series was concluded.\n\n_4 Nov 44_:\n\nChart and case history completed.\n\n24 deaths (5 \u201cWeigl\u201d, 19 Control).\n\n DR. SCHULER\n\n_13 Oct 44_:\n_31 Oct 44_:\n\n _Taking of Blood to Produce Typhus Convalescent Serum (FFRS)_\n\nTo produce FFRS, 20.8 liters of blood were taken from 44 typhus\nconvalescents between the 14th and 21st day after the fever had\nsubsided, and sent by courier to the SS Main Operational Headquarters,\noffice group D, office XVI (blood conservation)\u2014SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr.\nEllenbeck, Berlin-Lichterfelde.\n\n SCHULER\n\n_26 Oct 44_:\n\nSpecial experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS\nOberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA (report on this orally).\n\n SCHULER\n\n_13 Nov 44_:\n\n _Therapeutic Experiment with Typhus Vaccine_\n\nBy order of the senior hygienist of the Waffen SS of 12 August 44, it is\nto be determined whether the course of typhus can be tempered by the\nintravenous or intramuscular injection of typhus vaccine.\n\nFor the experimental series 20 persons were considered, of these, 10 for\nintravenous injection (Series A), 10 for intramuscular injection (Series\nB) and, in addition, 5 persons for control.\n\nOn 13 Nov 44, the 25 experimental persons were infected by subcutaneous\ninjection of 1/10 cc. each fresh typhus-infected blood. All persons fell\nsick as follows: Series A\u201410 serious; Series B\u20141 medium 9 serious;\nControl\u20145 serious.\n\n_22 Dec 44_:\n\nThe experimental series was concluded.\n\n_2 Jan 45_:\n\nChart and case history completed.\n\n19 deaths (9 Series A, 6 Series B, 4 Control).\n\n DR. SCHULER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ERWIN SCHULER, 20 JULY 1945,\n CONCERNING TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Hoven\u2019s Share in Block 46_\n\nIn February 1942 the order to conduct typhus experiments came through. I\nwas chosen to carry out these experiments. Since I had my office in\nBerlin, a deputy had to be appointed for my absence in Buchenwald.\nReichsarzt SS Dr. Grawitz, in agreement with the leading doctor of the\nconcentration camps, Lolling, appointed SS 1st Lt. Dr. Hoven as station\ndoctor at Buchenwald. My presence in Buchenwald always lasted only a few\ndays, while the experiments and the typhus epidemic lasted about 10\nweeks.\n\nDr. Hoven had orders to get the prisoners (professional criminals\nsentenced to death), who had been released for the experiments from the\nReich Security Office and the chief of the concentration camps, for\nvaccination or infection after an examination of their physical fitness.\n\nAs deputy, he often ordered Dr. Plaza to take over the guard of Block\n46. Dr. Plaza, in addition, continued to work independently under Kapo\nDietzsch.\n\nFor experiments that did not result in death, such as the effectiveness\nof yellow fever vaccine, 200 to 300 volunteers stood in readiness. This\nI know from rosters that Dietzsch showed me once. Such experiments did\nnot only take place in the block but also, in a certain case, in the\ncamp itself. For that experiment about 80 Dutchmen were taken; they did\nnot have to work and they were given extra rations. For that they had to\nhave their temperature taken three times daily and every two days they\nhad to give 10 cc. blood for a blood count.\n\nHoven worked as my deputy until my permanent entrance into Buchenwald in\nAugust 1943. In September he was arrested.\n\nIn the year 1942 he had to work a lot by himself, since I contracted\ntyphus and after that was sent to a rest home. Immediately after that I\nwas detailed to the Pasteur Institute in Paris. During this time the\nsick reports bore the signature of Hoven or Plaza.\n\n [Signed] DR. SCHULER\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-571\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 285\n\n 1943 WORK REPORT FOR DEPARTMENT FOR TYPHUS AND VIRUS RESEARCH\n\n Weimar-Buchenwald, January 1944.\n\nHygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\nDepartment for Typhus and Virus Research\n\n _Work Report for the Year 1943_\n\nI. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Clinical Section_\n\n1 December 42 to 20 Experiment with typhus vaccines \u201cEM\u201d of the Behring\n February 43 Works, carried out on 20 experimental subjects.\n10 January to 20 Experiment with typhus therapeutics, Acridine and\n February Methylene Blue, carried out on 47 experimental\n subjects.\n10 January to 17 May Tests with yellow fever vaccines, carried out on 435\n experimental subjects.\n25 January to 28 Experiment with typhus vaccines \u201cRiga\u201d and\n April \u201cZuerich,\u201d carried out on 40 experimental\n subjects.\n24 March to 20 April Performance of a large-scale experiment according to\n the scheme of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen\n SS, carried out by SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer\n Dr. Mrugowsky, with smallpox, typhoid, paratyphus\n A and B, cholera, typhus, and diphtheria, on 45\n experimental subjects.\n31 March to 11 April Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine\n Granulate and Rutenol, carried out on 40 persons.\n11 April to 24 May Preliminary experiments with fresh blood infected\n with typhus for the purpose of investigating an\n infallible method of infection, carried out on 41\n persons.\n11 April\u2014not yet Infections with typhus so far applied to 47 persons.\n terminated\n24 April to 1 June Experiment with typhus therapeutics Acridine\n Granulate (2) and Rutenol (2) carried out on 40\n experimental subjects.\n28 May to 9 Experiment with typhus vaccines \u201cAsid,\u201d\n September \u201cAsid-Adsorbat,\u201d and \u201cWeigl\u201d carried out on 70\n persons.\n10 June to 8 August Experiment with typhoid therapeutics \u201cOtrhomin,\u201d\n carried out on 40 experimental subjects.\n8 November\u2014not yet Gangrene\u2014high immunization experiment, carried out\n terminated on 15 experimental subjects.\n19 November\u2014not yet Experiments with burns by means of phosphorus rubber\n terminated incendiary bombs carried out on 5 persons.\n21 November\u2014not yet Control of blood conservation.\n terminated\n23 December to 31 Special experiment carried out on 4 persons.\n December\n\nII. _Division for Typhus and Virus Research, Production of Vaccines_\n\n10 August Termination of the exterior alterations on the\n prisoners\u2019 Block 50 in Buchenwald concentration\n camp.\n16 August Opening of the Division for Typhus and Virus\n Research. Transfer of the head of the department,\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding to Buchenwald.\n Beginning of the preliminary work for production.\n20 September First infection of 3 guinea pigs with\n typhus-infected blood, strain Bu I. Up to the end\n of the year 8 successful infections from this\n strain and positive adaptation of the strain to\n mice (with only 2 infections due to lack of these\n experimental animals), as well as to the lungs of\n rabbits through mice with the brains of guinea\n pigs as starting material.\n24 September Isolation of the strain Bu II on 3 guinea pigs with\n typhus-infected blood. After successful adaptation\n at the end of the year 8th infection. Performance\n of 4 infections of mice. Great quantities of\n standard type Rickettsia. Furthermore successful\n adaptation of the strain Bu II to the lungs of\n rabbits through mice.\n9 October Due to lack of mice experiment to adapt the mixed\n strains Bu I and Bu II directly from infected\n brains of guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. At\n the end of the year this strain is contained fully\n virulent in the 6th infection of rabbits. Since\n the 5th infection, particularly, great quantities\n of Rickettsia on the lungs of rabbits. The results\n of the direct adaptation experiments are being\n checked by pathogenic and skin virulence tests.\n12 October Reported to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\n that the experiments for the breeding of\n Rickettsia strains on the lungs of rabbits were\n successful and production was only handicapped by\n the lack of the refrigerator and of the Calabeius\n meat-triturator model.\n22 October Isolation and transfer to guinea pigs of the strain\n Bu IV of subjects infected with typhus after\n strain Bu III had died during the first infection.\n In this case the lack of mice was once more\n especially noticeable.\nFirst half of Outbreak of an epidemic among 375 recently supplied\n November mice to which 289 animals succumbed within a few\n days. As the remaining mice were not healthy\n either, they were killed.\n11 November Vaccination of rabbits with infected lungs of mice.\n Later on, performance of two more infections of\n rabbits. Experiments are a complete success; large\n quantities of Rickettsia with well-developed\n bacilli-shaped elements on the lungs of the\n rabbits.\n30 November Successful direct adaptation of the strain Bu IV\n from the brains of infected guinea pigs to the\n lungs of rabbits. After performance of another\n infection of rabbits, mixing of the strain with\n the strain Bu I and Bu II. All infections continue\n to be successfully carried out.\n4 December Experiment, by making use of the night frosts and by\n using the handshake technique without refrigerator\n and without Calabeius, to produce the first sample\n of vaccine. For this purpose, lungs of rabbits of\n the 5th or 6th infection series of the mixed\n strain Bu I and Bu II, which are rich in\n Rickettsia, were used.\n14 December Centrifugation of the suspension produced on 4\n December.\n15 December Starting of the refrigerator which had arrived in\n the meantime. Result of the examination of the\n sediment of the vaccine produced on 4 December:\n after 2 hours of centrifugation great quantities\n of Rickettsia (bacilli-shaped, point-shaped,\n dumbell-shaped). The sterility control proved the\n suspension free from bacteria.\n17 December 4 guinea pigs were given intraperitoneal injections\n of 1 cc. of vaccine each, in order to check\n whether the vaccines produced on 4 December agreed\n with them. The guinea pigs did not show any\n alterations of voracity nor of temperature and\n were still alive at the end of the year.\n24 December Vaccination of a series of 10 guinea pigs, with our\n own vaccine and Giroud vaccine, in order to infect\n them later on with typhus-infected blood.\n29 December The reactions for skin virulence according to Giroud\n show a virulence of the suspension at a dilution\n of 1:2.000 to 1:4.000.\n\nFor the performance of the breeding experiments 56 mice, 134 guinea\npigs, and 112 rabbits were used up to the present date.\n\nIn the serological department 1226 proteus OX 19 agglutinations, 3\nGruber-Widal tests, and 4 Takata-Ara reactions were performed for the SS\ninfirmary and Buchenwald concentration camp and its branch camps.\n\nFor our own requirements up to this date, about 1,500 cubic cm. of\ntyphoid-paratyphus B deposits have been produced, in order to reduce the\npower of resistance of the experimental animals.\n\nIII. _Inspections of the Division for Typhus and Virus Research_\n\n8 February Inspection of the clinical section by Oberstabsarzt\n Dr. Eyer of the Institute for Typhus and Virus\n Research of the Army High Command, Krakow and by\n Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmidt of the Army Medical\n Inspectorate.\n24 August Inspection of the department by the Director of the\n Central Building Section of the Waffen SS and\n Police, SS Obersturmfuehrer Huehnefeld, and\n discussion of necessary improvements.\n26 August Inspection by the Higher SS and Police leader in\n Kassel, SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the\n Waffen SS, the Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and\n by the commandant of Buchenwald concentration\n camp.\n3 September Inspection by the head of the Hygiene Institute of\n the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer Lecturer Dr.\n Mrugowsky.\n29 September Inspection by the Chief of Office D III in the SS\n Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), SS\n Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling and Professor Dr.\n Schenk.\n\nIV. _Official Trips by the Head of the Division for Typhus and Virus\nResearch_\n\n28 February to 6 SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris\n March for the purchase of laboratory equipment for the\n Division for Typhus and Virus Research\n Weimar-Buchenwald, and for the Hygiene Institute\n of the Waffen SS.\n27 April to 1 May Once more on detached service to Paris for the same\n purpose.\n25 June to 15 August Ordered sick leave at Sellin on Ruegen.\n27 August Conferences with the Zeiss firm at Jena, with the\n Landesgewerbearzt and in the University Library.\n4 September Inspection in the village of \u201cX\u201d with the Head of\n the Hygiene Institute, SS Standartenfuehrer\n Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the Standortarzt of\n the Waffen SS Weimar-Buchenwald, and with the\n adjutant of the commandant of the Buchenwald\n concentration camp.\n8 September Another inspection in the village of \u201cX\u201d.\n16September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Jena,\n conference with the Zeiss firm concerning the\n alteration of 2 microscopes.\n23 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Erfurt.\n29 September to 4 Conference in Berlin with the Head of the Hygiene\n October Institute of the Waffen SS, SS Standartenfuehrer\n Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.\n13 October Inspection at \u201cDora\u201d and \u201cLaura\u201d with the commandant\n of the Buchenwald concentration camp.\n21 October Inspection of the branch commands Leipzig\n Wernigerode, Schoenebeck, and \u201cDora\u201d with the camp\n commandant.\n25 October to 15 On detached service with the German Hygiene\n November Institute for the Eastern Territories in Riga, and\n subsequently conference with the Madaus firm in\n Dresden at the instance of SS Obergruppenfuehrer\n and General of the Waffen SS von Woyrsch.\n\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-121\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 293\n\nLETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 15 NOVEMBER 1943, CONCERNING PRISONERS TO BE\n USED AS EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR TESTS WITH TYPHUS VACCINE\n\n 15 November 1943\n _Secret_\n\nTo: Professor Dr. Hirt\nAnatomical Institute of the Reich University\nStrasbourg\n\nOn 13-11-43, an inspection was made of the prisoners that were furnished\nto me in order to determine their suitability for the tests which have\nbeen planned for the typhus vaccines. Of the 100 prisoners that have\nbeen selected in their former camp, 18 died during transport. Only 12\nprisoners are in such a condition that they can be used for these\nexperiments, provided their strength can first be restored. This should\ntake about 2-3 months. The remaining prisoners are in such a condition\nthat they cannot be used at all for these purposes.\n\nI might point out that the experiments are for the purpose of testing a\nnew vaccine. Such experiments only lead to fruitful results when they\nare carried out with normally nourished subjects whose physical powers\nare comparable to those of the soldiers. Therefore, experiments with the\npresent group of prisoners cannot yield usable results, particularly\nsince a large part of them are apparently afflicted with maladies which\nmake them unsuitable for these experiments. A long period of rest and of\ngood nourishment would not alter this fact.\n\nI request, therefore, that you send me 100 prisoners, between 20-40\nyears of age, who are healthy and who are so constituted physically that\nthey furnish comparable material.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HAAGEN\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-122\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 298\n\n LETTER DICTATED BY ROSE, ADDRESSED TO HAAGEN, 13 DECEMBER 1943,\n CONCERNING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS FOR VACCINE EXPERIMENTS\n\nProfessor Rose, Chief Surgeon.\n\n O. U., 13 December 1943.\n\nStabsarzt Professor Haagen\nInstitute of Hygiene of the Reich University\nStrasbourg, Alsace, Adolf Kussmaulstrasse 3\n\nDear Herr Haagen,\n\nMany thanks for your letter of 8 December. I regard it as unnecessary to\nmake a renewed special request to the SS Main Office in addition to the\nrequest you have already made. I request that, in procuring persons for\nvaccination in your experiment, you requisition a corresponding number\nof persons for vaccination with the Copenhagen vaccine. This has the\nadvantage, as also appeared in the Buchenwald experiments, that the\ntesting of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their\nvalue than the testing of one vaccine alone.\n\n With best wishes,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours\n (Dictated by Prof. Rose and signed after his departure)\n By order\n [Signed] SCHWARZE\n Private, 1st Class (Med. Corps)\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-123\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 303\n\n LETTER FROM HAAGEN TO HIRT, 9 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS\n CONDUCTED WITH TYPHUS VACCINE AND REQUESTING EXPERIMENTAL SUBJECTS\n\n 9 May 1944\n\nMain Office SS\nthrough Professor Dr. Hirt\nAnatomical Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg\n\nI enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with a\ndry typhus vaccine. The paper was sent to the Chief of the Luftwaffe\nMedical Service as a manuscript, with the request for permission to\npublish it. It constitutes a report concerning further experiments with\na typhus vaccine which has not been made sterile by chemical agents or\nby heating. As may be seen from the results, it has been possible to\nproduce a vaccine which provides not only an antitoxic immunity but also\na definite anti-infection immunity which is of particularly practical\nsignificance. However, it is clearly pointed out that vaccination is\nfollowed by a rather long fever reaction and, therefore, its\nintroduction cannot yet be recommended. Further tests are now in\nprogress to alter the vaccine so that, without losing its antigenic\nproperty, it will produce so weak a reaction that no general\nindisposition will result. These tests will be made by reducing the dose\nor by storing the vaccine for a longer interval.\n\nTo carry out this research, experimental subjects will again be needed.\nI, therefore, again request that subjects be furnished to me for this\npurpose. In order to obtain results which are accurate and which can be\nstatistically evaluated, I ask that 200 persons be furnished to me for\ninoculation. I may point out that they must be in a physical condition\nsimilar to that of members of the armed forces.\n\nIt is highly desirable that I again be permitted to carry out these\nexperiments at camp Natzweiler.\n\n PROFESSOR DR. E. HAAGEN\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-139\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 317\n\n LETTER FROM DR. GRUNSKE TO HAAGEN, 7 MARCH 1944, CONCERNING REPORTS ON\n YELLOW FEVER VIRUS EXPERIMENTS REQUESTED BY A JAPANESE MEDICAL OFFICER\n\nHigh Command of the Navy\nFlottenarzt Dr. Grunske\n\n Berlin, 7 March 1944\n Landgrafenstr. 12\n Tel: 24 9591 Ext 241\n\nTo: Professor Dr. Haagen\nStrasbourg\nHygiene Institute of the University\n\nDear Professor:\n\nIn connection with my letter of 26 February and your long distance\ntelephone call of 6 March, I must advise you that the Japanese\nOberstabsarzt has in the meantime contacted Oberstarzt Professor Dr.\nRose of the Luftwaffe Medical Service, and that the latter has promised\nto secure for him from Strasbourg all the accounts concerning the yellow\nfever virus experiments which are important to him. Therefore,\nOberstartz Dr. Rose will give you further details. I therefore ask that\nthe matter be considered closed between us.\n\n With fraternal esteem and\n Heil Hitler!\n Respectfully yours\n [Signed] DR. GRUNSKE\n Flottenarzt\n\n TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 16\n ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 12\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR OTTO LENZ, DIRECTOR OF THE\n ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE IN BERLIN\n\n * * * * *\n\nProfessor Rose was not the \u201ctyphus expert\u201d of the Robert Koch Institute,\nnor did he work on typhus there. But he was the Chief of the Department\nof Tropical Medicine, and was in this capacity, with the exception of\none field of research, (that of the transmission of dysentery and\ntyphoid bacilli by insects) exclusively concerned with tropical diseases\nand parasites (insects).\n\nThe typhus expert of the institute was rather Professor Haagen, the\nChief of the Virus Division. After his departure, following his\nappointment to the Chair of Hygiene at Strasbourg University, Professor\nGildemeister, the then President of the Institute, continued the\nresearch on typhus.\n\nThus, various physicians, among them Dr. Ding, received instruction on\ntyphus from Professor Haagen in the Virus Division, but _not_ from\nProfessor Rose.\n\nOwing to the destruction by air raids of many of the files of the Robert\nKoch Institute, I can no longer ascertain whether Professor Rose was\nassociated with the decisions taken on typhus experiments.\n\nSeveral of the men who were at that time departmental chiefs, however,\nassured me unanimously, that this had _not_ been the case.\n\n * * * * *\n\nFinally, nothing is known of Professor Rose\u2019s having had the opportunity\nto become aware of Geheimrat Lockemann\u2019s chemo-therapeutical experiments\n(chemo-therapy of abdominal typhoid with otrhomin). The only research on\nabdominal typhoid carried on in Rose\u2019s department consisted of the\nexperiments on the role of the house fly in the transmission of\ndysentery caused by bacteria and of abdominal typhoid.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 46\n ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 20\n\nEXTRACT FROM A CERTIFIED STATEMENT, 4 MARCH 1947, OF J. OERSKOV, M. D.,\n DIRECTOR OF THE STATE SERUM INSTITUTE IN COPENHAGEN\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn answer to questions asked us about the visit of Professor Rose, I can\nsay the following:\n\nto 1. Did Professor Rose, when he visited the Institute at the end of\nSeptember 1943, request the Copenhagen Institute to take up the\nproduction of the typhus vaccine from R. pr. in order to help overcome\nthe great shortage of typhus vaccine? Yes.\n\nto 2. Was this request refused by Director Oerskov for valid reasons?\nYes.\n\nto 3. Was R. then taken to visit Dr. Ipsen\u2019s section?\n\nI do not remember this, but it is apparent from Dr. Ipsen\u2019s experimental\nrecords that Professor Rose actually was in Dr. Ipsen\u2019s laboratory on 24\nSeptember and probably discussed these problems with him. Unfortunately,\nDr. Ipsen is at present in America on a study trip and will not return\nbefore June or July. It is, however, apparent from our records that if\nProfesor Rose ever received samples of our vaccine it could only have\nbeen a small quantity, and neither I nor Dr. Ipsen\u2019s colleagues have\never heard anything of the possible effects of our vaccine.\n\nThrough the Danish Red Cross we sent our vaccine to Danish as well as to\nNorwegian prisoners of war camps, so that the vaccine was given only to\nDanish or Norwegian colleagues. We heard from Danish colleagues that the\neffect of these vaccinations was good.\n\nI can add that I am grateful to Professor Rose because he probably\nhelped to prevent our Institute\u2019s being compelled to take over the\nproduction of typhus vaccine. It is entirely unpredictable what\ncalamities might have arisen if we had been forced to take up the\nproduction of this vaccine.\n\n [Signed] J. OERSKOV\n Director of the State Serum Institute\n Not. K. J. No. 1974/47\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EUGEN KOGON[63]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Now, will you please explain to the Tribunal in your own\nwords exactly how these typhus experiments were carried out.\n\nWITNESS KOGON: After 40 to 60 people, sometimes up to 120, had been\ndetailed for a series of experiments, one-third of them were separated,\nand the other two-thirds were either vaccinated with a protective\ntreatment, or it was otherwise administered to them, if it was a\nchemical therapeutical treatment. Those people who were protected\nagainst typhus remained in Block 46 for several weeks until their\ninfection with Rickettsias Prowazeki, the typhus agent. The first\nselection, that is to say, the first third, was also infected together\nwith them. They served as so-called control persons, with the help of\nwhom it was possible to ascertain whether the infection took and what\ncourse the disease took in their cases, so that this course could be\ncompared with that of those who had been vaccinated and then infected.\nThe infection was performed in various ways. Either typhus was\ntransferred through fresh blood injected intravenously or\nintramuscularly. At the beginning, too, by scratching the skin, or by\nmaking a small incision in the arm. In the initial stages, two cubic\ncentimeters of fresh blood infected with typhus were used for the\ninfection, unless the infection concerned was one with an infectious\nsolution. Two cubic centimeters of fresh blood containing typhus were\nthen usually injected into the veins. Later on that dosage was reduced\nto 1/20 of 1 cubic centimeter because the large quantity of 2 cubic\ncentimeters would penetrate any security achieved by the vaccination.\nEven 1/20 of a cubic centimeter of fresh blood containing typhus was\nusually enough to produce a very high degree of typhus if injected into\nthe veins. In the course of years the typhus cultures used at Buchenwald\nhad been cultivated from man to man and had increased their strength,\ntheir virulence to a considerable degree, so that the very smallest\nquantity was sufficient. I suggested to Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding in\n1944 that in order to increase the scientific value he should reduce the\nquantity of these injections to the extreme minimum so that the\nso-called threshold value could be ascertained\u2014in other words, so that\nthe artificial infection should be as similar to normal infection by\nlice as possible. He turned this suggestion down because he believed\nthat then no convincing proof could be achieved of the real strength of\nthe protective treatment used. A third category of the experimental\npersons was used to maintain the typhus cultures. Those were the\nso-called passage persons, amounting to three to five persons per month.\nThey were merely infected for the purpose of ensuring a constant supply\nof fresh blood containing typhus. Very nearly all those persons died. I\ndo not think I am exaggerating if I say that 95 percent of these cases\nwere fatal.\n\nQ. Witness, do you mean to say that they deliberately infected three to\nfive persons a month with typhus just to have the viruses alive and\navailable in blood?\n\nA. Just for that particular purpose.\n\nQ. Can you tell the Tribunal approximately how many of those persons\ndied who were infected just to keep the viruses alive?\n\nA. From the so-called passage persons, as I have already said, between\nthree to five were used per month, that is, when I was working for Dr.\nDing-Schuler\u2014every month until the end of the Buchenwald concentration\ncamp. That is to say, from April 1943 until March 1945. As far as the\nprevious period is concerned, I only know that passage persons had been\nused, but I do not know the figures.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, were experimental persons also infected with lice?\n\nA. As far as I know, only one single experiment took place in Buchenwald\nwhere an original infection with typhus was performed with lice. The\ninfected lice were brought from the OKH Institute in Krakow by a courier\nand were taken to Block 46. There they were kept in small cages which\nwere applied to the thighs of the experimental persons, and a number of\npersons, I do not know how many, were infected. Some of our comrades let\na few lice escape in a room of Block 46, but they kept them under\ncontrol and reported to the Kapo that infected lice had escaped from the\ncages. Kapo [inmate trusty] Arthur Dietzsch immediately reported this to\nthe camp physician, Dr. Hoven, who was deputizing at that time for Dr.\nDing-Schuler. Dr. Hoven, following Dietzsch\u2019s advice, then ordered the\ndestruction of these infected lice. A second delivery from Krakow was\nalso burned because it was not desired that experiments should be\nperformed which entailed such danger for the camp.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Can you tell the Tribunal whether these experimental subjects\nsuffered to any appreciable extent during the course of these typhus\nexperiments?\n\nA. There we must draw a strict dividing line between the general mental\ncondition of such experimental persons and the physical condition caused\nby this disease. Every man in the camp knew that Block 46 was a dreadful\nplace. Only a very few people in the camp had an exact idea of what was\ngoing on in Block 46. A dreadful horror seized anyone who was brought\ninto any kind of connection with this block. If people were selected and\ntaken to Block 46 through the sick bay, then they knew that the affair\nwas a fatal one. The untold horror which was attached to this block made\nthings even worse. Apart from this, it was generally known in the camp\nthat Kapo Arthur Dietzsch exercised iron discipline in Block 46. There\nthe cat-o\u2019-nine-tails really ruled supreme. Everyone, therefore, who\nwent to Block 46 as an experimental person did not only have to expect\ndeath, and under certain circumstances a very long drawn out and\nfrightful death, but also torture and the complete removal of the last\nremnants of personal freedom. In this mental condition these\nexperimental persons waited in the sick bays for an unknown period of\ntime. They waited for the day or for the night when something would be\ndone to them; they did not know what it would be, but they guessed that\nit would be some frightful form of death. If they were vaccinated, then\nsometimes the most horrible scenes took place, because the patients were\nafraid the injections were lethal. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had to restore\norder with iron discipline. After a certain period, when the actual\nillness had set in after the infection, ordinary symptoms of typhus\nwould appear, which, as is well known, is one of the most serious\nillnesses. The infection, as I have already described to you, became so\npowerful during the last two and a half years that the typhus almost\nalways appeared in its most horrible form. There were cases of raving\nmadness, delirium, people would refuse to eat, and a large percentage of\nthem would die. Those who experienced the disease in a milder form,\nperhaps because their constitutions were stronger or because the vaccine\nwas effective, were forced continuously to observe the death struggles\nof the others. And all this took place in an atmosphere hardly possible\nto imagine. Just what happened to those people who survived the typhus\nwas something which they did not know during the period of\nconvalescence. Would they remain in Block 46 to be used for other\npurposes? Would they be used as assistants? Would they be feared as\nsurviving witnesses of the experiments on human beings and therefore\nkilled? All this was something which they did not know and which\naggravated the conditions of these experiments.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[64]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: When did you first learn that Haagen was conducting\nexperiments on concentration camp inmates?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: That Haagen was performing experiments on concentration\ncamp inmates? I don\u2019t believe that even today, but I knew that he\ncarried out vaccinations in concentration camps. I cannot remember when\nI first learned of it\u2014probably in 1943.\n\nQ. Well, you remember the letter in December 1943?\n\nA. I certainly must have known it by then because there I refer to it.\n\nQ. Well, did you know about this sordid occasion when Haagen had 18 men\nwho had been assigned to him die on transport?\n\nA. I never learned anything about that at the time. I found it out from\nthe files. I never knew that prisoners were especially taken to these\nconcentration camps in order to be vaccinated.\n\nQ. What would you have done if you had known about it? Wouldn\u2019t that\nhave given you an indication that maybe things were not so nice in the\nconcentration camp, or maybe proper care wasn\u2019t being taken of the\ninmates in these experiments?\n\nA. If I had learned anything about it I probably would have reacted\nexactly as Haagen did. The documents he wrote to the SS office prove\nthat one cannot conduct any experiments of any consequence on such\nunfortunate people. The record is in the documents here. If I had\nlearned about it, I would probably have reacted in exactly the same way,\nperhaps more violently.\n\nQ. Well, I should have hoped so.\n\nA. I beg your pardon. I didn\u2019t understand you.\n\nQ. I should have hoped you would have reacted somewhat more violently\nthan Haagen apparently did.\n\nA. That is possible. Our temperaments are different.\n\nQ. You recall Fraeulein Eyer testified that Haagen sent reports every\nthree months to the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe. Do you agree to\nthat testimony?\n\nA. I heard the testimony. Yesterday in my direct examination I commented\non it. If Haagen had reported every three months I certainly wouldn\u2019t\nhave forgotten it. I had many things on my mind during the war, but such\nan exemplary condition of reporting would certainly have impressed\nitself on my memory. It is quite out of the question that the Medical\nInspectorate received a report from Haagen every 3 months. I said\nyesterday that I consider Fraeulein Eyer\u2019s testimony quite credible,\nbecause in view of the number of offices with which Haagen was in\nconnection, and from which he received reports, there were so many\nreports and accounts necessary that it is a marvel that Fraeulein Eyer\ndidn\u2019t say she had to write a report every month. I explained with the\naid of the documents what obligation to report is apparent from the\ndocuments alone. You probably haven\u2019t had an opportunity to read the\nrecord yet, but as soon as the record is ready you will be able to see\nthat. I don\u2019t think there is any purpose in holding up the proceedings\nwith that any further.\n\nQ. And you are quite clear that Haagen never suggested to you that he\nwas going to carry out infection experiments with typhus after\nvaccination?\n\nA. That is not known to me.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s have a look at Document NO-1059. This will be marked as\nProsecution Exhibit 490 for identification. Now, will you please read\nthis letter in a loud and resonant voice?\n\nA. Perhaps I may see the photostat.\n\nQ. Will you read the letter aloud, please?\n\nA. (Reading)\n\n\u201c29 November 1943\u2014Registered\n\u201cTo Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose\n\u201cInspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe\n\u201cSaalow (Post Office Zossen-Land)\n\u201cDear Herr Rose:\n\n\u201cEnclosed I am sending you the report about our experiments with\ndehydrated typhus vaccine which I promised you several days ago. As I\nintend to publish the findings, I have already written the report in\nmanuscript form. After it has been reviewed, I would like it to be\nsubmitted to the competent authorities for their approval of its\npublication in the \u2018Zentralblatt fur Bakteriologie\u2019 [Central Periodical\nfor Bacteriology].\n\n\u201cOne hundred persons from a local concentration camp were put at my\ndisposal for immunization and subsequent infection. Unfortunately, these\npeople were in such a poor physical condition that eighteen of them\nalready died during transport; the remainder were likewise in such bad\nphysical shape that they could not be used for inoculation purposes. In\nthe meantime I have requested 100 additional persons from the SS Main\nOffice, who should, however, be in a normal physical and nutritional\ncondition, so that the experiments can be carried out on material which\nat least approaches the physical condition of our soldiers.\n\n\u201cFor the time being, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the\nform of a virus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime.\nThis seems to be a very good culture.\n\n \u201cWith best regards,\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cYours\u2014\n\n\u201cEnclosure: one report.\u201d\n And no signature.\n\nThis is the matter which I discussed yesterday. Haagen\u2019s plan to test\nthe inoculation reactions to his live and virulent dry vaccine by\nprevaccination with dead vaccine to weaken the reaction. That is the\nsame matter.\n\nQ. I thought you said about two minutes ago that you didn\u2019t know of the\nincident where eighteen of the inmates put at Haagen\u2019s disposal had died\nduring transport.\n\nA. Yes, that\u2019s true. That\u2019s what I said. I had forgotten about it. I\nthought that I had learned it for the first time from the records. If I\nhad remembered it, I would, of course, not have exposed myself by\ndenying it. But now I see this letter. It is obviously a carbon copy. I\nmust assume that on 29 November 1943 the mail was still fairly normal,\nand that I received the letter, since a report is mentioned which I was\nto deal with. It was apparently one of Haagen\u2019s papers on his dry\nvaccine, on which my knowledge is based and on account of which I can\ngive any information here at all as to Haagen\u2019s experiments. This\nknowledge of mine goes back to these papers of his which he wanted to\npublish.\n\nQ. It would appear that in spite of your fiery temperament your reaction\nwas even less significant than Haagen\u2019s himself, wouldn\u2019t it?\n\nA. Since I was not concerned in the matter, as it was something between\nHaagen and the concentration camp, there was no reaction in this case.\nIf somebody else tells me that he has had direct contact with abuses,\nthen there is no occasion for me to interfere, since that is settled\nbetween the persons concerned. I had nothing to do with the\nconcentration camps. I did not have to carry out any inoculations there.\n\nQ. And you insist that the words, \u201cone hundred persons from a local\nconcentration camp were put at my disposal for immunization and\nsubsequent infection\u201d really don\u2019t mean subsequent infection at all, but\na subsequent immunization?\n\nA. With the live and virulent dry vaccine, yes.\n\nQ. Well, that is certainly an inarticulate way of saying that, isn\u2019t it?\n\nA. This is correspondence between experts, and they know what it\u2019s\nabout.\n\nQ. You state yourself that you are still not sure exactly what Haagen\ndid, although you were down there in the middle of 1943 and got him back\non the pay roll of the Luftwaffe, and you knew he was staying at the\nlaboratory and you knew he was going to work on typhus vaccines, but you\nnow sit here and say you don\u2019t know exactly what he was doing.\n\nA. Yes. That is true. I have given considerable information here about\nHaagen\u2019s work, and I have gone to considerable pains to get it all\ntogether; but of course I can\u2019t give you complete information, simply\nbecause all these experiments were not under our direction and\nsupervision.\n\nQ. Herr Professor, the first time the question of subsequent infection\ncame up was in a letter dated 1944, and you spent the best part of a day\nrationalizing \u201csubsequent infection\u201d as meaning something entirely\ndifferent\u2014that it was simply a subsequent vaccination, after the man\nhad already been vaccinated by the dead vaccine. Now, if you were told\non 29 November 1943 that he was going to carry out immunization and\nsubsequent infection experiments, you certainly would have known as a\nmatter of fact what he was doing, and you would not need to speculate on\nthis stand as you did yesterday. These words are entirely susceptible to\nthe meaning that they mean exactly what they say.\n\nA. At this stage of his experiments Haagen did not yet have a fully\ndeveloped vaccine. He was working exclusively on the problem of\nweakening the reaction to this live virulent vaccine. That was the\nproblem he was dealing with at the end of 1943 and the beginning of\n1944. He was looking for various methods of achieving this aim.\n\nQ. What does he mean in the last paragraph when he says, \u201cFor the time\nbeing, we will concentrate on an epidemic culture in the form of a\nvirus, which we have received from Giroud in the meantime\u201d?\n\nA. That means that up to that time he had worked with a murine strain,\nand that now for the development of the dry vaccine he wanted in\naddition to use a strain of Rickettsia-Prowazeki.\n\nQ. Well, I now want to point out to you again that I am having\nconsiderable difficulty in construing the word \u201cinfection\u201d to mean\nvaccination.\n\nA. Yes. I admit that many of these documents are written in a confusing\nway, but I believe that I can remember the whole matter adequately\nenough to know what the problem is. The vaccine was not developed enough\nto be used in vaccination without reaction and then to determine the\neffect. There were strong fever reactions, and the problem was how to\navoid this fever reaction.\n\nQ. Well, why call that infection?\n\nA. That is a similar condition biologically. An injection of a live, a\nvirulent vaccine, from the biological point of view, is an infection.\nThis expression is used often enough, but it is an infection which one\ncan absolutely control.\n\nQ. And after receipt of this letter, you then wrote him on the 13th of\nDecember\u2014and this is Document NO-122, Exhibit 298\u2014you sent him the\nCopenhagen vaccine, didn\u2019t you, and asked him to test it in his\nexperiments on his concentration camp inmates, didn\u2019t you, just as they\ndid in Buchenwald, as you put it?\n\nA. I beg your pardon?\n\nQ. You sent him the Copenhagen vaccine after receiving this letter of 29\nNovember, and asked him to test that in his experiments on concentration\ncamp inmates.\n\nA. When this discussion of the Copenhagen vaccine took place, Haagen was\nspecially interested in it, because it was a murine vaccine; and since\nhe could not yet control fever reaction with murine vaccine\u2014he only\nsucceeded in doing that at the beginning of 1944 by storing the vaccine\nfor a considerable time\u2014he was no longer interested in this Copenhagen\nvaccine. But at the end of 1943, when he still had the same difficulties\nas Blanc with the reactions with the live murine vaccine, he was\nconsiderably interested in the Copenhagen vaccine. For it was the only\nvaccine from murine virus available in Europe at the time.\n\nQ. You sent it to him, told him to test it just like they did in a\nseries of experiments in Buchenwald, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. I don\u2019t remember that.\n\nQ. Well, you remember mentioning Buchenwald to Haagen in your letter of\n13 December 1943?\n\nA. Oh, that\u2019s what you mean. Yes, I pointed it out as a parallel,\nbecause several vaccines were tested in Buchenwald for their effect\nagainst infection, and Haagen in Strasbourg wanted to test various\nvaccine for their reaction effect.\n\nQ. You sent that Copenhagen vaccine to Buchenwald also to be tested?\n\nA. No.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Herr Professor, did Mrugowsky ever request you to give him vaccines\nfor use in typhus experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Did you ever discuss the question as to whether the louse could be\ninfected by a vaccinated typhus patient with the defendant Mrugowsky?\n\nA. That could be possible. This question played an important role for a\ntime in the discussion about the vaccines and their effectiveness. We\nhad some old Polish observations available to the effect that if\nvaccinated persons received typhus in spite of the vaccination, no\nfurther illnesses could be transferred by such persons. It is possible\nthroughout, since this question was of considerable importance that\nsomething like that could well have been discussed by Mrugowsky and\nmyself. We talked a lot about that question.\n\nQ. Did you ever negotiate with Mrugowsky concerning vaccines to be\ntested in Buchenwald?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s look at Document NO-1754.\n\n(Document submitted to the witness.)\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I will ask that document NO-1754 be marked as Prosecution\nExhibit 491 for identification.\n\nQ. (Continuing) Herr Professor, will you read this document aloud?\n\nA. \u201cHygiene Institute of the Waffen SS; Journal No. 795/42\n\n \u201cBerlin W 15, Knesebeckstrasse 43/44; 16 May 1942\n\n\u201cTo Oberfeldarzt Professor Dr. Rose; Berlin N. W., Foehrerstrasse 2\n\n\u201cRobert Koch Institute\n\u201cDear Professor:\n\n\u201cThe Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the execution of\nexperiments to test typhus vaccines. May I therefore ask you to let me\nhave the vaccines?\n\n\u201cThe other question which you raised, as to whether the louse can be\ninfected by a typhus patient vaccinated for protection, will also be\ndealt with. In principle, this has also been approved. There are,\nhowever, still some difficulties at the moment about the practical\nexecution, since we have at present no facilities for breeding lice.\n\n\u201cYour suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the personnel\ndepartment of the SS Medical Office. It will be given consideration in\ndue course.\n\n\u201cWith kind regards, and\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cYours\n \u201cDr. MRUGOWSKY, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.\u201d\n\nThere is a footnote to this letter, and I quote:\n\n \u201cAccording to telephone inquiry, Dr. Mrugowsky asks to be called\n by telephone after Professor Dr. Rose\u2019s return. Dr. Mrugowsky\n will not be in Berlin in June. His deputy, Dr. Ding, is\n informed. 20 May 1942.\u201d\n\nThis letter shows that Dr. Mrugowsky once informed me that the Reich\nPhysician SS and Police had consented to the testing of typhus vaccines.\nHe then asks me to send him these vaccines. I cannot recall what\nvaccines he is speaking of.\n\nThen the question is discussed about lice being infected by typhus\npatients vaccinated for protection.\n\nI admitted that a possibility exists, and I said that this question was\nat one time discussed with me.\n\nThe final paragraph says that one of my assistants had been drafted into\nthe Waffen SS and that I endeavored to have him used in the hygiene\nservice.\n\nQ. Herr Professor, let\u2019s go to the footnote first. What are the initials\n\u201cB. L.\u201d at the end of that footnote for? Isn\u2019t that Frau Block?\n\nA. Yes, that would be Frau Block, yes.\n\nQ. And Frau Block has been in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky. She notes that\nDr. Ding, who I suppose you will admit is Dr. Ding, has been informed.\nIn view of this note we can pretty well disregard the testimony of your\nwitness Frau Block before this Tribunal, can\u2019t we? She testified that\nyou had not corresponded with Mrugowsky, didn\u2019t she?\n\nA. She said that she could not recollect any correspondence with\nMrugowsky, but you will see from my documents which you have before you,\nthat this correspondence in effect was so small that it is quite\nunderstandable if she does not remember it in detail. It is a result of\nmy express order that you have these documents available. I ordered that\nin my institute at Pfaffenrode no documents should be destroyed under\nany circumstances. There is a written document available to show that I\ngave such an order.\n\nQ. Herr Professor, this letter is in response to one which you wrote to\nMrugowsky, isn\u2019t it?\n\nA. That\u2019s possible.\n\nQ. And in the letter that you wrote to Mrugowsky you asked him to have\nthe Bucharest vaccine tested in Buchenwald, didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. I told you before in great detail that I could not remember this\nmatter about the Bucharest vaccine. If you have a letter before you\nabout this matter, it would, of course, give me a possibility to refresh\nmy memory.\n\nQ. I should think this letter would refresh your memory, Herr Professor,\nparticularly in view of the Ding diary, which has an entry shortly\nfollowing the date on this letter where Ding carries out his experiments\nwith the Bucharest vaccine among others, and says in the diary that the\nvaccine was obtained from you; and Mrugowsky in this letter asked you to\nsend him the vaccines which you have mentioned in your previous letter.\nThere\u2019s really no doubt about it, is there, Professor?\n\nA. This possibly becomes apparent.\n\nQ. And was this person Olzscha mentioned in the letter? Was he to assist\nin Buchenwald?\n\nA. He was to be used in the hygiene service. Since he particularly dealt\nwith entomological questions, I asked that he should work on these\nquestions there.\n\nQ. You got a report from Ding, too, on these experiments testing the\nBucharest vaccine, didn\u2019t you, Professor?\n\nA. I cannot remember that, and I already told you once that had I\nreceived any such report, I would have drawn the conclusions from it;\nand since I did not do that, I think it is improbable that I received\nsuch a report.\n\nQ. In view of this letter, Doctor, do you want to go back and change\nyour testimony about the Copenhagen vaccine? Didn\u2019t you also suggest\nthose experiments, and didn\u2019t you also supply the Copenhagen vaccine for\nthe experiments in Buchenwald?\n\nA. No. I have no intention of doing that.\n\nQ. Well, in that event I will ask that Document NO-1186 be passed up to\nyou, and this will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 492 for\nidentification. Will you read this letter aloud please?\n\nA. \u201cOberstarzt Professor Rose\n\n \u201cO. U., 2 December 1943\n\n\u201cTo Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky,\n\u201cHead of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\n\u201cBerlin-Zehlendorf 6\n\u201cSpanische Allee 10\n\u201cDear Herr Mrugowsky:\n\n\u201cAt present I have at my disposal a number of samples of a new murine\nvirus typhus vaccine which was prepared from mice livers and proved in\nanimal experiments to be quantitatively a thousand times more effective\nthan the vaccine prepared from mice lungs. In order to decide whether\nthis first-rate murine vaccine should be used for protective vaccination\nof human beings against lice typhus, it would be desirable to know if\nthis vaccine showed in yours and Ding\u2019s experimental arrangement at\nBuchenwald an effect similar to that of the classic virus vaccines.\nWould you be able to have such an experimental series carried out?\nUnfortunately, I could not reach you over the phone. Considering the\nslowness of postal communications I would be grateful for an answer by\ntelephone. My numbers, all of which go through the same switchboard,\nare: Berlin 278313; Rapid Exchange Berlin 90, Zossen 559; Luftwaffe\nExchange 72, there you ask for RLM, L In 14.\n\n\u201cWith best regards\n\n \u201cHeil Hitler!\n \u201cYours\n \u201cRose\u201d\n\nThe signature which you see on this photostatic copy is, in effect, my\nsignature. This letter shows that I also informed Mrugowsky about the\nCopenhagen vaccine, which I did not remember up to this point.\n\nQ. And you asked him to test the vaccine in Buchenwald didn\u2019t you?\n\nA. The question of whether this vaccine can be tested in Buchenwald is\ndealt with here.\n\nQ. Do you see the name \u201cDing\u201d written at the bottom of the letter?\n\nA. Yes, it is at the bottom of the page.\n\nQ. And it appears that the testimony of Kogon was very precise, wasn\u2019t\nit, because Ding got a copy of this letter, didn\u2019t he?\n\nA. Yes. Ding\u2019s utterances do not only refer to my memorandum but also to\nthe correspondence between Mrugowsky and myself. Apparently it was then\ntransferred to the Reichsarzt SS.\n\nQ. Is the date on this letter 2 December 1943 or 12 February 1943\u2014and I\ndirect your attention to the receipt stamp on the letter which is 21\nFebruary 1944?\n\nA. The difference between the two dates can be explained by the fact\nthat a considerable time had elapsed between the sending of my letter\nand when this letter finally reached Ding. During this time the\ncompetent agency dealt with the matter of the approval and execution of\nthe experiments on human beings.\n\nQ. So you maintain that 2 December 1943 is the correct date on the\nletter?\n\nA. Certainly. That is certainly the correct date.\n\nQ. On the basis of the two letters which I have exhibited to you, you\nwill concede that the Ding diary was precisely accurate in what it said,\nwon\u2019t you?\n\nA. No, one can\u2019t conclude that just like that. The order to carry out\nexperiments in Buchenwald could not be issued by me in any way.\n\nQ. That\u2019s very clear\u2014\n\nA. That vaccines were requested from me seems to be evident from one\nletter. I didn\u2019t remember it and I still don\u2019t remember it now, but on\nthe basis of this letter one has to consider that fact proved. Then it\nalso becomes evident that in this case I drew the attention of Herr\nMrugowsky to this vaccine, and that I mentioned a discussion dealing\nwith human experiments regarding these vaccines.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Professor, 6 persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen\nvaccine, didn\u2019t they?\n\nA. Yes. These were 6 persons who were furnished by the Reich Criminal\nPolice Office through the regular channels after they were chosen by the\ncompetent agencies.\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[65]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FLEMING: Will you please draw the necessary conclusions from what we\nhave discovered about Ding\u2019s diary?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: The various erroneous entries in this document and\nthe facts which the handwriting experts have discovered prove that this\ndocument is not a diary in which entries were made from time to time.\nRather there are long periods of time that are missing, sometimes\nperiods of more than one year before the entries were made. Pages 1 to\n3, I believe, were all written at the same time, and also the subsequent\npages. The document has 27 pages, which were written down on only a few\noccasions. That is testified to by the handwriting expert. This explains\nthe various discrepancies between the entries and the actual facts; for\ninstance, calling the Robert Koch Institute a Reich Institute, when it\nwasn\u2019t, etc. The testimony of a prosecution witness, Balachowsky,\ncorroborates this affidavit.\n\nQ. This affidavit is Document NO-484, Prosecution Exhibit 291.\nBalachowsky said, under number 29: \u201cThe file notes which were copied\ninto the diary shortly before the collapse, give the precise number of\nthe pages and the number of the experiments.\u201d Now please continue.\n\nA. In these words Balachowsky corroborates the fact that this diary,\nnamely, this diary of Block 46, was drawn up shortly before the\ncollapse, apparently on several days, consequently the difference in the\ntypewriters used. Now, as to why he did this I can only conjecture\u2014I do\nnot know. That there was some reason for making the entries in this form\nwould appear to be obvious.\n\nQ. For the explanation of why Ding wrote this diary on Block 46 let me\nremind you of Kogon\u2019s testimony, namely, that after 1943 Ding was sure\nthat the war would be lost.\n\nA. Yes. That is true. During his testimony Kogon often stated that from\nthe beginning of 1943 on, Ding made efforts to cover himself. He also\nsaid that from that moment on, the oral assignments that he received\nwere not sufficient, but that he must insist on receiving written\norders. All the more remarkable is it then that the so-called diary,\nthis NO-265, says only very infrequently who initiated the various lines\nof experimentation. And, if I recall correctly, he does not once say who\nordered them.\n\nQ. Then do the contents of this diary meet the normal requirements of a\nscientist\u2019s diary?\n\nA. The diary of a scientist has the purpose of setting down the precise\ncourse of the work undertaken. Consequently, all efforts regarding the\ninitiation and course of experiments should be set down. That is a\nperfectly comprehensible custom in all institutes because subsequently\nthe evaluation of the experiments is based on entries in the scientific\ninstitute\u2019s diary. In this Document NO-265, however, which is allegedly\nsuch a diary of Block 46, there is not one entry regarding the actual\ncourse of the experiments; not even the results of the experiments are\nset down there. That is really the least that you could ask of such a\ndiary. Dr. Kogon thought that the number of fatalities which are set\ndown with clear precision were a result, to be sure, an unhappy result,\nof these experiments. That these events are found lamentable can hardly\nbe disputed, but it is a false point of view if one orients oneself on\nthe basis of this result toward something, the purpose of which was\nentirely different. The real experimental result can be seen in the\nfollowing: as a consequence of the protective vaccination, what happens\nduring a subsequent case of infection is that firstly, the period of\nincubation is prolonged, namely, that period of time which lapses\nbetween the actual infection and the first appearance of the disease.\nSecondly, the period of fever is shortened, whereas usually the period\nof fever in typhus is 17 days. This protective vaccination reduces it to\n12, 10, and even 6 days, depending on the strength of the protective\nvaccine. At the same time, the height of the temperature is reduced. In\nother words, the symptoms that are associated with fever, which effect\nthe blood circulation and the heart, as well as those which effect the\ncentral nervous system, are less pronounced or altogether absent after\nthe protective vaccine. There are various other small clinical\nindications which a doctor readily recognizes as a result of the\nprotective vaccine, and it must be said that as the result of less\nserious clinical manifestations, the number of fatalities from typhus is\nsmaller. That is not a direct but an indirect consequence of\nvaccination. Therefore, when Ding asserts in this block diary of Block\n46 that the most important result of the experiments was the number of\nfatalities, then every doctor will recognize this as such an erroneous\nand distorted statement that even if it is made by a doctor so reliable\nas Ding, it is completely unworthy of credence.\n\nQ. I now show you Mrugowsky 9 and I put it in as Mrugowsky Exhibit 23.\nIt is a photostat of a paper by Dr. Ding on the protective action of\nvarious vaccines on human beings and the course of typhus after\nimmunization. I do not wish to read the document but simply desire to\nbring it to the attention of the Tribunal. Would you care to make any\nstatement about the inadequate way in which this diary was worked on?\nWould you like to say that perhaps Ding was not in a position to carry\non such work?\n\nA. This paper is 13 pages long. First, there is the manner of the\npatient\u2019s tolerance for the vaccine, then the individual points which I\njust mentioned as the consequences of the protective vaccination are\ngone into. Tables are presented which give statistics in these matters.\nThere are eight sketches giving graphs showing the results; and at the\nvery bottom on the next to the last page, in the next to the last\nparagraph, there are three lines which say that the fatalities in the\ncases of those vaccinated were fewer in number than among those not\nvaccinated. That is all mentioned in the summary\u2014there is a final\nsummary. This is also an indication that he was perfectly capable of\ncarrying on scientific work. I should like to point out that at the top\nof this paper it is mentioned that this work was done in my institute in\nBerlin. I say that as an indication that I laid no stress on keeping\nthese matters secret in any way or that it was my point of view that\nthese experimental results which had been achieved on the most expensive\nof all material, namely, human beings, should be carried through to\nconclusion and that results should be made available to all who are\ninterested.\n\nQ. The prosecution also charges you with the fact that Ding infected\npersons in Buchenwald who had not previously received the protective\nvaccination. Would you like to make a statement on that subject?\n\nA. The following cases come into question here on the basis of Ding\u2019s\ndiary entries. First of all, there are the so-called \u201cpreliminary\nexperiments\u201d. In Document NO-265, four such preparatory experiments are\nmentioned on nonvaccinated persons. These were done in order to\nascertain what method was possible in order to artificially infect human\nbeings with typhus. I always found that the lay person who had never\nconcerned himself with these matters assumes it to be a matter of course\nthat it is always possible to infect a human being with a disease. That,\nhowever, is by no means the case. Even in the case of such a toxic\nmaterial as the typhus germ, successful infection can only occur if it\nis not directed directly into the blood stream. Unless another way is\nchosen, it is usually impossible to bring about infection with such a\ndisease. Consequently, when such experiments are to be carried out on\nhuman beings\u2014and this is a point of view which I express without any\nreference to my own person\u2014then such preliminary experiments cannot be\ndispensed with. The second case is the so-called \u201ccontrolled cases\u201d.\n\nQ. Did you know anything of these preliminary experiments?\n\nA. No. I found out about them only through the diary.\n\nQ. Ding says in his diary under the 20th of February 1942: \u201cCase\nhistories and curves on the preliminary experiments were sent to\nBerlin.\u201d Did you receive this report?\n\nA. No. Nor do I believe Ding sent it to me, because he was not\nsubordinate to me in these experiments and it seems, therefore, more\nprobable to me that he sent them to Grawitz. I, at any rate, did not see\nthem.\n\nQ. How can this be reconciled with your letter of 5 May 1942 to Conti\nand others which I put into evidence this morning as Mrugowsky 10,\nMrugowsky Exhibit 20?\n\nA. This letter corroborates what I have just testified to, because the\nreport on this series of experiments was sent to Grawitz, and I received\nDing\u2019s report to Grawitz from Grawitz himself with the order to rewrite\nit in a suitable form, since Grawitz did not wish outside persons to be\nable to see, without any further trouble to themselves, that these were\nreally experiments on human beings with artificial infection. He knew\nthat, to some extent, I could master the style which he used in his\nofficial communications, whereas he did not know whether Ding could or\nnot. Consequently, he commissioned me to take Ding\u2019s original report and\nto cast it in a suitable form for the purpose of making communications\nto the manufacturing firm. This I did, and the result is this document\ndated 5 May 1942.\n\nQ. Your letterhead here is \u201cReich Physician SS and Police, Chief\nHygienist\u201d. In other words, this is one of the cases in which Grawitz\nmade use of you when you still belonged to the medical staff of the\nWaffen SS?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Why didn\u2019t Grawitz rephrase the letter himself?\n\nA. There may have been two reasons for that. Firstly, Grawitz was not a\nhygienist but an internist and since the letter was being sent to\nspecialists, namely, to those people who manufactured the vaccines, he\nwanted to be sure that the letter contained everything they needed to\nknow and, on the other hand, no more than they needed to know; secondly,\nthis is quite in line with his customary manner of working, namely, to\nlet his collaborators write letters which dealt with their particular\nsphere of work, and for this reason, he commissioned me to indite this\nletter.\n\nQ. On this occasion did you not once again express objections to Grawitz\nregarding experiments on human beings?\n\nA. That I did not do because this series of experiments had been\nconcluded and because I knew that they had been carried out on Himmler\u2019s\nspecific orders. This was the first series of experiments which had ever\nbeen carried out and it was the reason for my very violent show-down\nwith Grawitz at that time. I assumed that this job was now completed and\nI had no reason to raise further objections.\n\nQ. Were the vaccines of the Behring Works in an experimental stage when\nDr. Ding used them in his experiments?\n\nA. No; these vaccines had already been tested in the plant as to a\nperson\u2019s tolerance for them. All such preparations of the Behring Works\nwere worked on in their own laboratories before they were sent out into\nthe world.\n\nQ. I submit to the Tribunal Mrugowsky 44, and I put it in as Mrugowsky\nExhibit 24. This is an affidavit by Dr. Demnitz, the manager of the\nBehring Works, regarding the way in which the vaccines of the Behring\nWorks were developed and how they were tested in the institute itself.\nOn the fourth page, it reads:\n\n \u201cNaturally, the Behring Works also carried out tests to\n establish whether the vaccines agreed with human beings for\n (_a_) it was necessary to vaccinate those people working in the\n typhus laboratories in order to protect them against typhus;\n (_b_) it was necessary to protect those people who attended the\n experimental animals; and (_c_) the undersigned himself was\n vaccinated against typhus on several occasions with vaccines of\n the Behring Works. These vaccinations had to be repeated from\n time to time. This concerned both German and Russian assistants.\n About 20 to 25 persons were employed in our typhus department.\u201d\n\nAnd Number 6: \u201cThe animal experiments according to Otto proved: (_a_)\nthe harmlessness and (_b_) the effectiveness or insufficient\neffectiveness.\u201d\n\nIt stated previously, \u201cthe question of whether the animals showed a\npositive reaction is incomprehensible.\u201d It stated also that animal\nexperiments were carried out in the Behring Works. I submit this\ndocument to prove these were not vaccines which had not been previously\ntested, but were vaccines which had gone through the necessary\npreliminary and effective testing. Do you remember Kogon\u2019s testimony\nthat volunteers were used in the first two series of experiments? This\ntestimony is on page 1,162 of the English transcript and on page 1,197\nof the German transcript. If we base our assumptions on Ding\u2019s diary,\nwhat two series of experiments must these have been for which volunteers\nwere used?\n\nA. If we base our statements on Ding\u2019s diary we can only consider that\nthese two series were, first of all, the preliminary series A which\nbegan on 5 January, and the first series of vaccine experiments with 145\npersons regarding which the letter of 5 May 1942 that was previously\nread concerns itself. (_Mrugowsky 10, Mrugowsky Ex. 20._) This series\nbegan on the next day, namely, on 6 January 1942. Any other experiments\ntook place at a later date. Thus, when Kogon says that two series of\nexperiments were carried out with volunteers, it can only be these two\nseries of experiments.\n\nQ. The experiments with which the letter of 5 May concerned itself were\ncarried out on volunteers?\n\nA. Apparently they were.\n\nQ. Can you remember the communication of 11 April 1943 to the effect\nthat the Mateska serum could no longer be used for experiments?\n\nA. No, I don\u2019t remember that and I consider it out of the question that\nI ever received any such communication. In all bacteriology,\nparticularly in virology, there have been efforts for centuries to breed\nlive germs which are no longer pathogenic (which do not infect human\nbeings), in order to use these live germs for the manufacture of\nvaccine, namely vaccines with live attenuated strains, because these are\na complete protection against the disease.\n\nQ. In other words, you want to say that if you had received this\ncommunication, you would have seen to it that further experiments were\ncarried out with this serum which was no longer so virulent?\n\nA. I should not like to put it quite that way, but I should certainly\nhave contacted the person whose institute had developed this strain,\nthat was the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister. However, I\nnever spoke to him about this matter, and I should like to believe that\nhe found nothing out about this matter because Gildemeister was one of\nour best virus researchers and was very familiar with the value such a\nreally unique occurrence would have had.\n\nQ. Did you see reports on the C and D series of experiments concerning\nthe discovery of a safe method of infection, which were said to have\ntaken place on the 11th and 13th of April?\n\nA. No, I only found out about them here while looking through this\ndocument and I also saw that Ding does not assert that he sent a report\non this to Berlin.\n\nQ. On what further typhus experiment series did you then see reports?\n\nA. In the diary of Block 46, Document NO-265, Ding says that only in the\ncase of a few experimental series did he send reports to Berlin, namely\nthe new experimental series, series I, II, VII, and VIII. I saw the\nreport on series I, having received it from Grawitz, and as I said\nbefore, I rephrased it in another form, and it constitutes the document\nhere submitted. Series II was carried out with the vaccine of\nDurand-Giroud of the Parisian Institute. That was the vaccine we\nintended to produce in our own institute. I really cannot recall ever\nhaving seen this report, but it is possible that I was informed of it by\nGrawitz, because I remember that Grawitz one day told me that he was\nconvinced of the effectiveness of this vaccine and had no further\nobjection to my suggestion that we manufacture the vaccine according to\nthat process. The immunization in the course of this series was carried\non by Ding between 19 August and 4 September 1942. From 10 September to\n9 October he was in Paris with Professor Giroud to learn his method, and\nwhen he returned, he infected persons and sent the charts to Berlin on\n20 November. It was probably then, toward the end of 1942, that Grawitz\nspoke to me about this matter.\n\nQ. Ding was ordered to report to Giroud in Paris in the autumn of 1942,\nalthough, as you have stated, it was already decided at the end of 1941\nto manufacture your own vaccines according to Giroud\u2019s process. Now how\ndo you explain this delay?\n\nA. In the infections carried out in series I on 3 March 1942, Ding\ninfected himself and fell seriously ill of typhus, despite his\nprotective vaccination. Subsequently, he went on leave to recover, and\nwhen his health was somewhat restored, the business of going to Paris\nwas discussed, which was only possible in the autumn.\n\nQ. There were 4 specific fatalities in the control cases. Now you say\nthat Grawitz probably discussed this matter with you. Did you do nothing\nabout the fact that there had been fatalities?\n\nA. When Grawitz spoke to me about this matter, [I] could do nothing\nbecause the series of experiments had already been concluded. But I do\nremember pretty clearly the situation in his office there. I remember\nthat I brought up the matter of these 4 fatalities and told him that\nthat would probably be the last series that he instigated. He answered\nthat Himmler had ordered these experiments and that I had specifically\nobjected to being included in the matter, and consequently no longer had\nany right to interfere in his business.\n\nQ. The report on the typhus experimental series VII was concluded on 7\nSeptember 1943, and when finished a report was sent to Berlin on 9\nSeptember, according to Ding\u2019s diary. Did you see this report?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. But according to Ding\u2019s work report, on the third of September, at a\ntime when this series was completed but the report not yet written, you\nwere in Buchenwald, according to this diary, visiting Ding. Did you talk\nabout this matter then?\n\nA. This entry is apparently correct. This was the period in which Block\n50 was being prepared for the production of the vaccines. Ding writes in\none of his documents that on the 10th of August this block was occupied\nand that work in producing the vaccine was begun. Kogon corroborated\nthat in his testimony. Then 3 weeks after the beginning of this work, I\nwent to Buchenwald to look over the laboratory and to see how his work\nwas getting along. Kogon also described at some length how I inspected\nthe institute, how I went into every room. It was a rather extensive\ninspection. I asked many questions, had many conversations with the\ninmates there; he further testified that I was with Ding in his room for\nonly a very brief period of time, and that is also correct. In other\nwords, at that time he did not submit any material to me.\n\nQ. Did you know anything else about this experimental series VII?\n\nA. This series was carried out with a vaccine similar to the Behring\nvaccine, manufactured by a different firm. I knew nothing of this\nexperimental series.\n\nQ. I submit to the Tribunal as the next document, Mrugowsky 12, and I\nput it in evidence as Mrugowsky Exhibit 25. This is an affidavit by Dr.\nKarl Ludwig Wolters of Hamburg, from the Asid Works. After the customary\nintroduction the statement reads:\n\n \u201cThe above person requested the notary to draw up an affidavit\n and declared and deposed the following under oath and after\n having been duly informed of the meaning of an affidavit:\n\n \u201c1. The production of typhus vaccines based on the egg culture\n process began as early as 1941. Later on, the prescribed process\n according to Gildemeister and Haagen was introduced.\n\n \u201c2. Experiments on animals for the purpose of testing the\n manufactured vaccines were taken up simultaneously with the\n beginning of the production and were carried out continuously.\n The results of the animal experiments were not always clear. The\n vaccine tolerance was tested by protective vaccinations of\n employees; all employees connected with the typhus department or\n who came in contact with employees working therein, were\n vaccinated. In addition, all other employees had the privilege\n of receiving protective vaccination against typhus on demand and\n without charge. In the course of time, about one thousand\n employees were vaccinated against typhus.\u201d\n\nTo figures 3 and 4 I simply draw the attention of the Tribunal. Figure 5\nreads:\n\n \u201c5. As far as I know, there was no correspondence between the\n firm of Asid, Serum Institute G.m.b.H., Dessau, on the one hand,\n and the former Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, or the\n Institute for Typhus and Virus Research at Buchenwald, or its\n chief, Dr. Ding, or the Grawitz Agency, on the other hand.\n\n \u201c6. I made the acquaintance of Dr. Ding during a trip from\n Berlin to Krakow.\n\n \u201c7. I could not say how the test of the typhus vaccines in\n question materialized. In any case, as far as I know, I never\n discussed that question with Professor Mrugowsky, nor did I\n forward the vaccines to him for testing. It is quite possible\n that the vaccines reached Dr. Ding through Professor\n Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, who\n received them in his capacity as expert consultant of the\n Ministry of the Interior for the fight against epidemics.\n\n \u201c8. During a discussion with Professor Mrugowsky in the Hygiene\n Institute of the Waffen SS in Berlin, I only talked about\n general questions of hygiene concerning the occupied eastern\n territories, and I asked for assistance in the work of\n developing the serum institute at Kiev. At the same time, the\n organization of delousing by the Asid Serum Institute\n Koenigsberg was discussed. There also may have been discussion\n of general questions in connection with active immunization,\n especially against scarlet fever, diphtheria, and tetanus.\u201d\n\nThen there is the usual conclusion and signature.\n\nIt can be seen from this that the vaccines for this series did not go\nvia you from Ding; is that true?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. According to Dr. Ding\u2019s work report, which is Document NO-571,\nProsecution Exhibit 285, you were present with him on the 3d of\nSeptember in Buchenwald. Did you visit Block 46?\n\nA. Yes. Ding invited me to take a look at Block 46. I went over there\nwith him; and I remember quite well that I was led to the lower floor of\na stone building, where there were a number of room-like partitions.\n\nIn the first room there were a few men playing cards; Ding told me that\nthese were typhus convalescents who had survived typhus and who were to\nbe released. I talked to them and found that their state of health was\ngood and that the usual after-effects of typhus were no longer in\nexistence. There were about five or six persons.\n\nIn the second room I saw about three patients lying in bed. I examined\nthem and spoke to them. They had been transferred to Buchenwald a short\ntime before from other camps. I think one of them was ill even when he\narrived and the others had fallen ill shortly after their arrival in\nBuchenwald, and then were transferred to the typhus station. We are here\nconcerned with people who fell ill spontaneously. According to Ding\u2019s\nentry, there was no series of experiments carried on at that time.\n\nQ. When visiting Buchenwald, didn\u2019t you talk to Dr. Ding about his\nvarious series of typhus experiments?\n\nA. No. At that time he had concluded the experimental series number VII\nwith Asid vaccines as I can see from this document. This was a series\nwhich had a number of fatalities as its result. It is in line with\nDing\u2019s character that he did not speak to me about such a series of\nexperiments, since he knew what my basic attitude towards this question\nwas.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t you discuss the typhus experiments with Ding on the occasion\nof your visit?\n\nA. No. We didn\u2019t discuss that matter. Our conversation merely dealt with\nthe work carried on in Block 50 for the production of vaccine, which was\nreally the purpose of my visit. I think we discussed a number of other\nhygienic questions concerning the vicinity of Buchenwald. I knew that\nthere was a lack of water there from my previous activity; and I am sure\nthat this was a subject which was discussed. I spent the evening with\nDing in his flat where I met Dr. Hoven, the camp physician of\nBuchenwald, and his wife. Mrs. Ding was there, too. It is a matter of\ncourse that we didn\u2019t discuss any technical questions in that circle. We\ncertainly did not speak about any experiments on human beings.\n\nIn this connection I may perhaps say that this was the only time that I\nsaw Hoven, who was allegedly Ding\u2019s representative. This was ten days\nbefore Hoven had to end his activity as a camp physician in Buchenwald.\n\nQ. Were you of the opinion that the typhus experimental series had been\nconcluded?\n\nA. Yes. I held that opinion, since it becomes evident from the documents\nhere that the experimental series of that time had not led to any\ndisease. The reason was that the strain coming from the Robert Koch\nInstitute was not pathogenic. Ding did not say that he sent any reports\nto Berlin about it; and I, therefore, did not know anything about the\nway he worked in Buchenwald as far as it did not concern Block 50. I was\nof the opinion that after the second series of experiments, which was\nconcluded at the end of 1942, no further experiments were planned.\n\nQ. Well, if you believed that the typhus experiments had been concluded,\nthe main activity of Dr. Ding would also have had to come to a\nconclusion?\n\nA. No. That is not the case. Seen from my point of view, he was a\nbacteriologist; and I was anxiously awaiting the end of this special\nmission by Grawitz when Ding would again be fully at my disposal. At\nthat time, in 1943, he had to carry out the preparations for vaccine\nproduction at Buchenwald. Therefore, the building work had to be\nsupervised. Block 50 was a bacteriological institute furnished in a very\nmodern style with a number of special pieces of equipment. Animals had\nto be obtained and accommodation made ready for them. There was not only\none kind of animal but four different kinds. It was necessary to obtain\nfodder for them. Then a number of other organizational activities were\nnecessary, which made Ding\u2019s stay in Buchenwald absolutely necessary.\n\nQ. Ding maintains that he sent a report about the series number VIII of\nthe typhus experiments. Did you see that in Berlin? It was to have been\nsent on the 13th of June 1944.\n\nA. Well, I heard about this series of experiments only by looking at the\ndocument here. I hadn\u2019t seen or heard of it before.\n\nQ. In the last entry of his diary, Ding says: \u201cBy order of the Chief\nHygienist of the Waffen SS, dated the 12th of August 1944, it was to be\nestablished whether the course of a typhus illness can be mitigated by a\ntyphus vaccine through intravenous or intramuscular injections.\u201d Did you\never issue such an order?\n\nA. No. I repeatedly pointed out that on the basis of the entire\norganizational set-up of the Medical Institute of the Waffen SS, neither\nas the Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, nor as the\nconsulting hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police, could I order\nany experiments to be carried out on inmates because I had just as\nlittle influence on the medical service of the concentration camp as any\nother member of the Waffen SS. The matter with which we dealt was\ncompletely different. In the Crimea, in one of the hospitals in the\nEast, I saw that the internist there was treating typhoid illnesses with\ninjections of dead typhoid vaccines; and this procedure resulted in\nfever in many of the cases. At that time I remembered that literature\ndating back to the last World War, when a number of papers were written\non the very same subject, showed that there were similar methods in the\ntreatment of typhus and typhoid entailing the injection of vaccines.\n\nDuring the course of these years when I had to deal closely with,\ntyphus, I had developed a very definite opinion about the origin and\ndevelopment of typhus. I was, therefore, of the opinion that in the case\nof this illness, which clinically is very close to para-typhus, it would\nbe quite feasible to make an experiment with that kind of treatment. The\nclinical symptoms of typhus and typhoid and stomach typhus are very\nsimilar. If a cure can be achieved with one method, it is to be assumed\nthat all other types of illnesses of that nature could also be treated\nwith success using that method. After my return, therefore, I\nestablished contact with a number of internes belonging to the hospitals\nwhich I knew, and wrote them that I had gathered, like experiences. I\nquoted passages from literature on that subject, and I said that our new\nexperiences were the same as our old. I made the suggestion that the\nsame method be used in the case of typhus by injecting with a protective\ntyphus vaccine. One might consider that at that time we had just as\nlittle means of combating the severe disease as we have today. We,\ntherefore, were medically justified in searching for new methods of\ntreatment.\n\nQ. Were these to be a series of experiments in the sense in which Ding\ncarried them out?\n\nA. That is completely out of the question. There was no reason to do\nthat at all. In order to perform such an experiment, one could make\ntests on a typhus inflicted person using this method, and the worst that\ncould happen would be that it would not help; but it certainly would not\nbe necessary to make a certain series of experiments, and I certainly\nnever gave any such order.\n\nQ. Did you write to Ding in that sense?\n\nA. At that time I informed my assistants about this therapy in the case\nof contagious diseases, and I am sure that it was a matter of course\nthat, as epidemic specialists, we had to be informed about such a\npossibility, and in this manner we also received knowledge of it.\n\nQ. You were saying that there would not have been justification for the\nexperimental theory?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Well, did you or did you not order such a series of experiments from\nDr. Ding?\n\nA. Never, at no time.\n\nQ. Are you of the opinion that Ding started these experiments on his own\ninitiative?\n\nA. That is possible. At any rate he did not receive orders from me, and\nI don\u2019t know where else he could have received an order.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE WITNESS DR. EUGEN HAAGEN[66]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. TIPP: Now, Professor, we are coming to the last and perhaps the most\ndecisive count of the indictment\u2014namely, the typhus experiments, as the\nprosecution calls them. Professor Schroeder and Professor\nBecker-Freyseng are charged with responsibility for such typhus\nexperiments. There are two groups of them, according to the prosecution.\nOn the one hand, those performed in Buchenwald concentration camp by Dr.\nDing-Schuler and to a lesser extent by the defendant Dr. Hoven. The\nsecond group is alleged typhus experiments that you carried out in the\nNatzweiler concentration camp. Before we turn to the individual\nexperiments, Professor, please tell the Tribunal what the hazards of\ntyphus were during the war, especially in the years 1943, 1944, and 1945\nwhen this problem became acute? Describe it only to the extent necessary\nin order to make your work understandable.\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: I shall try to be brief, but in order to understand this\nwhole problem, one must be given some general information. Typhus is a\nvery serious infectious disease which, in international medical circles,\nis included among the diseases which are of general danger, and it is\nconsequently subject to international control. In cases of such\nhazardous and dangerous diseases, every state felt the moral obligation\nto do everything to prevent the outbreak of an epidemic because it is\nvery difficult to combat and to eliminate the epidemic once it has\nbroken out. This point of view was embraced, of course, not only by the\ngovernment officials, but also by the responsible and interested\nscientists and physicians; because we all, of course, knew how\nprodigious the danger of typhus is, not only for the waging of the war\nbut also for the civilian population of the entire world. Typhus is not\nonly a war epidemic, but it has taken root in the country. It is also a\npeacetime epidemic which is enormously difficult to combat.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, the Tribunal is quite aware that typhus\nis a very dangerous disease, that it is a great menace to humans, and\nthat it was a menace to Germany during the last war, a great danger. I\ndon\u2019t think it is necessary to elaborate that again. We have heard it\nfrom several witnesses. It\u2019s not denied.\n\nDR. TIPP: Witness, you heard the Tribunal\u2019s wish. In the opinion of the\nTribunal, the typhus danger for Germany has already been sufficiently\nproved. Please go on to the subject itself now. Perhaps you could speak\nof the usual preventive measures which are used against typhus,\nparticularly vaccines.\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: There are, in general, two procedures to prevent typhus.\nOne is what I might call the mechanical procedure, and the other the\nbiological procedure. In the mechanical procedure we are concerned with\ncombating the lice\u2014I shall not go into that\u2014but in the biological\nprocedure we are interested in a protective vaccine. There are various\nvaccines available. Now, to get down to the crux of the matter, I must\nsay that the typhus vaccines which are made from dead typhus virus do\nnot provide absolute protection against the disease. They may lead to a\nmilder form of the disease, but the infection itself is not prevented.\nDead typhus vaccine, in other words, has no absolute anti-infectious\neffect, which, however, is the main point of any vaccine.\n\nWe developed a live vaccine, not on the basis of our own experiences and\nresearch, but we made use of the experiences of others. I should like to\nmention primarily the work of the French typhus research scientists,\nBlanc, Baltasar, and assistants Legrer and Lecolle. When vaccinating, a\nvaccine must be used which gives anti-infectious protection, and in\ngeneral, in the case of virus diseases, successful vaccination is also\nachieved only with live virus. Let me mention the examples of smallpox,\ninfluenza, and yellow fever. In all these cases the vaccines are made\nfrom a live virus, but it is true that this virus is mutated, that is,\nit is no longer pathogenic to human beings. Its pathogenic\ncharacteristics have been suppressed and have disappeared, but the virus\nretains its anti-infectious efficacy. This change is accomplished in two\nways, either by passing the virus through an animal\u2014this is frequently\ndone\u2014and sometimes effects mutation in the virus and sometimes weakens\nthe virus. I need not go into that; it would take up too much time.\n\nQ. If I understand you correctly, Witness, your aim as a scientist was\nto develop a vaccine from live virus; in other words from a\nnonpathogenic virus which could not cause the disease, but which,\nnevertheless, had the antigenic effect, namely the effect of protecting\nthe vaccinated person against contracting the disease later by\ninfection. Is that so?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, nobody is reproaching you for having produced vaccines,\nbut it is said that you tested the effectiveness of your vaccines in a\nconcentration camp. The prosecution called these virulent and you say\nthey were nonpathogenic. At any rate, that is the way I understood the\nreproach of the prosecution; but first before you go into this, Witness,\nwill you please tell the Court how it happened that you came into\ncontact with the concentration camp Natzweiler in this matter?\n\nA. The development of typhus throughout the war was such that typhus no\nlonger became purely a war epidemic, but because of the many refugee\ncamps, PW transports, and military transports, typhus was brought into\nGermany itself. In the overcrowded camps, especially with lack of\nsanitary installations, there was considerable danger from typhus,\nparticularly where people assembled who came from the East. I have only\nto say that in the Auschwitz camp, for example (but also in many other\nprisoner camps in the east), there had already been extensive epidemics.\nTyphus pressed further and further into Germany. Every closed community\nsuch as a camp is, in itself, a great source of danger of typhus, not\nonly the danger of an epidemic within the camp, but also an epidemic\nthat spreads to the surrounding civilian population. Most of the\nconcentration camp inmates worked outside the camp in factories and they\ncame into contact with the civilian population, so you can easily see\nthe danger of contagion. Now, in brief, the camp commandant and the camp\ndoctor in the course of the spring of 1943 asked me whether they could\nhave my assistance in combating this danger.\n\nQ. Witness, a preparatory question first. Did you have any connection\nwith the SS, with the concentration camp, as such?\n\nA. I had no connection with the SS or with the concentration camps, or\nwith any office in charge of them.\n\nQ. Why did the camp commandant and the camp physician of the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp turn specifically to you?\n\nA. As director of the Hygiene Institute I had a rather large sphere of\nactivity in Alsace, and, of course, it was known in the concentration\ncamps, too, that my offices were in Strasbourg. For this reason the camp\nturned to me for help in many matters, including the obtaining of\nvaccines and help in the disinfection of the camp, and so forth, matters\nwhich perhaps we shall deal with later.\n\nQ. You say then that the camp turned to you because you were the\nhygienist in the Alsatian district around Strasbourg?\n\nA. That is correct.\n\nQ. You said also that the camp commandant or doctor asked for your\nassistance?\n\nA. Yes, that was an obvious thing for him to do, because I was right\nthere in Strasbourg.\n\nQ. You said further that it was roughly in the spring of 1943 that these\nrequests for assistance were made to you; was there an epidemic in the\ncamp already at that time, or why did they think they needed your help?\n\nA. At that time there was no epidemic in the camp, but the general\nepidemiological situation was such that an outbreak of typhus was\nexpected at any moment, especially since transports were continually\ncoming from the East. These transports were infected with lice and\ncontained people who were already infected with typhus, and other camps\nin the neighborhood had already had their first cases of typhus.\n\nQ. Professor, what means did you have available to help these camp\nphysicians? Please limit yourself, first of all your vaccines?\n\nA. I have already said that there are various vaccines available made\nfrom dead virus, and also those made from live and attenuated virus. It\nwas very difficult to procure virus at that time. The superior officers\nsimply could not make the effective vaccines available, and in order to\ncarry out any plans, all sorts of decrees and orders existed in Germany\nfor the planning of systematic vaccination should the danger of typhus\narise.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, you have described your work in the field of vaccine\nproduction, namely, that of producing a live pathogenic virus; did you\nbegin this developing and working on your own initiative, or did some\nother agency refer the problem to you?\n\nA. Live typhus virus was being manufactured in foreign countries at that\ntime in great quantities, particularly in France where they had had a\ngreat deal of experience with such live virus. I have already mentioned\nBlanc, Baltasar, Lecolle, and Legrer. During the war, protective\nvaccines were also made with such live virus in North Africa. There had\nalready been millions of such vaccinations and, of course, this\npermitted experience to be gathered. The fact is that the French, who\nsaw this great danger, also saw the necessity of such large-scale\nvaccines, and they had also had a few fatalities. As I said, we had to\nuse a virus strain for these vaccinations which, it is true, was alive\nand still pathogenic to animals. In other words, a virulent virus, the\npathogenic effect of which on human beings was suppressed to a large\nextent; and that is the essence of all live vaccine manufacture, and it\nmust occupy the central position in our considerations here. You bring\nabout such mutation only by passing the virus through animals. Every\nspecialist knows that when the virus is passed through animals it is\nattenuated there more than by being cultured or bred, for instance, in\nchicken yolks or by being preserved in a vacuum, or at very low\ntemperatures and only somewhat attenuated in strain.\n\nQ. Witness, you still haven\u2019t answered my question fully, that is,\nwhether you carried out this work on your own initiative or on the basis\nof an order, directive, or assignment which came to you from elsewhere?\n\nA. In developing this live typhus vaccine\u2014\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, you can answer that question in a very\nfew words. Just answer the question propounded to you by your counsel.\n\nA. This was a research assignment, as I just said, there was no military\nor other directive.\n\nDR. TIPP: Witness, you have already described this morning how research\nassignments were distributed, and you told us that, in general, the\nassignment was made on the application of a scientist for such an\nassignment; now what was the case here, did you work on this problem\nfirst and then receive an assignment or was there already an assignment\nin existence and did you then begin to work?\n\nA. All this work was done entirely on my own initiative. I also saw to\nit that I got the necessary research assignment so that I could have the\nnecessary funds for the work from the Reich Research Council, and then\nfrom the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. That is where I obtained my\nassignment.\n\nMR. HARDY: Your Honor, before we adjourn may I inquire from counsel how\nlong the examination will continue, and how long other defense counsels\nwill take in their examination of the witness Haagen?\n\nDR. TIPP: I have already said I will need roughly a day and a half. We\nhave already eliminated some of the questions; I don\u2019t know if I can\nfinish this afternoon, but I shall not need so much time tomorrow\nmorning. I cannot tell you how much time my other colleagues will need.\n\nMR. HARDY: Do I understand Dr. Tipp is going to take the rest of the\nday, in spite of the fact that we sit until 5 o\u2019clock?\n\nDR. TIPP: I shall use all of today. Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine\nthis witness while he is on the stand?\n\nDR. TIPP: Dr. Nelte just tells me that he will need a quarter of an\nhour, and my colleague Krauss for Rostock, fifteen minutes.\n\nDR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I cannot say definitely now how long I shall\nneed because I do not know how many of the questions I intend to put to\nthe witness will be made unnecessary by Dr. Tipp\u2019s examination.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal is only asking for an estimate.\n\nDR. FRITZ: One hour.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, during the noon recess will you instruct\nyour witness to answer your questions directly and simply without\nexpostulating on matters about which, while scientific and important,\nthe Tribunal has already been advised. Kindly instruct him and explain\nto him how to answer these questions.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. TIPP: Professor, before the recess you said that you began your work\nin the field of typhus on your own initiative, and that in the course of\nthis work you obtained research assignments from the Medical Inspector\nof the Luftwaffe as well as the Reich Research Counsel; now I ask you,\nin your applications made before the various assignments were issued,\nwere any details given about the work which you planned to carry out or\nthe work which you had already carried out?\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: No details were given, of course, merely the problem as\nsuch was dealt with.\n\nQ. You have already described to the Tribunal your work on this problem;\nit was to find a vaccine produced from live virus, a virus no longer\npathogenic to human beings which, however, contained the qualities of\nthe virus.\n\nA. Yes. That is true. Our work was limited to the development of a live\nvaccine, and this work was based on the great experiences of foreign\nscientists, especially the French scientist Blanc; the technical side\nwas always carried out in animal experiments.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, did you succeed in finding a vaccine of the type\ndescribed?\n\nA. Yes. We did succeed in developing such a vaccine from a so-called\nmurine typhus virus strain, that is, from rat typhus. The weakening was\nbrought about through animal experiments, through cultivation in chicken\neggs, and thirdly through a conservation process.\n\nQ. Was this vaccine then tested for its effectiveness and if so, how?\n\nA. Yes. The vaccine was tested for its effectiveness. First, of course,\nby animal experiments for its immunizing qualities. After this quality\nhad been proved, the first vaccinations were undertaken in order to test\nthe effectiveness and the tolerance on human beings. This was done on\nvolunteers.\n\nQ. Where did you get these volunteers, Professor?\n\nA. First of all I served myself, then the members of my institute and a\nnumber of students from the university.\n\nQ. Now, will you please tell us the purpose of these experiments?\n\nA. When one has produced a new vaccine one must test not only its\neffectiveness, but also its tolerability. This can only be done on human\nbeings; animal experiments are not sufficient. At a certain stage it\nalways becomes necessary to test it on human beings.\n\nQ. In these vaccinations on members of the institute and students, you\ntested the tolerability of the vaccine; the immunizing effect of the\nvaccine, if I understood you correctly, could not be proved by these\nexperiments?\n\nA. Yes. The immunizing effect can also be determined. One merely needs\nto make the Weil-Felix reaction, which has been mentioned in this trial.\nThat is, to ascertain whether the blood serum already contains\nprotective bodies against the typhus germ. This test (I mention this\nbecause mistakes have been made here) is used not only to diagnose the\ndisease, but also, since it is a definite immunity reaction, to find the\nprotective bodies after vaccination.\n\nQ. We will come back to that later, Witness. Now when did you achieve\nyour aim, when did you have a vaccine of the type described, and when\ndid you develop it far enough to be used?\n\nA. In the spring of 1943.\n\nQ. And when was this vaccine first actually used on a large scale, or\nwhen was it first used at all?\n\nA. The first vaccinations were carried out in May 1943 in the Schirmeck\ninternment camp, which belonged to the Natzweiler concentration camp.\nThe vaccinations were performed on persons in special danger.\n\nQ. This morning, Witness, you mentioned the request of a camp doctor of\nthe Natzweiler concentration camp, and Schirmeck was no doubt under him;\nmay I ask whether these Schirmeck vaccinations go back to the request of\nthe camp physician?\n\nA. I do not quite understand your question.\n\nQ. Please tell me whether the vaccinations performed in Schirmeck\noriginated with the request of the camp physician?\n\nA. Yes. Schirmeck and Natzweiler belong together. My vaccinations there\nwere in connection with all the work of the camp.\n\nQ. Then you used this vaccine for the first time in May 1943 in\nSchirmeck. How many persons did you vaccinate?\n\nA. Twenty-eight persons were vaccinated altogether.\n\nQ. Did you have any influence on the selection of these persons; that\nis, did you select these persons, or who selected them?\n\nA. I did not have any direct influence on the selection of these\npersons, only to the extent that I told the camp administrator and the\ncamp doctor that we could only vaccinate people who were in a more or\nless good state of health, since if this were not the case it would not\ncorrespond to our German vaccination laws. To that extent I did have\nsome influence.\n\nThe selection was made according to the point of view that persons were\nselected who were in special danger of typhus, persons who were in the\nso-called \u201ceast block\u201d of the camp. New transports were always coming\nfrom the East, lice infected, for the most part, so that one could count\non a considerable typhus danger. In this part of the camp the danger was\ngreater than in those parts of the camp, housing Germans and Alsatians\nwho did not come from the East.\n\nQ. You said, Witness, the persons were selected from the group of\nprisoners in special danger of contracting typhus. You just mentioned\nthe east block. Can you tell us what nationality these persons were?\n\nA. As far as I can remember they were of various nationalities. There\nwere quite a number of them who spoke German and one could converse with\nthem easily.\n\nQ. Now, Witness, I should like to ask you to describe how these\nvaccinations were carried out. Perhaps a preliminary question first. Why\ndid you vaccinate only 28 persons? Why did you not vaccinate all the\ninmates of the camp there?\n\nA. At first I could only produce the vaccine in very small quantities.\nMy laboratory facilities were very limited. If I had wanted to vaccinate\na whole camp I would have had to have a production workshop. That is why\nwe only vaccinated a small number of people.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, please describe how the vaccinations were performed.\n\nA. Vaccinations were performed on 28 persons altogether, in several\ngroups. The first vaccination was of eight persons. They were given one\ninjection of 0.5 cc. of the vaccine into the breast muscle in the\ncustomary manner. The second group consisted of 20 persons, divided into\ntwo subgroups of ten each. The first group\u2014let\u2019s call this group A\u2014was\nalso given 0.5 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly. Subgroup B, the last\nten persons, were first given a vaccination of 0.5 cc. of a dead typhus\nvaccine produced in the Robert Koch Institute. Then, eight days later,\nthere was a second vaccination with a live vaccine, again 0.5 cc.\nintramuscularly. I should like to say that the first vaccination with\nthe dead vaccine, which I have just mentioned, was performed for two\nreasons: First of all, in order to be able to see whether this\npreliminary examination produced more protective bodies; and, in the\nsecond place, to see whether this preliminary examination with dead\nvaccine might reduce the reactions of the living vaccine.\n\nAt the same time, I carried out protective vaccinations on persons\noutside the camp, on volunteers. They were again performed in such a way\nthat there were three injections this time: the first, 0.25 cc., the\nsecond, 0.25 cc., and the third injection 0.5 cc. of the live vaccine.\n\nQ. The Court will be especially interested, Witness, in the reactions of\nthe persons after this vaccination. Can you tell us that?\n\nA. In the first group of eight persons who were given 0.5 cc. of the\nliving vaccine only once, three had a reaction consisting of a short\nfever of over 39 degrees. The rest of the persons, however, had no\nreaction.\n\nIn the second group, among the ten persons in group A, there were no\nnoticeable reactions. In the other group there were very negligible\nsymptoms, in some cases only a headache and depression. Typical symptoms\nof typhus, brain symptoms or vessel symptoms, and other symptoms, did\nnot appear in any case.\n\nThe same was true of the third group. Here again there was no reaction.\nI must say in this connection that I used a vaccine produced from dead\ntyphus virus. I must point that out because later, in Natzweiler, I used\nthe classic epidemic or louse typhus virus vaccine.\n\nQ. Professor, after the vaccination did you watch the well-being of the\npersons vaccinated?\n\nA. Yes, of course. After the vaccination I was frequently in the camp. I\nlooked at the persons who had been vaccinated and was shown their\ntemperature charts. After four weeks a final blood sample was taken to\nperform the Weil-Felix reaction in order to see what degree of immunity\nthey had developed.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. * * * Were there any deaths in the course of these vaccinations at\nSchirmeck?\n\nA. No. There were no deaths from the vaccinations at Schirmeck.\n\nQ. Witness, your testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of a\nprosecution witness whom we heard here. This was George Hirtz, who\ntestified here on the 8th of January. His testimony is on page 1310 of\nthe German and page 1293 of the English record. Hirtz said that at\nSchirmeck you injected 20 to 25 persons and during the following days\nthese people developed a high temperature. The temperature is said to\nhave started after 36 to 48 hours, and two of these people died. The\nwitness also said you had vaccinated him, the head of the camp, and the\nKapo in the sick bay. Will you explain the differences between your\ntestimony and the testimony of Hirtz?\n\nA. It is true that these three people, the camp head, the Kapo [inmate\ntrusty], and the nurse, that was Hirtz, were vaccinated with the\ncustomary vaccine on the basis of an order to the effect that if there\nwas any danger of typhus, the camp personnel had to be vaccinated\nregularly against this disease. Now, the personnel was in much less\ndanger than the inmates themselves; so in order to help the camp doctor,\nI supplied the vaccine and vaccinated these three persons, but I\nreserved the live vaccine for the persons who were in real danger. Those\nwere the reasons why these seeming distinctions were made.\n\nQ. The witness Hirtz also testified that he did not medically examine\nthese 20 people before they were vaccinated. Is that correct?\n\nA. When the prisoners came to the camp they were carefully examined by\nthe camp doctor. This was necessary in the interest of preventing\ndisease in the camp. Therefore, here I merely had to observe whether\nthey were free from external symptoms of disease and to determine how\nstrong they were.\n\nQ. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that the medical\nexamination was performed by the camp doctor, who made them available to\nyou for vaccination?\n\nA. Yes, the camp doctor and the head of the camp, together.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, is the statement of the witness Hirtz correct to the\neffect that after 36 to 48 hours these persons had a temperature of up\nto 40\u00b0 Centigrade, 104\u00b0 Fahrenheit?\n\nA. I have already said that aside from the first group there was no\nspecial reaction. Hirtz himself did not know the first group, he says so\nhimself. In the second group, I have just testified that there were no\ntemperature reactions or any other reaction.\n\nQ. But you said, Witness\u2014oh, that was the first group.\n\nA. Yes. And even here the reactions were quite the usual ones which\noccur in other vaccinations, too.\n\nQ. But Hirtz also says that after the temperature\u2014seven to eight days,\nthe persons developed some kind of disturbance and they had some\nimpediment in their speech and in three or four cases they stuttered. Do\nyou know anything about that?\n\nA. When I visited these persons I did not observe any such symptoms.\nNone of them complained, and I am sure that if any one found that he had\ndeveloped such symptoms he would immediately have gone to the doctor.\nEveryone was interested in getting rid of these symptoms. I did not\nobserve any disturbances or stuttering. If Hirtz had seen them at the\ntime, I am convinced he would have reported them to me. He was the nurse\nfor these persons and was responsible for them; I cannot imagine that he\nwould have served the interests of these prisoners by keeping these\nthings secret.\n\nQ. You say that you did not observe such symptoms nor did Hirtz report\nthem to you. Now, Witness, Hirtz also said that after two days two of\nthese experimental subjects, as he calls them, or vaccinated persons, as\nyou call them, died. Did you observe this, Witness?\n\nA. I have already said that in the smaller experimental group no one\ndied, because I am sure I would have noticed it when I visited these\npersons who had been vaccinated. I would certainly have ordered an\nautopsy in the case of such deaths to determine when the person died.\nNot only would I have ordered or carried out this autopsy, but the camp\nadministration would have ordered it. People might think that these\npersons perhaps died of typhus. I must say that after a two-day\nincubation period\u2014that was the period between inoculation and death\u2014no\none ever died of typhus. The shortest time for typhus deaths, that is\nthe incubation period plus length of disease, is ten days to fourteen\ndays. And these early deaths are supposed to be cases with a high\npathogenic virus originating directly from human beings. For this reason\nalone it is quite impossible.\n\nQ. Witness, you said that in such cases you would doubtless have had an\nautopsy performed. You said you heard nothing about the deaths, and\nthat, therefore, there was no autopsy; is that right?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct.\n\nQ. I should like to remind the Tribunal of the testimony of Hirtz. (_Tr.\np. 1298._) He said that he immediately wrapped the bodies in paper and\nhad them burned in the crematorium at Natzweiler. Not even the\nprosecution witness was able to say, or perhaps did not want to say, how\nProfessor Haagen reacted to these deaths. Now one more question about\nthis witness Hirtz. Here on the witness stand Hirtz was asked, \u201cNow\nWitness, you realized that these experiments performed on the 20 to 25\npersons were experiments for the determination of typhus in connection\nwith typhus disease?\u201d A. \u201cYes, I had not the slightest doubt about it. I\nhave fifteen years of practice behind me.\u201d I do not know, Witness, what\nthis testimony means. Perhaps I am not enough of a specialist to judge,\nbut I may assume that you can explain what the content of these\nstatements is.\n\nA. I can only say that I cannot understand Mr. Hirtz\u2019 statement at all.\nI have no idea what experiments to determine typhus in connection with\nthis disease are supposed to be. First of all, there were no experiments\nto determine typhus since there was no typhus. And I don\u2019t know any\nmethod for performing experiments on human beings to determine typhus.\nIf by experiments, one means the removal of blood in the Weil-Felix\nreaction, that is something else, but that is not what he is talking\nabout here. As reason for his expert knowledge the witness states that\nhe has been a pharmacist for 15 years. That he has such a long practice\nbehind him and so considers himself an expert in the field of contagious\ndiseases. I can\u2019t quite understand that either. But I think one can\nexpect that from a pharmacist\u2014after all, pharmacists do sell vaccines\nfor public diseases in pharmacies\u2014one would really expect him to know\nwhat vaccine reactions are and what a real disease is. And then in the\nfirst group where a reaction did appear, he didn\u2019t know that group at\nall.\n\nQ. You have already said, Witness, something about Mr. Hirtz\u2019 testimony\nthat the prisoner Atloff told him about what Mr. Hirtz described was the\nsecond experiment. It seems to me that supports your statement that Mr.\nHirtz knew nothing about the first group, that is the eight persons. Can\nyou tell us anything else, Professor, to explain the contradiction\nbetween your testimony and that of Mr. Hirtz?\n\nA. Hirtz speaks only of one injection, not of two. The vaccinated\npersons whom he took care of all had two injections at intervals of\nseveral days. If he had really been interested in the vaccination, he\nmust have known that two injections were performed. That is one point.\nThen he says that the needles were not changed. He seems to have\noverlooked something there again; that for every injection a new\ninjection needle was used which was brought from Strasbourg already\nsterilized, and that the technical assistant changed them. Anybody who\nknows anything about scientific work knows that in such important work,\none does not use the same needle for several persons, quite aside from\nthe fact that this would not be in accordance with one of the most\nelementary demands of asepsis. Here again he probably didn\u2019t observe\nvery carefully.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, we are interested in the question of whether in the\ncamp of Schirmeck, you wanted to produce typhus through artificial\ninjection of pathogenic virus. Did you perform such experiments at\nSchirmeck?\n\nA. No. No such experiments were performed. I don\u2019t know what the purpose\nwould have been.\n\nQ. Then if I may sum up, Professor, you were introducing a vaccine into\npractice after it had already been tested in animal experiments, in\nself-experiments, and in experiments on volunteers. But experiments such\nas I have just described were not performed at Schirmeck, is that\ncorrect?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct. We were merely introducing a vaccine which was\nalready being used on a large scale in other countries. Perhaps I may\nadd that at first I intended to perform further vaccinations in the\nSchirmeck camp in order to protect this camp as far as possible, but\nthat in the course of the next month, I realized that the Natzweiler\ncamp was entirely different in its whole structure and that there was\nmuch greater danger of typhus in this camp. Therefore, I shifted my\ninterest from Schirmeck to Natzweiler.\n\nQ. Now before we go on to the work at Natzweiler, Witness, I should like\nto clarify the following point with you. Mr. Hirtz testified here that\nthe prisoners used for vaccination were not volunteers; but you say,\nProfessor, that your point of view is that experimental subjects should\nbe volunteers. Can you please clearly answer this question and explain\nthe points of view which are important in your opinion in vaccinations\nparticularly?\n\nA. The prisoners whom we vaccinated were not volunteers. I would like to\nsay the following on that point: As I have already said, I share with\nmost scientists the point of view that the prerequisite for any\nexperiment is the self-experiment. This was not merely a theory in my\ncase. Everyone who knows my work or saw my work knows that I performed a\nnumber of self-experiments and contracted a number of infections. I need\nnot go into that now, but of course I tested all vaccines on myself. If\nwe dispensed with the element of voluntariness in this present case, I\nmust state that according to our rules and laws in Germany, vaccinations\nare ordered wherever there is danger of an epidemic. This situation\nexisted in Schirmeck and Natzweiler. There was a decree for this camp\nfrom the SS-WVHA, and decrees were sent out by the chief doctor of\nconcentration camps. Our vaccinations were performed within these legal\nregulations. In the records of trial, I find again and again the point\nof view that I had taken poor, helpless prisoners and treated them with\nmurderous germs. But if one knows my work well, one can see that, on the\ncontrary, I was combating these diseases. There can be no question of\nany criminal experiments here. I want to object very definitely to being\ncalled a criminal when I was merely fighting diseases.\n\nQ. Well, Professor, you say that in this case you dispensed with\nvolunteers because it was not an experiment, but rather a vaccination,\nand because it is your point of view that for vaccinations it is legally\npermissible to make them compulsory\u2014that you were merely carrying out a\nlegal measure under international law?\n\nA. Yes. This was a vaccination with a vaccine which was already being\nused elsewhere in the world within the framework of general vaccinations\ncarried out on the basis of the existing regulations.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. When did you begin your work in Natzweiler proper?\n\nA. It was my intention to begin vaccination in the Natzweiler camp in\nthe summer of 1943, but then unexpected difficulties arose which I must\ngo into\u2014I think they are of significance for this trial. Professor\nHirt, whose name I believe has been mentioned here repeatedly, the\ndirector of the Anatomical Institute in Strasbourg, was a member of the\nSS and a research worker of the Ahnenerbe. As an SS officer he had\ndiscovered through the camp that I wanted to perform vaccinations there.\nHe then intervened because he thought that if persons outside the SS or\nthe WVHA wanted to work in the camp in some form or other we had to have\napproval for this, quite aside from the fact that I had been asked to\nperform these vaccinations, etc. Professor Hirt told the camp doctor and\nmyself that he was ready to get this approval and asked me to make a\nrequest to this effect to the Institute for Military Scientific\nResearch. I had no connection with the SS or any suborganization of the\nSS, nor did I know the inner organization of the SS. The application was\nmade in the summer of 1943. I cannot remember the wording of the\napplication exactly, but Hirt sent it on to the agency in question. I\nonly know that the application said that I had asked for permission to\nvaccinate a certain number of camp inmates. One had to make a limitation\nbecause I could only produce the vaccine in small quantities since the\ntechnical conditions did not yet exist at the institute for large-scale\nproduction. In this letter to Hirt, I pointed out that there was no\ndanger in vaccination with the new vaccine, but that we had to expect a\nmore or less strong reaction, especially a temperature reaction in\naccordance with the variances in the individuals. I also pointed out\nthat the people to be vaccinated had to be in good physical condition,\nso that they should be in more or less the same physical condition as\nour soldiers. I said this in order to conform with the general\nvaccination regulations. After some time I received an announcement from\nthe Institute for Military Scientific Research to the effect that my\nrequest would be granted.\n\nQ. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-120, which is\nProsecution Exhibit 297. It is a letter from the Reich Leader SS,\nPersonal Staff, Institute for Military Scientific Research, dated 30\nSeptember 1943. It is signed by Sievers, and it is addressed to the\nDirector of the Institute for Hygiene of the Reich University,\nStrasbourg. Herr Sievers writes:\n\n \u201cI confirm receipt of your request of 16 August 1943. I shall be\n glad to help you and have accordingly contacted the proper\n source to have the desired personnel placed at your disposal.\u201d\n\nIs this the letter you meant, Witness, when you said that you were given\napproval in principle to carry out these vaccinations?\n\nA. Yes, this letter created the basic prerequisities for performing the\nvaccinations. If we disregard the fact that for epidemiological reasons\nthe vaccinations were justified and even necessary, this letter, I\nbelieve, gives us a justification to perform them.\n\nQ. Now, were you able to carry out the vaccinations?\n\nA. No. It wasn\u2019t as simple as that unfortunately\u2014I say \u201cunfortunately\u201d\nbecause precious time was lost and I was interested in protecting the\ncamp as soon as possible, at least insofar as there was no longer any\ndanger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the contents of this\nletter and asked to be allowed to commence the vaccinations. A\nconsiderable time passed, however, and not until November did I receive\nnotice that we could begin with the vaccinations. The whole affair had\nnot been helped by Hirt\u2019s intervention, therefore, but had even been\ndelayed. Then when I received the first hundred prisoners, I looked at\nthem and found that they were in no condition at all to be vaccinated.\nThey were in very poor shape. I must say that they were prisoners who\ncame from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had\nalready died. One really had no right to perform a vaccination on such a\ngroup. I did not do so and refused for medical reasons.\n\nQ. And what did you do then, Witness?\n\nA. I informed Hirt of this. I wrote to him frankly that these people\nwere out of the question for vaccination and I asked for men in good\nphysical condition.\n\nQ. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-121, Prosecution\nExhibit 293? It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 [13]\nNovember 1943. Did you mean this letter when you say that you wrote to\nHirt? I shall read briefly:\n\n \u201cOn the 13th of November 1943, an inspection was made of the\n prisoners who were furnished to me by the SS-WVHA, in order to\n determine their suitability for the tests which have been\n planned for typhus vaccines.\u201d\n\nIs this the letter?\n\nA. Yes. This is the letter of 13 November 1943. I may point out in this\nletter that I asked for a hundred prisoners in good physical condition.\nOnly in this way could I expect results which could be used for purposes\nof comparison.\n\nQ. Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is\nperhaps a contradiction\u2014or which may be interpreted as a\ncontradiction\u2014of your testimony. You say that you wanted to vaccinate\nthese people and the first sentence of the document seems to indicate\nthat. You write, \u201ctheir suitability for the typhus vaccinations.\u201d\nFurther down, however, in the document you speak of testing a new\nvaccine. Again, further down, \u201cmaterial which can be compared.\u201d One\nmight conclude that these are not vaccinations but experiments. Is this\nnot in contradiction of your testimony?\n\nA. No. That is not in contradiction of my statements. It is apparently\nnecessary for me to supplement my statements by saying the following: as\nI said, in the Natzweiler camp I wanted to vaccinate a fairly large\nnumber of prisoners. The vaccine was ready as far as the laboratory was\nconcerned; it had been tested in animal experiments; it had been tested\nin self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers. I, therefore,\nknew that it no longer involved any danger for the persons vaccinated\nand that the use of this living vaccine did not bring about any manifest\ndisease. But when a new vaccine is used for the first time in practice\nit is to a certain degree an experiment, since the tolerance still has\nto be determined and that can only be determined on a large number of\npeople. The dose still has to be determined and the result of the\nvaccination still has to be checked on a large number of people. So I\nadmit it is no doubt true that the use of a new vaccine for the first\ntime in practice on a large number of people could still be considered\nan experiment. I should like to add that in the first large-scale\napplication the titer values and blood were examined. Of course,\ntemperature was taken and all other observations were carefully made in\norder to get a definite final impression of the effectiveness and\ntolerance of the vaccine. We had to do this; it was our duty. It was a\nbig responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had\nalready gained experience in a small experiment on oneself and\nvolunteers. But in this trial the word, \u201cexperiment,\u201d has been grossly\nmisused. In this sense our vaccinations were not \u201cexperiments\u201d, they\nwere tests and not experiments with any uncertain goal or purpose. One\ncan hardly speak of criminal experiments here. And in every medical\njournal in the world, on almost every page, we find experiments at the\nsick bed, and I don\u2019t think anyone has any objection to this word. And\nas far as human experiments are concerned, I should like to refer to\nadvertisements which show the public attitude of an American firm\u2014in\npicture magazines which I have seen myself. Antiseptics such as\nListerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been\nmade, who were used as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the\nword; \u201cexperiment\u201d, is used in different senses.\n\nQ. One term has not yet been cleared in this document, the last words,\n\u201ccomparable material.\u201d Can you please explain what that means? What did\nyou mean by \u201ccomparable material\u201d?\n\nA. That means that the investigations indicated had already been made\nand that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one\ncould have really useful results. The individual values of every\nimmunologist vary considerably according to the constitution and general\nphysical condition. That was one of the reasons why I was very careful\nto obtain only those persons in good physical condition for vaccination,\nsince persons in a poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I\nmust point out that according to the general vaccination regulations,\nvaccinations of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I\nwanted to observe this rule strictly.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. TIPP: Now, Witness, I turn to the next document, NO-122, Prosecution\nExhibit 298. It is a letter from Rose to you dated 13 December 1943. In\nthis letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is again\nmentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines\nsimultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a\nmethod than the testing of one vaccine alone. Furthermore, there is\nmention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all,\nProfessor, when you received this letter in December 1943, what did you\nknow about these Buchenwald experiments?\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: I only heard the details about these Buchenwald\nexperiments from the documents in this trial. Moreover, Dr. Ding\u2019s\nreport at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned. I heard\nof Professor Rose\u2019s protest against these human experiments at that\ntime.\n\nQ. You had no connection then with these Ding experiments?\n\nA. I never worked with Ding and knew of his work only from the report at\nthis consulting conference.\n\nQ. The prosecution has deduced regarding these Buchenwald experiments\nthat the efficacy of the vaccine was tested by subsequent infection with\npathogenic virus. Will you please say what you have to about that?\n\nA. This attitude on the part of the prosecution ignores the fact, as I\nsaid several times, that I never had a strain of virus which is\npathogenic to human beings, consequently, I could not carry out an\ninfection such as the prosecution seems to assume. I never thought of\ncarrying out such subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to human\nbeings, because I was working as a scientist with my own material, and\nwasn\u2019t testing mixture for other vaccines at all.\n\nAs I have already said, on the occasion of Aherinesliev, I vaccinated\nsome of the inmates there, with an attenuated virus in order to minimize\nthe reactions to the vaccine. I thought that in the next vaccination I\nwould carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccine and I\nwanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus. In the meantime,\nbetween Schirmeck vaccines and the new vaccinations in Natzweiler, I had\ncarried my work to the point where I no longer needed a dead vaccine.\nBut the previous history was this: Professor Rose, by sending me this\nCopenhagen vaccine, thought he was supporting and helping me. And he\nsuggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let\nme say regarding this Copenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine\nwhich is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines,\nparticularly more so than the lung vaccine; and from it, in dead form, a\nbetter protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that\nif we distributed it over 100 persons again and did not get other\npersons, there would not be enough vaccinations to be of value for\ncomparisons. So, I didn\u2019t see any reason for introducing the Copenhagen\nvaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in\nthe form we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document.\nThis would have given some basis for comparison between the two\nvaccines. However, I didn\u2019t use it because I was no longer interested in\nit since, in the meantime, we had succeeded somewhat in attenuating our\nown virus so that we could do without it. I heard no more from Professor\nRose about this vaccine and never received the Copenhagen vaccine.\n\nQ. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the\nCopenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was\nto be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reaction to the\nlive vaccine. However, this plan although originally intended, was never\ncarried out?\n\nA. Yes. That is so.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, we were talking about your letter to Professor Hirt\nof 15 [13] November 1943, in which you ask him to make other prisoners\navailable. Was this request met later and were you able to carry out\nvaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine?\n\nA. Yes. I received the persons I had requested, and in December of 1943\nand January of 1944 we were able to carry out these vaccinations. I\nperformed them in two groups of 40 persons each with my live attenuated\nvirus which is no longer pathogenic to human beings, and this I want to\nstate explicitly.\n\nQ. Professor, please describe these vaccinations briefly to the\nTribunal.\n\nA. First, a group of 40 persons was vaccinated. The first vaccination\nwas done with one cc. intramuscularly. One was a vaccine made of murine\ntyphus virus vaccine. In no case did local reactions of temperature or\nother symptoms occur. The second vaccination took place a week later.\nThis was again one cc. of vaccine introduced intramuscularly. This was\nno longer pathogenic to human beings. To complete the story I have to\nsay that between the Schirmeck vaccinations in May and these\nvaccinations, I had turned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine;\nthis vaccine contained live virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a\nvaccine, we tested it on ourselves, that is, with some collaborators, to\nascertain the tolerability and effects. We were roughly ten persons,\nmembers of the institute and also students. Only then did we use the\nvaccine on the prisoners in Natzweiler. Four weeks after the last\nvaccination there were the usual serological examinations. The\nWeil-Felix reaction was used. The average titer value, let me say, was\nbetter than in the vaccinations with the rat virus. It was, namely\n2,000. I need not go into these details. The general reactions were\nnormal reactions to inoculation, temperature, and headaches; but there\nwere no manifestations of actual typhus as a result of inoculations.\n\nQ. You are speaking of a first group, so I assume there must have been a\nsecond group. How did you carry out the vaccination of the second group?\n\nA. It occurred to me that instead of injecting the vaccine, the\nvaccination could be performed by scarifying the skin in the same way as\nyou scrape the skin to make a smallpox vaccination. Therefore, as with\nthe first group, with the same living virus vaccine, I vaccinated 40\nadditional persons with scarification of the skin. Let me point out that\nthe experiments on myself and on my assistants were carried out in the\nsame way, with scarification of the skin. The reactions were\ncomparatively mild, corresponding roughly to the reactions to vascular\ntyphus vaccine, so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind\nof vaccination.\n\nQ. You described the reactions of yourself and the volunteers as very\nslight. Now, the reactions of the prisoners were stronger, were they\nnot?\n\nA. Yes. They were stronger again. And this we can only explain by\nbelieving that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower\nthan among my associates; but there was no such thing as a natural\nmanifestation of typhus or any fatalities.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you\nsomething which was said before this Tribunal and which is quite\ndifferent from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony\nof the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1371_), she\nsaid that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150\npersons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said\nto have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she\nknew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had\nmade about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the\nTribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring\u2014in other words,\nhow do you explain her testimony?\n\nA. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein Schmidt to have seen records\nof notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred\nbecause as I have already said no one died following the vaccinations.\nThese notes of Fraeulein Crodel\u2019s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not\nrefer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned,\nby Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at\nNatzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently\ntook this number and the concept of a control group from later writings,\nwhich are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she\ncould have been referring.\n\nQ. Please continue, Witness.\n\nA. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she\nsays the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring\nor summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus\nepidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt\nreally did see genuine notes of some sort.\n\nQ. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made\nin the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell\nus when this epidemic broke out?\n\nA. So far as I can state from memory, the epidemic broke out in February\nor March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and\nin the summer the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached.\n\nQ. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed\nby two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (_Tr. p. 1099_) and\nthe witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1058_). Both witnesses\nstated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following,\nthere was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean\ngave the number as 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would\nagree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important\nquestion in this connection is, did the outbreak of this epidemic have\nany connection with your vaccinations\u2014what I mean is, were your\nvaccinations the cause of this epidemic?\n\nA. No. There was no connection between the epidemic and our\nvaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January\n1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they\nwere brought into the camp from outside, either by transports or from\nother camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside\ncamps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department,\nbecause there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Let\u2019s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook\nshow? What is this notebook?\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: That is a control book in which the experiments with the\ntyphus vaccine on the animals were recorded.\n\nQ. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?\n\nA. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current\nlaboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like,\nbut I\u2019d have to see all of it first.\n\nQ. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this\nbook.\n\nA. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks\nas if she made these entries; but I can\u2019t interpret every record after\nsuch a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have\nvaccinations, but also scientific work.\n\nQ. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was\nwritten by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out\nby you?\n\nA. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like\nto make that restriction.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as\nProsecution Exhibit 521 for identification.\n\nNow, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice.\nLet\u2019s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I\nwill ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this\nphotostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do\nyou find that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Will you turn to page 3?\n\nIf the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages\nappearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense\ncounsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the\nreverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages\nappearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on\nthe translations should be marked page 3.\n\nDo you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?\n\nA. 30 April \u201943, yes.\n\nQ. And that says, \u201cS, plus, plus, 9, Sch.\u201d That is Schirmeck, isn\u2019t it,\nProfessor? \u201cSch.\u201d?\n\nA. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be \u201cpas.\u201d, ninth\npassage.\n\nQ. It says \u201cSch.\u201d, what does \u201cSch.\u201d mean?\n\nA. It doesn\u2019t look like \u201cSch.\u201d to me.\n\nQ. What does it look like to you?\n\nA. In German, I think it looks like a \u201cp\u201d, a German \u201cp\u201d.\n\nQ. And you think it should read what?\n\nA. First, I said it is probably \u201cpassage\u2014ninth passage\u201d.\n\nQ. All right. Let\u2019s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In\nparenthesis \u201ctwo weeks,\u201d does that mean the vaccine had been stored for\ntwo weeks?\n\nA. Where is that? I can\u2019t find it.\n\nQ. 14 May, immediately\u2014\n\nA. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.\n\nQ. And then you go on, and it reads, \u201c1 plus two point two for six mice,\npoint five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out\nof four of the controlled died,\u201d right?\n\nA. Yes. That is right.\n\nQ. Then, the next is 26 May, \u201cfour weeks, three dash six,\u201d what does\n\u201cthree dash six\u201d mean, Professor?\n\nA. \u201cFour weeks, three to six,\u201d only I can\u2019t tell you at the moment. I\u2019d\nhave to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.\n\nQ. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, \u201cpoint 5 per\nperson and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen\ndays. The rest after four weeks.\u201d What does \u201cthe rest\u201d refer to, the one\nmouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons?\n\nA. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It\nsays \u201cfive dead.\u201d We should have all the information on the mice. This\nis only an extract.\n\nQ. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck,\nand this entry says \u201cthree dash six, point five per persons\u201d. Now you\nare not suggesting to the Tribunal that the \u201cpersons\u201d are referring to\nthe mice? It continues to say\u2014\n\nA. But when it says \u201csix mice\u201d with \u201cpoint five\u201d, that was the serum, I\nsuppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I\ncan\u2019t interpret it differently at the moment. \u201cFour weeks\u201d, that means\nthe vaccine had been stored for four weeks. \u201cPoint five per persons\u201d\nwere vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment,\nthat the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can\u2019t\ngive any exact interpretation. I\u2019d have to study the document very\ncarefully.\n\nQ. What does this \u201cper person\u201d refer to? Talking about human beings,\naren\u2019t they?\n\nA. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had\ninjected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of \u201943; and then in\nparallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to\nmice. It was the murine typhus virus.\n\nQ. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were\nsure it wouldn\u2019t kill any human beings, is that right?\n\nA. Yes. The vaccination showed that.\n\nQ. Let\u2019s see what it showed. Let\u2019s look at the entry for 6 July, and you\nwill recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz,\nwas testifying. On 6 July, \u201cdrawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3\nhad fever, Weil-Felix,\u201d and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons\n1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase,\n\u201cthe other two were not here anymore.\u201d Professor, what about these other\ntwo persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz\ntestified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which\nwere delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine.\nDoesn\u2019t this, \u201cthe other two are not here anymore\u201d, rather substantiate\nwhat the witness Hirtz testified to?\n\nA. No. I wouldn\u2019t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on\nchecking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later\nperhaps\u2014these serological examinations were in May, two months\nbefore\u2014whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don\u2019t\nknow. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the\nrecord, I should think.\n\nQ. Doesn\u2019t that entry say, \u201cthe two weren\u2019t here anymore\u201d? Where were\nthese serological examinations in May? I don\u2019t see that in your records.\nDoes it show any serological examinations in May?\n\nA. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through\nthe Weil-Felix experiments.\n\nQ. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any\nvaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an\nopportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even\non the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make\nany. The next entry reads, \u201c4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20\npersons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person\u201d.\n\nDo you want to change your testimony now, Professor?\n\nA. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, \u201csix\nmonths\u201d. I have to interpret that \u201c20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck\u201d.\nThose are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness\nhere mentioned. \u201cTwo cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.\u201d I do\nnot know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the\nfall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, \u201cnine\nmonths\u201d.\n\nQ. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine\nstored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six\nmonths? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you\nnot, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: \u201cthe\ninoculations are now progressing,\u201d or words to that effect? You remember\nyou said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that\nwas just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do\nit, does it not, Professor?\n\nA. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says\n\u201cJanuary 1943\u201d. That is a time much farther back.\n\nQ. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you\nwell know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make\na mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what\nhappened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry\nfor January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries\nfor October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will\nagree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the\nvaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that\nnot right, Professor?\n\nA. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am\nvery sorry.\n\nQ. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?\n\nA. Yes. That is right.\n\nQ. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, \u201cnine months, mixed with\nthe same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc.\neach\u201d. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?\n\nA. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about\nSchirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually\nknow nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.\n\nQ. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series\non Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change\npage 6 to page 4.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring\nto the numbers on the original document?\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the\noriginal, should be changed to read page 4 of the original.\n\nNow, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10\nOctober, \u201cfive months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck\u201d? Do you find\nthat, Professor?\n\nWITNESS HAAGEN: Yes.\n\nQ. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations\nwhich you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by\nthis notebook.\n\nAnd then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does\nit appear 1944 on the original?\n\nA. 27 January 1944, yes.\n\nQ. Eight months?\n\nA. Eight months, yes.\n\nQ. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can\nyou tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?\n\nA. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this\ntime. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not\nhear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.\n\nQ. All right.\n\nA. I am trying to interpret the document.\n\nQ. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, \u201c13 July\n1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six\nmice before the inoculation\u201d.\n\nLet us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14\nOctober?\n\nProfessor, do you find that?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. \u201cTen persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.\u201d Professor, I\nthought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations\nwith your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.\n\nA. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were\nin May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of\n1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any\nexplanation.\n\nQ. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third\ntime on a series of ten persons. That was your \u201cInfektions-Versuche,\u201d\nwas it not, Professor?\n\nA. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.\n\nQ. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the\n\u201cInfektions-Versuche,\u201d was it not, Professor?\n\nA. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr.\nProsecutor.\n\nQ. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days\nbefore, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, \u201cWe have\nto carry out infection experiments.\u201d Professor, is it possible that you\nreally meant by \u201cinfection experiments\u201d something other than your\nthree-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?\n\nA. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, \u201c10 October-14 October,\nten persons, three times point five,\u201d it says again. It only says it is\na vaccination, if this document is right.\n\nQ. Does the document say, \u201cVaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the\nthird time\u201d? Is that what it said?\n\nA. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we\nvaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on\nthis document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that\nit does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that\nyet, but it does say Gildemeister.\n\nQ. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed,\nProfessor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you\ntestified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after\nJanuary 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook\non your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows\nthat you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January\n1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page\n7? Will you find the entry?\n\nA. Yes. I have page 7.\n\nQ. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Does that read, \u201cTogether with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI\nin Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic\ncentimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place\nduring the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people,\n13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.\u201d\n\nThen it continues to give the titer value of some of the others.\nProfessor, don\u2019t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in\nNatzweiler?\n\nA. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.\n\nQ. Professor, let us look at words \u201ctogether with S\u201d. What do you\nunderstand \u201ctogether with S\u201d to mean? It is 25 May 1944?\n\nA. I have no idea what \u201cS\u201d means.\n\nQ. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed\nthe date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that \u201cS\u201d could mean\nSchroeder?\n\nA. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never\ncarried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory.\nHe was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.\n\nQ. He was not with you in Natzweiler?\n\nA. No.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[57] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[58] Not introduced in evidence.\n\n[59] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947,\npp. 11049-11074.\n\n[60] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.\n\n[61] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[62] Passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being\nor through an animal.\n\n[63] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8,\n9 Jan. 1947, pp. 1151-1883.\n\n[64] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,\n22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.\n\n[65] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,\n28, 31 March 1947, pp. 5000-5244.\n\n[66] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17, 18,\n19, 20 June 1947, pp. 9409-9713.\n\n 10. EXPERIMENTS WITH POISON\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged\nwith special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct\ninvolving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only\nthe defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the experiments with\npoison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant\nMrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to\n632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant\nMrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Poison Experiments_\n\nPoison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen\nconcentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (_Tr. pp.\n1183-6_). The first series of the experiments was carried out in\nDecember 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the\nalkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge,\nMorgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander\nof Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having\nkilled a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four\nRussian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was\nadministered to the experimental subjects in their food without their\nknowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the\nconcentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (_Tr. pp.\n1183-6_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.) Since Ding was subordinated to\nMrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without\nMrugowsky\u2019s approval.\n\nOn 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with\naconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.\nThe projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five\nexperimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with\nthese projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be\nobserved. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental\nsubjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of\nagony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of\nRussian origin. (_NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290._)\n\nThe experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (_Tr. p. 1186_;\n_see also Kogon\u2019s testimony in Case 4_.[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his\nparticipation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground\nthat he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the\ntruth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to\ndeath prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death.\n\nOn 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by\nDing in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states:\n\u201cSpecial experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS\nOberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)\u201d\nKogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in\nthe experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and\nburned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were\nconnected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen\nconcentration camp. (_Tr. pp. 1185-1186._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n MRUGOWSKY_[68]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement\nthat Ding\u2019s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a\neuthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who\naccording to Ding\u2019s statement, was present when the order was given,\nsaid that this statement of Ding\u2019s was incorrect. It showed that the\nexamination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums\ncontaining phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with\nand without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums\ncontaining phenol was never carried out.\n\nThe experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr.\nMorgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no\nharm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these\nexperiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be\nobtained in any chemist\u2019s shop without a prescription and consequently\nis not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic\nbecause the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this\ntreatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only\neffect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep\nfor up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by\nMrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the\nprosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility\nunder criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment.\n\nWith regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding\u2019s\ndiary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my\nclosing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave\ncontradictory testimony in the Pohl trial[69] and the doctors\u2019 trial\nabout the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative\nvalue. Moreover, Kogon\u2019s description of this experiment, except for the\nsealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding\u2019s\nstatements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence\nwhatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the\nspecial experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After\nthe collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of\n1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to\ncommit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him.\n\nNo one can prove whether Ding carried out his \u201cspecial experiment\u201d with\nthese prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course\nof the special experiment.\n\nThe Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of\nMrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has\nsuch little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be\nproved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to\nshow that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore\nthere is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this\nexperiment or that he even knew about it.\n\nThe prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution\nperformed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were\nexecuted with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that\nMrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an\nexecution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because,\nin an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General\nGovernment, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow\nbullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned\nRussian bullets, and Henderson\u2019s book which described the preparation\nfor the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased\nthe concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I\nproved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine\nwhether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets,\nand how much time would be available in case of need to administer\nantidotes.\n\nI proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by\nthe Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at\nsuch executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was\nordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal\nlaw can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at\nthe execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\n Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-201 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the Criminological 635\n Institute, 12 September 1944, concerning\n experiments with aconitine nitrate\n projectiles.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Eugen Kogon 637\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-201\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 290\n\n REPORT FROM MRUGOWSKY TO THE CRIMINOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 12 SEPTEMBER\n 1944, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS WITH ACONITINE NITRATE PROJECTILES\n\nReich Physician SS and Police Berlin-Zehlendorf 6,\nThe Chief Hygienist 12 September 1944\nJournal No.: Secret 364/44 Dr. Mru./Eb. Spanische Allee 10-12\n\n Top Secret\n\nSubject: Experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles\nTo the Criminological Institute [Stamp]\nattn: Dr. Widmann\n\nBerlin Criminological Institute\n Department: Chemistry\n received: 13 Sep 1944\n Journal No. g 53/44\n in charge:\n\nIn the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann, and the\nundersigned, experiments with aconitine nitrate projectiles were\nconducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who had been condemned to\ndeath. The projectiles in question were of a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled\nwith crystallized poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying\nposition, were each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs\nof two of them were cleanly shot through. Even afterwards, no effect of\nthe poison was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were\ntherefore exempted.\n\nThe entrance of the projectile did not show any peculiarities. Evidently\nthe arteria femoralis of one of the subjects were injured. A slight\nstream of blood issued from the wound. But the bleeding stopped after a\nshort time. The loss of blood was estimated as having been at the most \u00be\nof a liter, and consequently was on no account fatal.\n\nThe symptoms of the condemned three showed a surprising similarity. At\nfirst no peculiarities appeared. After 20 to 25 minutes a motor\nagitation and a slight ptyalism set in, but stopped again. After 40 to\n45 minutes a stronger salivation set in. The poisoned persons swallowed\nrepeatedly, but later the flow of saliva became so strong that it could\nnot even be overcome by swallowing. Foamy saliva flowed from their\nmouths. Then choking and vomiting set in.\n\nAfter 58 minutes the pulse of two of them could no longer be felt. The\nthird had a pulse rate of 76. After 65 minutes his blood pressure was\n90/60. The sounds were extremely low. A reduction of blood pressure was\nevident.\n\nDuring the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show any\nchanges. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a medium\ndilation together with a retarded light reaction. Simultaneously,\nmaximum respiration with heavy breathing inhalations set in. This\nsubsided after a few minutes. The pupils contracted again and their\nreaction improved. After 65 minutes the patellar and achilles tendon\nreflexes of the poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes\nof two of them were also negative. The upper abdominal reflexes of the\nthird were still positive, while the lower were negative. After\napproximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing\nheavily. This was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the\nheavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration,\naccompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried in vain\nto vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his hand up to the\nknuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was\nflushed.\n\nThe other two experimental subjects had already early shown a pale face.\nThe other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest increased so much\nthat the persons flung themselves up, and down, rolled their eyes and\nmade meaningless motions with their hands and arms. Finally the\nagitation subsided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned\nlay motionless. Masseter spasms and urination were observed in one case.\nDeath occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.\n\n_Summary._ The projectiles filled with approximately 38 mg. of aconitine\nnitrate in solid form had, in spite of only insignificant injuries, a\ndeadly effect after two hours. Poisoning showed 20 to 25 minutes after\ninjury. The main reactions were salivation, alteration of the pupils,\nnegative tendon reflexes, motor unrest, and extreme nausea.\n\n [Signature] MRUGOWSKY\n SS Lecturer Oberfuehrer and Office Chief.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Poison Projectile of a Russian 7.65 Caliber Pistol Cartridge_\n\n (Perspective view, scale 10:1)\n [Illustration]\n\nThe projectile is cut open and \u00bc of the lead core (1 segment) is\nremoved. The lead seal at the bottom of the projectile is not shown in\nthis illustration. The section is clearly visible on the right half of\nthe jacket of the projectile.\n\n Criminological Institute of the Security Police\n Department: Chemistry\n Journal No. g 15/44\n\n _Russian 7.65 mm. Caliber Pistol Cartridge with Poison Projectile_\n\n (Stamp on bottom of cartridge case: Geco)\n [Illustration]\n\n Criminological Institute of the Security Police\n Department: Chemistry\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR.\n EUGEN KOGON[70]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Do you know anything about experiments with poisons in the\nBuchenwald concentration camp?\n\nWITNESS KOGON: I know of two such cases. The one case was about the turn\nof the year 1943-44 or in the late fall of 1943, and the second case was\nprobably in the summer of 1944. In each case Russian prisoners of war\nwere used for these experiments. In the first case various preparations\nof the so-called alkaloid series were put into noodle soup and\nadministered to 40 of these prisoners of war who were in Block 46. They,\nof course, had no idea what was going on. Two of these prisoners became\nso sick that they vomited, one was unconscious, the fourth showed no\nsymptoms at all. Thereupon, all four were strangled in the crematorium.\nThey were dissected and the contents of their stomachs and other effects\nwere determined. The experiment was ordered by the SS court, by the SS\ninvestigating judge, Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen. It was carried out in\nthe presence of Dr. Ding, Dr. Morgen, Dr. Wehner, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\nand SS judges, and one of the three camp leaders, I do not know whether\nit was SS Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert or SS leader Florstedt. The second\nexperiments\u2014\n\nQ. Witness, before continuing with the second experiment, I wonder if\nyou could tell the Tribunal the reason why this poison experiment which\nyou have just mentioned was carried out?\n\nA. In the summer of 1943 the SS court in Berlin was trying the former\ncommander of Buchenwald and later commander of the Lublin concentration\ncamp in Poland, SS Standartenfuehrer Koch. The trial was reaching its\nclimax. The investigation had led to very serious charges against Koch.\nHere I must mention that SS Obergruppenfuehrer Prince Waldeck, then head\nof the SS main district [Oberabschnitt] Fulda-Werra, was personally\nopposing Koch, and it was merely this personal antagonism of the two men\nwhich had brought about the trial. A man by the name of Koehler, a\nHauptscharfuehrer in Buchenwald, was arrested by Dr. Morgen and kept in\ncustody in the Buchenwald concentration camp. This Hauptscharfuehrer\nseemed to have testified against Koch. Two or three days later this\nHauptscharfuehrer Koehler was found dead in his cell. A few hours before\nhe had been quite healthy. He seemed to have taken strong poison. Dr.\nMorgen contended that Dr. Hoven, together with the guard,\nHauptscharfuehrer Sommer, had killed Koehler. Koehler was dissected in\nthe dissecting room in the presence of a scientist from Jena and two of\nmy comrades. The head of the pathology section was also present. Drugs\nof the alkaloid series were found in the stomach of the dead man. The\namount and the specific type was not known. In order to determine the\nfatal dosage of poisons of this type, the SS court ordered an experiment\non four Russian prisoners of war. This is the experiment which I have\njust described in Block 46. On 20 September 1943, Dr. Hoven was arrested\non Dr. Morgen\u2019s orders and remained in the custody of the SS court until\nthe end of March 1945. I know the date exactly because on that Saturday\nafternoon Dr. Hoven came to Block 50 on his motorcycle, asked me about\nDr. Ding-Schuler, who was not there, and went away again quite\ndepressed. Half an hour later I learned from the hospital, the\nprisoners\u2019 hospital, that Dr. Hoven expected to be arrested himself.\n\nQ. In other words, Hoven was suspected by Morgen of having done away\nwith the witness against Koch, is that right?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, will you explain to the Tribunal about his second poison\nexperiment?\n\nA. In the summer of 1944\u2014I am not quite sure of the exact date\u2014Dr.\nDing, who was already called Schuler, came from Berlin at the time and\ntold me that he had a very unpleasant task to perform. He said it was\nextremely secret and a few hours later, without my having asked, he told\nme details about it in his room.\n\nI must point out that at this time there was really nothing at all\nprivate or official, that Dr. Schuler would not have told me in order to\nget my advice. He realized quite clearly that the cause of National\nSocialism was lost. He was only looking for safety.\n\nHe said, \u201cKogon, can you see any way of getting me out of this affair? I\nam supposed to test a poison here on Russian prisoners of war. I have to\nreport on it immediately. It is a direct order from Mrugowsky. I don\u2019t\nknow how I can get out of it.\u201d\n\nHe gave me the prescription, the chemical formula of this poison, and I\nwas to put this prescription in an envelope and seal it in his presence.\nIn my haste I was not able to read it. It had some code name. I put the\nprescription in the envelope and only said to him, because we were\ninterrupted, \u201cYou know my point of view.\u201d I must add here that in long\nconversations at night I had tried to explain to him that his only way\nout was to do as much as possible for the political prisoners, but that\nin serious cases he must, as a human being, refuse to carry out orders\nwhich violated the moral laws.\n\nHe laughed when I said that and replied, \u201cI know your religious and\nmoral ideas. You know I don\u2019t believe in anything. This way is out of\nthe question for me; all I can do is comply with the first suggestion\nand collaborate with the political prisoners.\u201d\n\nIn this poison case, he went in great haste and excitement to the camp\nleader, Sturmbannfuehrer Schubert, whom he had informed beforehand by\ntelephone, and the commander, Oberfuehrer Pister, who also knew about it\nand they all went\u2014I don\u2019t know whether the camp physician was also\npresent\u2014at any rate, they went to the crematorium, not to Block 46. The\nRussian prisoners of war, again, four of them, had been taken there into\nthe cellar with the 46 hooks on the walls on which the people were\nstrangled. These four Russians were given this poison. I do not know how\nit was administered. As Ding-Schuler told me later, they died in a very\nshort time. Then they were dissected and cremated. Dr. Ding did not send\na written report on this matter to Berlin. He told me he had to report\non it to Mrugowsky orally. Ding was not only excited about this matter,\nbut afterwards he was also very secretive about it. He did not want me\nto talk about it any more. From indications in his conversation I\nlearned that there was some connection with experiments in the\nSachsenhausen concentration camp near Oranienburg which Mrugowsky had\nperformed in Ding\u2019s presence. Prisoners must have been shot there with\npoisoned bullets, because Ding said that a Russian prisoner of war had\nsucceeded in getting hold of a knife and attacking Mrugowsky, but that\nthe prisoner had been immediately overpowered.\n\nIn any case, Ding did not want to have anything more to do with the\nmatter, even in my presence. A short time later the prescription and the\nsealed envelope were burned by Ding in my presence. He held it over a\ncandle in my presence and burned it. I could not find out what the\ncontents were.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[67] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[68] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947,\npp. 11049-11074.\n\n[69] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[70] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8\nJan 1947, pp. 1150-1300. See also testimony of defendant Mrugowsky, sec.\nVIII G, vol. II.\n\n 11. INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged\nwith special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct\ninvolving incendiary bomb experiments (par. 6 (L) of the indictment).\nThe defendants were acquitted on this charge.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the incendiary bomb\nexperiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant\nPoppendick. An extract from this brief is set forth below on page 640. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant\nPoppendick. It appears below on pages 641 to 643. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 643 to 653.\n\n b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Incendiary Bomb Experiments_\n\nSturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler (hereinafter referred to as Ding) carried\nout incendiary bomb experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp\nbetween 19 and 25 November 1943. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) In order to\nascertain the effectiveness of the drug R 17 and echinacine ointment and\nliquid for the treatment of phosphorus burns, five experimental persons\nwere deliberately burned with ignited phosphorus which was taken from an\nincendiary bomb. The resulting burns were very severe, the victims\nsuffered excruciating pain and permanent injury. The drugs to be tested\nwere manufactured at the Dr. Madaus Works in Dresden-Radebeul. (_Tr. pp.\n1187-90._)\n\nThe report on these experiments (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288_) was forwarded\nby Ding to the defendants Poppendick and Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1158,\n1188._) The Research Department \u201cV\u201d (for Vonkennel) in Leipzig was also\ninterested in these experiments. Correspondence by Ding with this\ndepartment went through Poppendick. (_Tr. pp. 1158, 1175, 1247, 1267._)\nResearch Department \u201cV\u201d was a laboratory run by Sturmbannfuehrer\nVonkennel, with funds and material furnished by Grawitz. (_Poppendick 9,\nPoppendick Ex. 8_; _Tr. pp. 5589-5592_.) Poppendick was the expert in\nGrawitz\u2019 office responsible for the work of that laboratory. (_Tr. p.\n1267._) This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by letters from\nVonkennel to Poppendick and Ding to Poppendick concerning typhus\nexperiments. (_NO-1182, Pros. Ex. 477_; _NO-1184, Pros. Ex. 476_;\n_NO-1185, Pros. Ex. 478_.) The latter was actually typed by Kogon for\nDing, as can be seen from the file notation.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Experiments with Incendiaries_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Evaluation of Evidence_\n\nThe prosecution questioned the witness Kogon about the dispatch of\nreports on experiments with incendiaries. He stated:\n\n \u201cThe photos were placed opposite each other, mounted in an\n album, described in detail; the result sent in two copies to\n Berlin, one to Professor Mrugowsky, the other\u2014here I am not\n quite sure\u2014to Oberfuehrer Poppendick. I believe that\n Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received one report concerning\n this matter because Dr. Ding intended to publish a dissertation\n on this in a medical journal.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution then referred in this connection, to the entry in the\nso-called Ding diary under 5 January 1944 (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_):\n\n \u201cRecords dispatched to the Reich Physician SS with the request\n that they be forwarded to the Dr. Madaus Works.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution now thought they would be able to connect these two\npieces of evidence with one another and wants to prove from this that\nPoppendick received a regular report, with photos, on experiments with\nincendiaries, and thus learned about criminal experiments with\nincendiaries in Buchenwald.\n\nThe defense first questioned the persons concerned in Leipzig, in the\nform of affidavits, about the previous history of the experiments with\nincendiaries\u2014the affidavit of Dr. Koch from the Madaus Works\n(_Mrugowsky 103, Mrugowsky Ex. 97_), the affidavit of Kirchert\n(_Poppendick 7, Poppendick Ex. 9_), and the affidavit of von Woyrsch\n(_Mrugowsky 115, Mrugowsky Ex. 108_), all of these make similar reports\non these events. Each one of these three witnesses, viewing this matter\nfrom different angles, was able to testify under oath that the\ncorrespondence between Dr. Ding and the firm of Madaus did not pass\nthrough Poppendick personally, and that the research section of\nProfessor Vonkennel also had nothing to do with the whole matter as far\nas it took place in Leipzig, but that the connections were somewhat\ndifferent in many respects from what might be concluded from the\nstatement of Kogon.\n\nFor a person like Kogon, it was, of course, difficult to take in the\nconnections as a whole, as he only occasionally received letters which\nhad anything to do with the questions dealt with here. On the basis of\nletters still available, he can only draw certain retrospective\nconclusions today. Therefore, in the formulation of his statements, he\nexercises a certain caution, qualifying in advance things as they\nhappened by remarks such as \u201cI believe,\u201d \u201ccertainly,\u201d and so on. (_See\nalso testimony, Pohl trial, 22 April 1947_;[71] _Poppendick 21,\nPoppendick Ex. 20_.) For these reasons the phrase \u201cin this case I am not\nquite sure,\u201d relating to Poppendick\u2019s knowledge of illustrated reports\non incendiaries, can only be taken as an indication of the fact that\nKogon did not want Poppendick to be charged, through his sworn\ntestimony, with the knowledge of these reports, with photographs\nconcerning incendiaries. Poppendick has definitely declared that he\nwould certainly have remembered such a report with photographs if he had\nreceived it. In this way then, the uncertain statement of Kogon is\nconfronted by the definite statement of the defendant, who could not be\naccused of any unreliability in the course of his examination. The\ncontention of the defendant is supported by the three above-mentioned\naffidavits which fully confirm this. Kogon then said, however: \u201cA\nreport, I think * * *\u201d\u2014then again with a certain limitation\u2014\u201cwhich\nOberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received because Dr. Ding intended to\npublish a dissertation on this in a medical journal.\u201d\n\nAlthough this last statement was made with somewhat more emphasis, but\nstill not with complete certainty, the following comment can be made on\nit:\n\nIt is certain that Kogon had access to the entire documentary evidence\nas introduced in this trial before making his statement. Without doubt\nhe saw the manuscript of the Ding publication on typhus (_NO-582, Pros.\nEx. 286_) with the stamp of approval \u201cby order of Poppendick,\u201d even if\nhe did not see it while still in Buchenwald during his stay in the camp.\nFrom this he thought he could deduce that Poppendick must be the person\nresponsible\u2014in spite of the words \u201cby order\u201d\u2014for the approval of\nscientific publications. Kogon knew from his work in Buchenwald that\nDing meant to publish a pamphlet on the treatment of burns. He therefore\ntook it for granted that the only way of getting official permission was\nvia Poppendick, whereas actually Poppendick authorized these requests\nand signed them \u201cby order of\u201d in every case only when given special\npermission by Grawitz. Neither Kogon nor we know whether such a\nmanuscript was ever actually sent in for publication. Even if it was\nactually sent in, it is not certain that Poppendick had to grant\npermission for its publication. If Poppendick actually authorized the\npublication of such a pamphlet \u201cby order of\u201d\u2014a fact which cannot be\nproved\u2014there is a 100 percent probability, taking the typhus manuscript\n(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286_) as an example, that in such a publication the\nquestion of artificially inflicting wounds on human bodies would not\nhave been openly mentioned but would have been just as carefully veiled\nas was done in the manuscript concerning typhus treatment.\n\nIt is quite obvious, though, and even the prosecution will not dispute\nthis, that Poppendick otherwise played no part whatever in the\nincendiary bomb experiments, and had no contact with the authorities\nresponsible for them, such as the Madaus Works, Dr. Ding, etc., whereby\nhe might have been informed of what was going on in Buchenwald also in\nregard to those incendiary bomb experiments.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\nDoc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-579 288 Extracts from a report on the findings 644\n of 2 January 1944, on a skin\n ointment\u2014R 17\u2014for phosphorus burns.\nNO-1080 A, 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901\nE, F Kusmierczuk who underwent\n sulfanilamide and bone experiments\n while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck\n concentration camp. (_See Selections\n from the Photographic Evidence of the\n Prosecution._)\nNO-1082 A, 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido 903\nC who underwent sulfanilamide and bone\n experiments while an inmate of the\n Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_See\n Selections from the Photographic\n Evidence of the Prosecution._)\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document\nMrugowsky Mrugowsky Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Udo von 647\n115 108 Woyrsch, 3 May 1947, concerning\n experiments on combating injuries due\n to phosphorus incendiary bombs.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 648\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 651\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-579\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288\n\n EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF 2 JANUARY 1944, ON A SKIN\n OINTMENT\u2014R 17\u2014FOR PHOSPHORUS BURNS\n\n_EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS_\n\nI. Application of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and immediate\nremoval\u2014\n\n1. With R 17.\n\n_19 November._ The mixture was dropped on a smooth spot of skin on the\nforearm and immediately thereafter wiped off with a tampon dipped in R\n17. R 17 quickly dissolved the phosphorus and the caoutchouc. Subsequent\nchecks showed a complete cessation of phosphorescence. The spot of skin\nshowed an increased temperature until 14 December, as the testers\nascertained by placing the backs of their hands against it.\n\n2. With CuSO_{4}.\n\n_19 November._ The mixture, which had been applied to a smooth spot of\nskin on the forearm, was removed with a 2 percent solution of\ncopper-sulphate. There appeared a blackish-brownish, strongly viscous\nmass with a metallic sheen which, when rubbed off, spread over the\nentire experimentation area. After an initial formation of black smoke\n(phosphorus fumes) and a strong glow, the phosphorescence, because of\nthe formation of a copper-phosphate coating, ceased almost immediately.\nIt seems to be possible that phosphorus, if it comes in contact with\nsmall skin wounds, is assimilated into the body by resorption. This spot\nof skin likewise showed an increase in temperature until 14 December.\n\n3. With water.\n\n_19 November._ It was always possible to remove the mixture from the\nskin by water. However, in this case pronounced phosphorescence lasting\nseveral minutes and phosphorus fumes were to be observed.\n\nII. Lighting of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and treatment:\n\n1. With R 17.\n\n_a. Immediate ignition._\n\n_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of 6 \u00d7 3 cm. and\nimmediately ignited. After burning for 20 seconds, it was extinguished\nwith water and then wiped off with R 17. A burn appeared, with a\nyellowish induration of the skin. Later a thin scab formed. After 3\ndays, the wound was treated with _liquid echinacine_. On 11 December the\nscab fell off; the surface of the wound was dry and rosy red. Epithelium\nformed very rapidly; on 21 December only 1/5 of the surface remained\nwithout epithelium. On 29 December this spot too was almost healed.\n\n_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of the same size\n(6 \u00d7 3 cm.) and immediately ignited. It burned for 55 seconds until it\nwent out by itself. The burned spot was wiped off with R 17. There\nappeared a yellowish-brown burn which exhibited a cavity at the proximal\nend and a blister at the distal end. An elastic scab formed. On the\nfourth day the wound was treated with _echinacine ointment_. Thereupon,\non 3 December, the scab began to slough off; on 10 December the wound\nwas dry and closed; on 13 December only the edge of the wound still\nshowed a scab and the main part of the wound was covered with fine\ngranulation. The wound continued to become smaller until 29 December\nwithout healing over.\n\n_b. Ignition after 30 seconds._\n\n_19 November._ The mixture was applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin. After 30\nseconds it was ignited and after burning for 40 seconds it was wiped off\nwith R 17. A dry burn appeared. During the following days a small\noedematous swelling developed. The wound was treated with _liquid\nechinacine_. Thereafter, the swelling subsided rapidly, so that on 1\nDecember there remained a clear, dry wound without necrosis.\nSubsequently to this a broad zone of epithelization formed and by 29\nDecember the wound had healed with the exception of 0.5 sq. cm. still\nlacking epithelium.\n\n_19 November._ The mixture was again applied to 2 sq. cm. of skin,\nignited after 30 seconds, but treated with R 17 only after burning 60\nseconds. Here too a dry burn appeared, however with severe reddening and\npain in the surrounding area. The wound formed a necrotic coating. On\nthe third day it was treated with a 10 percent solution of cod-liver-oil\nointment. On 19 December it was circumscribed and dry. A slow\nepithelization began. Later the wounded skin area became similar to the\nsmooth surrounding area. On 29 December the wound had not yet healed\nover.\n\n_c. Application to a piece of cloth covering the skin._\n\n_25 November._ The phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture, applied to a piece of\ncloth covering the skin was ignited. Sixty-seven seconds elapsed before\nit had burned itself out. The piece of cloth, except for a small\nremainder, was carbonized. After it was wiped off with R 17 there\nappeared on skin a burn with a central blister which later developed to\na thin, elastic scab. After 3 days the wound was treated with echinacine\nointment. Until 3 December cleaning of the wound took place; at this\ndate it was dry, rosy red, and closed; a fine granulation covered it.\nThereupon rapid epithelization began. On 29 December it was not yet\nhealed over.\n\n2. With CuSO_{4}.\n\n_a. Immediate ignition._\n\n_25 November._ The mixture was applied to a skin area of 6 \u00d7 3 cm., and\nimmediately ignited. After burning 20 seconds it was extinguished with\nwater, and then wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. During this\noperation the entire epidermis separated from the area of the wound. An\noedematous swelling of the surrounding area, 12 \u00d7 13 cm. in extent and a\nthick scab formed. Treatment took place with _liquid echinacine_. On 7\nDecember the necrosis began to slough off, and gradual epithelization\ntook place. On 21 December one-third of the area of the wound was still\nwithout epithelium (cf. II/1/a/aa). On 29 December the wound was healed\nover.\n\n_25 November._ The mixture was again applied to a skin area of 6 \u00d7 3 cm.\nand immediately ignited. After it had burned itself out in 60 seconds,\nthe burned area was wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. A\nbrownish-grey burn with thickening of the skin appeared. The thickening\ndeveloped to a strong scab. It was treated with a 10-percent solution of\ncod-liver oil ointment. The surrounding area remained very red and\npainful. On 10 December a subcutaneous suppuration appeared at the edge\nof the wound. Consequently the treatment with cod-liver oil was replaced\nby _liquid echinacine_. On 13 December the scab separated from the\ngreater part of the wound, but the surrounding area remained more\ninflamed than in the corresponding experiment with R 17 (cf. II/1/a/bb).\nThe granulation was coarse and uneven. On 29 December the wound was not\nyet healed over; epithelization advanced only slowly.\n\n_b. Ignition after 30 seconds._\n\n_19 November._ The phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture was applied to 2 sq.\ncm. of skin and left there for 30 seconds; then it was ignited and after\nburning for 60 seconds wiped off with copper-sulphate solution. A\nbrownish-black viscous mass formed; the dry wound discolored to a\nblackish-grey. Thereupon a thick crust formed and a considerable\noedematous swelling of the area surrounding the wound developed.\nTreatment took place with echinacine ointment. The swelling subsided\nmore slowly than in the treatment with R 17 (cf. II/1/b/aa). On 5\nDecember the wound was without necrosis, with a wide zone of\nepithelization. On 29 December it had healed over except for 1 sq. cm.\nlacking in epithelium (cf. II/1/bb/aa).\n\n_c. Application to a piece of cloth covering the skin._\n\n_25 November._ The skin was covered with a piece of cloth 6 \u00d7 3 cm. to\nwhich the mixture was applied and then ignited. After it had burned\nitself out in 57 seconds there remained of the piece of cloth only small\ncarbonized remnants. After being wiped off with copper-sulphate solution\na yellowish, rather strong thickening of the skin appeared. The wound\nwas treated with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil. A few days\nlater little blisters appeared, which then dried up on 5 December. On 9\nDecember, thickened, shred-like necroses began to peel off, and a dark\nred surface with rough, uneven granulations developed. The\nepithelization progressed only slowly. On 29 December the wound was not\nyet healed over.\n\n3. With water.\n\n_19 November._ The mixture was applied to a 2 sq. cm. of skin and\nignited 30 seconds later. After 45 seconds the fire was extinguished\nwith a damp cloth and the burned spot washed off with water. A burn of\nparchment-like, dry, greenish-brownish appearance appeared. The wound\nwas treated with _echinacine_ ointment. On 3 December it was clean, dry,\nand without necrosis. On 5 December the epithelization began, which then\nmade rapid strides, so that on 23 December the wound, in contrast to the\ntreatment with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil, was considerably\nsmaller. On 29 December it was not yet healed over, but was only half as\nlarge as the wound treated with a 10-percent solution of cod-liver oil.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF MRUGOWSKY\n DOCUMENT 115\n MRUGOWSKY DEFENSE EXHIBIT 108\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF UDO VON WOYRSCH, 3 MAY 1947, CONCERNING\n EXPERIMENTS ON COMBATING INJURIES DUE TO PHOSPHORUS INCENDIARY BOMBS\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom 20 April 1940 to 12 February 1947 I was Higher SS and Police Leader\nin Military District IV and main district leader [Oberabschnittsfuehrer]\nin Dresden. In this capacity I was responsible for measures\ncounteracting the damage caused by the air war. I knew Dr. Hans Madaus,\nco-partner of the firm Dr. Madaus & Co., in Dresden. He told me that\nexperiments on the combating of injuries caused by phosphorus incendiary\nbombs were being carried on in his laboratory with rabbits. On the\noccasion of an inspection of the whole pharmaceutical lay-out of the\nfirm, I inspected, at his suggestion, in particular numerous hothouses\nand also the above-mentioned experiments. As far as I remember I\ninspected the experiments once again at a later date\u2014at that time I\ncalled in Dr. Kirchert as medical expert, who was the physician of the\nHigher SS and Police Leader.\n\nThe experiments seemed to me to be so successful that I reported about\nthem to Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. Grawitz; that is, I called his\nattention to these experiments on the combating of injuries caused by\nphosphorus incendiary bombs, which in my opinion were particularly\nsuccessful.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI do not remember Dr. Ding, who, as I have learned only now, is supposed\nto have carried on experiments in Buchenwald with the preparation of the\nMadaus firm. It is possible that when visiting Dresden he paid a brief\nvisit to me with Kirchert. But I do not recall such a visit.\n\nI want to emphasize that the experiments at the Madaus firm made a big\nimpression upon me, because I saw that the rabbits used in those\nexperiments were treated very well. The content of the phosphorus\nincendiary bombs which was rubbed onto their skins and then wiped off\nwith preparation R 17 did not seem to cause any kind of pain to the\nanimals, because after they were returned to their cage, immediately\nafter the experiments, they immediately ate again and did not show any\nsigns of discomfort.\n\nProfessor Dr. Joachim Mrugowsky is personally known to me. He was not\nmentioned in any way nor did he participate in the matter of incendiary\nbombs. Since I know him, I would certainly remember if he had\nparticipated in any way at all or if his name had been mentioned.\n\nDr. Helmut Poppendick has also never been mentioned in any way in\nconnection with this matter.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS EUGEN KOGON[72]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Witness, I had just asked you whether or not you know\nanything about experiments conducted at Buchenwald with the phosphorous\ncontent of incendiary bombs.\n\nWITNESS KOGON: * * * As far as I can recall, I was told by Dr. Ding in\nthe spring of 1944 that he had been given orders by Professor Dr.\nMrugowsky in collaboration with the firm of Madaus & Co. at\nDresden-Radebeul to carry out experiments on human beings with regard to\nthe effect of a drug against the contents of phosphorous-caoutchouc\nincendiary bombs. I had the impression that the idea for this experiment\nhad come from Dr. Ding and had been given to Dr. Mrugowsky by him, and\nthen he had obtained permission to carry out this experiment. On the\npart of the firm Madaus, negotiations were led by a certain Dr. Koch. He\nhad a drug which he called R 17 and which was used by the German\npopulation after attacks in which incendiary bombs were dropped.\n\nBy way of Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Koch and the higher police leader of\nthe Dresden sector, the contents of phosphorus incendiary bombs were\nsent to Buchenwald, and four experimental subjects from Block 46, who\nhad survived other experiments, had this phosphorus liquid applied to\ntheir forearms. The whole mass was then ignited and was then treated in\nvarious manners. In the case of one experimental subject, water was used\nin order to wipe off the liquid, and in other cases a damp rag was\napplied, and in the last case R 17 was applied. Several experiments were\ncarried out on these four subjects.\n\nIn one instance the drug R 17 was applied immediately after the mass had\nbeen ignited; in another instance, after approximately five minutes, and\nin yet another case, after thirty minutes. After the mass had burned the\narm, serious burns developed which were observed for two weeks\nafterwards. The experiment was conducted by the Special Section 5 at\nLeipzig, and photographs were taken of the wounds. Previously\nexperiments on animals had been carried out in Block 40 on rabbits.\nThese experiments were conducted in the same manner, and the various\nresults were also photographed, and the photographs were compared with\neach other. Then they were put into an album with exact descriptions and\nthe results were sent to Berlin\u2014two copies. One was sent to Professor\nMrugowsky, and the other was sent to Oberfuehrer Poppendick, but I am\nnot quite sure about that. I believe that Oberfuehrer Poppendick must\nsurely have received a report on this matter because Dr. Ding intended\nto write an article about this in a German medical journal.\n\nQ. Now, you have mentioned an album report. Did you see this report?\n\nA. I personally made the report after having it dictated to me by Dr.\nDing.\n\nQ. I will ask you if the document which I will now have handed to you,\nand which is Document NO-579, is the report on these incendiary bomb\nexperiments which you have described.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I will ask that the original of this document be passed up\nto the Tribunal.\n\nI didn\u2019t hear any answer to the question.\n\nA. Yes. It is a carbon copy of the report with the original photographs.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: I offer Document NO-579 as Prosecution Exhibit 288, and I\nwill ask that the original be passed up to the Tribunal for inspection.\nI will ask that the Tribunal turn particularly to page 15 and following\nof the exhibit itself. Your Honor, I think you would find the pictures\nmore easy to discern in the original document. Page 15 and following are\npictures of burns on the arms of human beings. Witness, did you see any\nof the experimental subjects who were burned with this phosphorus?\n\nWITNESS KOGON: I personally saw all the experimental subjects because\nthis experiment was carried out in the private room of Dr. Ding in Block\n50 and in the library of the Hygiene Institute in Block 50. The reason\nfor this was that the experiment in Block 46 among the experimental\nsubjects that were located there, and who were destined for other\npurposes, would have caused far too much excitement.\n\nQ. Were these burns very severe?\n\nA. As far as I can recall they were very severe in three out of the four\ncases.\n\nQ. Did the experimental subjects suffer any pain?\n\nA. Kapo Arthur Dietzsch had suggested that the subjects should be given\nan anesthetic as soon as they came into Block 50, so that violent scenes\ncould be avoided, and in Block 50, which was completely different from\nBlock 46, having persons handcuffed, as was the common practice in Block\n46, was to be avoided. It was like that at least in the first\nexperiment, but I only saw the subjects. I did not personally witness\nthe experiments, and I saw the subjects before as well as afterwards.\nDuring the first experiment at least, the subjects were given an\nanesthetic, and after about half an hour they regained consciousness and\ncomplained of very severe pains. You could see that they were really\nsuffering very badly. I must confess that I personally, after having\nlooked at the photographs, almost became sick.\n\nQ. Do you know whether the injuries which they received are permanent?\n\nA. In the case of some of the wounds, it is completely impossible that\nthey will ever become completely healed; very deep scars must have\nremained because the wounds were big and were as deep as two or two and\na half centimeters.\n\nQ. Do you know whether any of the experimental subjects died?\n\nA. Four persons were returned to Block 46, and I do not know anything\nabout the future fate which awaited them there. I especially do not know\nif they were used for further experiments.\n\nQ. Do you know the nationality of the experimental persons used?\n\nA. No. However, all four wore the green triangle to signify that they\nwere habitual criminals, and they were Germans.\n\nQ. And you state that the purpose of these experiments was to test\ncertain chemical preparations of the Madaus Company in treating the\nburns.\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[73]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FLEMMING: Now, I come to the incendiary bomb experiments. Dr. Kogon\nduring his testimony frequently spoke of an experiment by Dr. Ding with\na phosphorus-caoutchouc incendiary bomb, and he said that you ordered\nthis experiment.\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: I did not know who ordered this experiment. I found\nout about it only from the report which was drawn up after the\nexperiment had been terminated. This report has been put in evidence\nhere as a document. From this it can be seen that animal experiments\nwere also carried out. I assume that these were not performed in Block\n46, but in Block 50, which was under my supervision. I went with the\nreport to Grawitz and asked him if he knew any more about this matter. I\nasked him if I was correct in my assumption that some of the experiments\ntook place in Block 50 and if so, to tell Dr. Ding in future to confine\nhimself to his Block 46 in such matters, which was directly under\nGrawitz. Grawitz answered thereupon that it did not make any difference\none way or the other, and I should not be so fussy. I also know that\nafter a few weeks Ding was looking for this report and called me up and\nasked me if I had it. I no longer had it at that time as I had given it\nto Grawitz, and it was in his files where it belonged.\n\nQ. Kogon also testified that the experimental subjects had suffered\nserious pain and had incurred wounds from 2 to 2.5 centimeters deep,\nwhich led to the formation of extensive scars. I show you now Document\nNO-579, Prosecution Exhibit 288 and ask you to comment on this document\nand Dr. Kogon\u2019s testimony?\n\n(The document is handed to the witness.)\n\nA. The first part of this document deals with the rabbit experiments. In\nthe second part, however, there are pictures of experiments on human\nbeings. These pictures show the place on the arm where the experiment\nwas made. Kogon said that this burning was done in such a way that the\nmass of phosphorus was burning for quite awhile. The document, however,\nproves exactly the contrary. The length of time during which the matter\nwas burning was not long, but the period between the time when the\nmixture was applied and the time it was ignited was long; that is\npossibly the reason for this misunderstanding. Moreover in the\ndescription of the individual cases, it can be seen that already on 29\nDecember, in other words four days after the experiment, the burn was\nalmost healed, or had greatly reduced in size. In one case there was\nstill an open wound of 0.5 centimeter but there is no mention anywhere\nof any deeper wounds, but only of purely superficial epidermal wounds.\nThere is constant mention of the fact that the wounds healed over nicely\nand in some cases the wound was completely healed four days after the\nexperiments. Wounds 2\u00bd centimeters deep, or large scars could not have\noccurred and that testimony of Kogon is false. In this case let me point\nout that he was not speaking from his own knowledge. During the first\ndiscussion of these incendiary bomb experiments, he said he had seen the\nexperimental subjects, and then in the same interrogation he later says\nthis was not the case. In other words, he is reporting what he has heard\nand not what he knows at first hand.\n\nQ. I am submitting to the Tribunal Mrugowsky 56, and it will be\nMrugowsky Exhibit 50. I should like to read from page two:\n\n \u201cTreatment of phosphorus burns with \u2018R 17.\u2019\n\n \u201cThe dropping of phosphorus incendiary bombs made it necessary\n to find an adequate method of treatment. As the copper-sulphate\n solution hitherto in use did not give satisfactory results, the\n firm of Dr. Madaus in Dresden looked for a different solvent and\n produced a liquid carbon tetrachloride which was called \u2018R 17.\u2019\n The efficacy of R 17 had been proved by means of experiments on\n rabbits carried out by the firm of Dr. Madaus.\n\n \u201cAfter the completion of these rabbit tests, Dr. Madaus asked\n the Higher SS and Police Leader von Woyrsch, Dresden, to come\n and see the tests. As my emergency office was in the building of\n Gruppenfuehrer von Woyrsch, he asked me to accompany him to the\n firm of Madaus in my capacity as a doctor and to watch these\n tests. That was in the autumn of 1943. At the request of\n Gruppenfuehrer von Woyrsch and the firm of Madaus, I reported to\n the Reich Physician SS and Police the results achieved by the\n firm of Madaus in the treatment of phosphorus burns and\n suggested that the drug R 17 be made known to the air-raid\n precaution dispensaries. Grawitz promised to have another test\n made.\n\n \u201cSome time afterward he sent Dr. Ding to Dresden for this\n purpose in his capacity as health expert, and instructed me to\n make arrangements for Ding to see the results achieved there, by\n the firm of Madaus, with R 17. I arranged this. Ding came to\n Dresden and saw the above-mentioned tests in my presence, on the\n premises of the Madaus firm. Afterward he declared that, on the\n orders of the Reich Physician SS in Buchenwald, he would also\n test the efficacy of the drug on rabbits. He requested the firm\n of Madaus to put the drug R 17 at his disposal. Immediately\n after inspecting the firm of Madaus he left Dresden.\n\n \u201cI also know that Dr. Ding asked the office of the Higher SS and\n Police Leader to procure for him the filling of an English\n incendiary bomb, which as far as I know was done through the\n Commissioner of the Police of Leipzig. Dr. Ding had the drug R\n 17 and the incendiary bomb collected.\n\n \u201cI also know that Ding made a report on his experiments. I know\n this because Dr. Ding asked my office in Dresden several times,\n in writing and by telephone, if they had this report, as he\n could not find it. It was supposed to be a report with\n photographs. I do not know if the report went through my office,\n as I was in Dresden only one day a week. At the time when Ding\n was looking for the report it was not in my office. I assume,\n therefore, that he sent it direct to the firm of Madaus, as they\n were interested in the results of his test.\n\n \u201cWhen, after a considerable time, I still had not heard from the\n Reich Physician whether the drug R 17 was to be made known to\n the air-raid precaution dispensaries, I asked the Reich\n Physician about it at a meeting. He then declared that the drug\n would not be introduced, as it only possessed\n phosphorus-dissolving properties, but did not directly\n contribute to the healing of the burns. However, a drug was in\n preparation elsewhere that combined both qualities and this\n would be introduced.\u201d\n\nI submit further the last paragraph of Dr. Morgen\u2019s affidavit.\n(_Mrugowsky 23, Mrugowsky Ex. 26._) Dr. Morgen says here:\n\n \u201cWhile I was making observations in Block 46 I paid repeated\n surprise visits in order to inspect the running of the Block.\n Once, when I paid a surprise visit to Block 46, examinations on\n the treatment of wounds caused by phosphorus incendiaries were\n being carried out.\n\n \u201cAs I arrived a big strong prisoner came into the room laughing.\n On each of his two upper arms there were applied on a space\n about 1 centimeter wide and 5 centimeters long, some parts of\n the contents of a phosphorus incendiary bomb. These spots on\n both upper arms were treated with various ointments. During the\n discussion with Dr. Ding I was informed that the experimental\n persons volunteered for the experiment. They received the diet\n for sick persons, a packet of cigarettes, and for one month they\n did not have to work. In the case of the inmate whose treatment\n I witnessed by chance, I had the definite impression that he was\n a volunteer.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[71] United States _vs._ Oswald Pohl, et al. See Vol. V.\n\n[72] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8\nJan 1947, pp. 1150-1290.\n\n[73] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27, 28,\n31 March and 2, 3 April 1947, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.\n\n 12. PHLEGMON EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane\nacts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the\nindictment, were committed in the course of phlegmon experiments. These\nexperiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of\nparagraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of\nexperimentation. On this charge the defendants Poppendick, Oberheuser,\nand Fischer were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the phlegmon experiments\nis contained in its closing brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An\nextract from this brief is set forth below on pages 654 to 655. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the final plea for defendant\nGebhardt. It appears below on pages 655 to 657. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 657 to 669.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT\n GEBHARDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Sepsis (Phlegmon) Experiments_\n\nSepsis experiments were performed in the Dachau concentration camp\nbeginning in the autumn of 1942. These experiments were carried out in\norder to test the effectiveness of biochemical treatment of sepsis and\nrelated diseases.\n\nThe witness Stoehr testified concerning these experiments. He stated\nthat sepsis was artificially provoked by infecting with pus the\nconcentration camp inmates who were used as subjects. (_Tr. pp. 578,\n579._) He knew of at least two series of experiments. In each of these\nseries approximately half of the experimental inmates were treated by\nbiochemical means and the other half with sulfanilamide. The first\nseries consisted of 20 German concentration camp inmates of whom seven\ndied as a result. For the second series, 40 clergymen of various\nnationalities were selected and 12 died as a result of the experiments.\n(_Tr. pp. 581, 582._) The experimental subjects did not volunteer. (_Tr.\np. 590._) See also the Review of Proceedings of the General Military\nCourt in the case of the _United States_ vs. _Weiss, et al._ (_NO-856,\nPros. Ex. 125._)\n\nIt is quite clear that the biochemical experiments performed in Dachau\nwere complementary to the sulfanilamide experiments by Gebhardt in\nRavensbrueck. This is shown by the fact that in September 1942, while\nthe sulfanilamide experiments were still in progress, Gebhardt received\na copy of a report on the biochemical experiments in Dachau from\nGrawitz. (_NO-409, Pros. Ex. 249._) This report shows on its face that\napproximately eight cases of sepsis were artificially provoked. The\nreport dealt with the results obtained from experiments carried out on\n40 concentration camp inmates in treating sepsis, phlegmon, furuncles,\nabcesses, and nephrosis, among others.\n\nTen of the experimental subjects died. The report also covered three\nsepsis cases in Auschwitz, all of whom died. It concluded with the\nstatement that the experiments were being continued.\n\nThe case history of one of the experimental subjects artificially\ninfected with pus in November 1942 shows the horrible pain which these\nvictims suffered. (_NO-994, Pros. Ex. 251._)\n\nThat the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer had more than a casual\nconnection with the sepsis experiments in Dachau is proved by a\nhandwritten notation by Gebhardt on a letter written by Grawitz to\nHimmler on 7 September 1942, attaching copies of the preliminary report\nby Gebhardt on his sulfanilamide experiments, together with the report\non the sepsis experiments in Dachau. (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) This\nnote reads as follows:\n\n \u201c16 September 1942. Settled, after conversation with Reich\n Leader SS. Obersturmfuehrer F. Fischer has been given new\n instructions for Ravensbrueck _and Dachau_. Gebhardt.\u201d [Emphasis\n supplied.]\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n GEBHARDT_[74]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Phlegmon Experiments_\n\nIn the course of the hearing of the evidence, the prosecution submitted\ndocuments and interrogated witnesses with the intention of proving that\napart from other medical experiments, experiments were also carried out\non the treatment of phlegmon. In the indictment itself these\nexperiments, which were carried out at Dachau, are not mentioned. In\nview of Article IV of the Ordinance of Military Government for Germany,\nwhich expressly states that the indictment should list the counts in\nsufficient detail, it must be assumed that in this case a properly made\ncharge does not exist.\n\nAs far as the participation of the defendant Gebhardt is concerned, the\ndocuments submitted by the prosecution show by themselves that he had\nnothing to do with the execution of these experiments. It was only later\nthat he learned of the experiments carried out at Dachau, as\nunequivocally proved by the letter of Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to\nReich Leader SS Himmler of 29 August 1942, referring to the biochemical\ntreatment of sepsis, which was submitted by the prosecution as NO-409,\nProsecution Exhibit 249. The defendant Gebhardt learned of these\nexperiments on 3 September 1942, on the occasion of the visit of Reich\nPhysician SS Dr. Grawitz to Ravensbrueck in connection with the\nsulfanilamide experiments in this camp. The defendant Gebhardt wrote on\nthe margin of this document the remark \u201cseen and read\u201d. This remark\nalone shows that he could only have learned subsequently of these\nexperiments, and especially that he did not approve of them. If it had\nbeen the contrary, he certainly would have made some other notation on\nthe document, as for instance, \u201cagreed\u201d, or else he would have shown his\napproval in a similar way. On the witness stand the defendant Gebhardt\nexplained in detail to the Tribunal what his opinion of these\nexperiments was. These experiments demonstrate unequivocally that they\nwere deliberately initiated in ignorance of, and in contradiction to,\nthe recognized rules of orthodox medicine. As also demonstrated by the\nevidence the Reich Leader SS Himmler did not conform to orthodox\nmedicine but wanted to promote independently one patent solution out of\na variety of suggestions and opinions. Nearest to his conception, beside\nhis inclination towards theories of biological selection, were\nbiochemistry, homeopathy, and mesmerism, i. e., those schools of\nmedicine which, contrary to the theories of orthodox medicine do not\ncombat certain symptoms of a disease but by means of the so-called\nstimulation theory want to bring about a change of the general physical\ndisposition. The defendant Gebhardt, when on the witness stand, clearly\nexplained this attitude of Himmler, which among other things resulted in\nrejection of any criticism by orthodox medicine, relying exclusively on\nhis biochemical experts.\n\nThe evidence, however, has further shown that after having learned of\nthe letter of Reich Physician SS Grawitz of 29 August 1942 (_NO-409,\nPros. Ex. 249_) and with the object of convincing Himmler of the\nfutility of these experiments, the defendant Gebhardt himself performed\nexperiments on patients with these biochemical remedies in his clinic at\nHohenlychen, and that he succeeded in convincing Himmler of the\ninefficacy of these remedies. In this connection I refer to the\nstatements of the defendant Gebhardt himself and to the affidavits of\nDr. Jaedicke and Dr. Brunner, which I submitted to the Tribunal.\n\nWhen examining the legal conclusions which can be drawn from the facts\npresented above, we may arrive at the following results:\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt did not commit any act which had any causative\nconnection with these experiments. He learned about these experiments\nonly after the event, and then he did everything in his power to prevent\nfurther experiments of this kind. The prosecution was not able to\nproduce evidence that such experiments had been carried out at all after\n3 September 1942. All this proves that in view of the missing causal\nconnection and absence of premeditation there cannot be any question of\ncriminal action on the part of the defendant Gebhardt. It is\nacknowledged in the criminal law of all civilized nations that knowledge\nacquired after events is not sufficient to prove the existence of a\ncriminal action.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Doc. No. Pros. Ex. Description of Document Page\n No.\nNO-409 249 Report from Grawitz to Himmler, 29 August 657\n 1942, concerning experiments with\n biochemical remedies conducted at the Dachau\n and Auschwitz concentration camps.\nNO-2734 473 Extracts of letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 7 660\n September 1942, and report on gas gangrene\n experiments.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of prosecution witness Heinrich W. Stoehr 664\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt 667\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-409\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 249\n\n REPORT FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 29 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS\n WITH BIOCHEMICAL REMEDIES CONDUCTED AT THE DACHAU AND AUSCHWITZ\n CONCENTRATION CAMPS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS Berlin W 15, 29 August 1942\nReich Physician SS and Police Knesebeckstr. 50/51\nTelephone: 924249.924351.924373. [Stamp]\n924406 Personal Staff\nAz.: 738/IV/42 Reich Leader SS\n G 213\n\nSubject: Biochemical treatment of sepsis, etc., with biochemical\n remedies.\nTo the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler\nBerlin SW 11 Prinz Albrechtstrasse 8\n\nReich Leader,\n\nWith regard to previous results of biochemical treatment of sepsis and\nother cases of illness, I beg to submit the following provisional\nreport.\n\n1. The following _40 cases_ were treated with biochemical remedies in\nthe SS hospital _Dachau_ in the time mentioned in the report. Besides\nseptic processes, such diseases were treated where a decisive change for\nthe better should be achieved by means of biochemistry.\n\n Phlegmonous-purulent processes 17\n Sepsis 8\n Furuncles and abscesses 2\n Infected operational incisions 1\n Malaria 5\n Pleural empyema 3\n Septic endocarditis 1\n Nephrosis 1\n Chronic sciatica 1\n Gall stones 1\n\nAccording to the indications of the biochemistry applied to the\ndifferent cases, we used the following remedies:\n\n Potassium phosphoricum D6\n Ferrum phosphoricum D6 and D12\n Silicea D6\n Sodium muraticum D6\n Calcium phosphoricum D6\n Sodium sulfuricum D6\n Magnesium phosphoricum D6\n Sodium phosphoricum D6\n Calcium fluoratum D6\n\nThe cases of sepsis were mostly artificially provoked.\n\nUp to now we found that the unfavorable course of the severe cases could\nscarcely be stopped by means of biochemical remedies. All sepsis cases\ndied. The malaria cases were not influenced by it.\n\nThe cases of extended purulent processes, with development of abscesses,\nthe pleuralempyeata, the septic endocarditis, the nephrosis, the chronic\nsciatica and the gall stones showed no definite influence from\nbiochemical treatment. Insofar as they were conducted with positive\nresults, they did not show a different result from the ones where,\naccording to medical experience, patients were restricted to staying in\nbed without receiving any special treatment.\n\nThe impression of a favorable effect on morbid cases of sickness by\nbiochemical means proved to be satisfactory in five cases only, four of\nwhich were comparatively slight. The fifth case involved a 17-day-old\nchild with severe furunculosis. In this case an improvement set in only\na few days after treatment had been applied. However, an error occurred\nin the experimental procedure, for at the beginning of the treatment a\nsulfanilamide preparation was used.\n\nThe strong formation of pus, clearly noticeable in a few cases, is\nperhaps due to the biochemical remedies applied. The doses of sugar,\nwhich were frequently given and mainly consisted of pure milk sugar in\nthe form of biochemical tablets, probably promoted the effect.\n\nExperiments for orientation are to be made. In a case of a joint mould\nthe antiseptic potassium phosphoricum D 6 was given as a prophylactic\nbecause the incision of the operation was greatly endangered by\ninfection. In spite of that, the temperature rose to 39\u00b0 on the\nfollowing day. Consequently, the biochemical treatment could not prevent\nappearance or breaking-out of an infection, although potassium\nphosphoricum D 6 was given immediately and intensively.\n\nIt is also to be noted that very soon all the seriously ill cases flatly\nrefused to take biochemical tablets, because it meant torture to them to\ntake the tablets every 5 minutes, even at night.\n\nFinally it must be said that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1\npositive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, against 35\nfailures, of which 10 ended fatally.\n\nThe experiments in Dachau are being continued.\n\nBesides the hitherto existing program, special attention is directed to\nresearch of twin cases in similar conditions, of which one will receive\nan allopathical, the second a biochemical treatment.\n\n [Marginal note.] Seen at Ravensbrueck 3-9-1942, [Signature] K.\n GEBHARDT\n\n2. In the concentration camp of Auschwitz, three typical cases of\nsepsis, which developed from phlegmons, were treated\u2014according to\nprescription\u2014with potassium phosphoricum D 4. In none of these cases a\ntherapeutical influence on the progress of the disease could be\nobserved. All 3 cases ended fatally.\n\nThe experiments are being continued.\n\n [Signature] GRAWITZ\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-2734\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 473\n\nEXTRACTS OF LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 7 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT\n ON GAS GANGRENE EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS Berlin, W 15, 7 September 1942\nReichsarzt SS and Police Knesebeckstrasse 50/51\nTelephone: 924249. 924351. [Rubber stamp]\n924373. 924406 (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS\nFile No. 748/IV/42 Archives)\n (File No. AR/31/13)\n [Signature] GEBHARDT\n\nSubject: 1. _Experiments by SS Brigadefuehrer Gebhardt on the Combating\n of Gas Gangrene._\n 2. Experiments on the Treatment of Sepsis by Biochemistry.\n\nEnclosures: -2-X\nTo the Reich Leader SS H. Himmler\nBerlin\n\nReich Leader:\n\nAttached please find a provisional report by SS Brigadefuehrer Professor\nDr. Gebhardt on his clinical-surgical experiments at Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp, furthermore a concluding provisional report on\nexperiments on the biochemical treatment of sepsis as performed at\nDachau concentration camp.\n\n [Signature] GRAWITZ\n\n [Rubber stamp] } [Handwritten]\n } 16 September 1942\nPersonal Staff RF-SS Enclosures } Settled, after conversation with\nIn: 9 September 1942 } RF-SS. Obersturmfuehrer F.\nJournal No. AR/40/7/42 2 } Fischer has been given new\n? RF } instructions for Ravensbrueck\n } and Dachau.\n [Signature] GEBHARDT\nCopy!\n [Rubber stamp]\n (Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives)\n (File No. AR/31/13)\n\nProfessor Dr. K. Gebhardt\nSS Brigadefuehrer and Brigadier General of the Waffen SS\nTo the Reichsarzt SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz\n\nProvisional Report on Clinical Experiments at Ravensbrueck Concentration\nCamp for Women\n\nBy order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at\nRavensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical\nexperiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas\ngangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and of testing the\nefficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments.\n\nIn addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms\nof war surgery had also to be tested, and a new chemo-therapeutic\ntreatment apart from the known surgical measures had to be tried out.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI appointed SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer as co-worker. SS Oberfuehrer\nDr. Blumenrent put the complete surgical instruments and medicaments at\nmy disposal. SS Standartenfuehrer Mrugowsky put his laboratory and\nco-workers at my disposal.\n\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling, Chief of Office IIID at\nOranienburg, assigned as co-workers: SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr.\nSchiedlausky, garrison-physician at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for\nwomen, and Fraeulein Dr. Oberheuser, camp physician at Ravensbrueck\nconcentration camp for women.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question was to define firstly, by way of a preliminary experiment,\nthe mode of infection, making use of the known results from experiments\nupon animals. In these questions I was advised by SS leaders of the\nHygienic Institute of the Waffen SS who had taken over the culture and\ndosage of the inoculation material.\n\nThe point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle\ntissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen\nsupply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation\nprocedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimeters over the\nmusculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was\ntied up with the forceps in an area the size of a five mark piece; an\nanaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and\nin the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze\nstrip saturated with bacterii) was imbedded under the fascia,\nsubcutaneous adipose tissue, and skin sutured in layers.\n\nIn the first series of experiments (preliminary experiments), three\nselected prisoners of as much the same constitution as possible were\nused. They were inoculated as follows:\n\nThe first: Aerobic mixculture (staphylococci, streptococci, bact. comm.\ntry. a 5 Mil).\n\nThe second: Para Oedema Malignum, sarc, flav. 4.5 mg.\n\nThe third: Bact. Fraenkel and earth. Stimulus 4.5 mg.\n\nThe experiment was concluded after 10 days. After an initial local\nswelling in the inoculation area and an increase in temperature up to 39\ndegrees, the inflammation died down, the wound having broken open on the\nfourth day. There was no danger to the life of any of the prisoners. We\nsucceeded in producing locally the symptoms of gas gangrene in the third\nprisoner. After 20 days the prisoners were released again to their\nworking blocks.\n\nThe course of the preliminary series of experiments had proved that we\nwere not successful in producing the same symptoms as of clinical gas\ngangrene. In a conference with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\nthe nature of the infection and the conditions for the germs were not\nconsidered to be equivalent to the natural conditions in war surgery and\nconsequently the experimental arrangements were varied.\n\nBacterium coli were added to the acrobe culture and the germ number was\nincreased to 20 millions. Bacterium coli and dextrose were added to the\nmixture of para oedema malignum.\n\nBacterium coli were added to the gas gangrene culture by Fraenkel, and\nwhile doubling the number of germs, earth was administered to produce a\nsimilar environment. Six selected youthful prisoners were inoculated two\nby two with the above mixture of bacteria in the subsequent first\nexperimental series. One of them remained untreated for control\npurposes, the other one was powdered with cataxyn wound powder\nimmediately after the inoculation. The first change of dressing took\nplace 3 days afterwards, the following each second day. Those who\nremained without treatment were covered with sterile layers, those\ntreated with cataxyn (indicated in the graphs as TK-cases) were\ncontinuously powdered with cataxyn. The aerobe cultures in both cases\nshowed local abscesses which could be easily treated surgically.\n\nThe para oedema malignum inoculation produced a local inflammation with\ncentral suppuration, small formation of necrosis in the depth and\nmoderate emphysem of the skin. The regional lymphatic glands were not\naffected.\n\nThose prisoners who were infected with Fraenkel\u2019s gas gangrene, and who\nimmediately received tetanus-antitoxin for the administered earth,\nproduced by far the strongest inflammatory reaction: abscesses with deep\nnecrosis in the area of the inoculation, emphysem of the skin with\nformation of blisters, and beginning necrosis collateral oedema\nextending from above the joint of the knee to the lower third of the\nthigh as far as the back of the foot. The inflammatory appearances\nreceded considerably after the opening of the injury on the first\ndressing day. The effect of the opening of the wound was particularly\nsignificant in the TK-cases which started inflammations in spite of\nsimultaneous therapy. Greater pressure of the tissue due to oxygen,\nliberated by the medicament, was considered to be the reason for the\naccentuated local inflammation.\n\nComparing nontreated cases with the TK-cases, the final critical\nobservation shows:\n\n1. Immediate therapy does not prevent the occurrence either of an\nordinary suppuration or of a \u201cgangrene\u201d.\n\n2. The cleaning of the wound is faster in TK-cases than in control\ncases.\n\n3. The formation of fresh wound granulations occurs earlier with\ncataxyn.\n\n4. The part played by the paranchymatic organs (liver, kidneys) is less\nimportant under the influence of cataxyn.\n\nSince in this experiment too definite gangrene could be produced\nclinically speaking, yet its picture did not in any way correspond to\nthe one known in war surgery; after further consultation with the\ncollaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the vaccine was\nchanged by adding wood shavings. It is known in bacteriological\nliterature that the virulence of the bacteria in the experimental animal\ncan thereby be considerably increased.\n\nThe triple distribution was reserved for the second series of\nexperiments now in progress. Three prisoners in each group were\ninoculated. One person was left without treatment as control, the second\nwas treated with cataxyn as before, and with the third the\nMarfanilprontalbin powder manufactured by I. G. Farben was employed,\nsince this was strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate.\nThe powder was applied according to the Schmick procedure. This\nexperiment is still in progress.\n\nEven if as yet nothing definite can be said about this series of\nexperiments it can already be stated that\u2014\n\n1. there is no decisive difference between cases which are treated and\nthose which are not treated,\n\n2. that opening the wound, in addition to immobilization, has proved the\nmost effective means of controlling the inflammation,\n\n3. the effect of the MP powder seems at least doubtful, since in the III\nTM case the most definite gangrene observed up to now has developed.\n\nWe are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the\npresent case did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the\ntissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood\nwere undertaken during a separate operating session, and the large-scale\nnecrosis resulting therefrom was to be inoculated with bacteria strain\nwhich had already had one human passage. For it is only when the really\ndefinite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions\nmay be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with\nsurgical operations.\n\n [Signature] GEBHARDT\n SS Brigadefuehrer\n\nCopy certified correct\nBerlin, 7 September 1942\n[Signature] POPPENDICK\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS\n HEINRICH W. STOEHR[75]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Witness, did you ever hear of the sepsis or phlegmon\nexperiments at the Dachau concentration camp?\n\nWITNESS STOEHR: Yes, these experiments were conducted at my station.\n\nQ. How did you gain your knowledge of these phlegmon experiments? Were\nyou an observer? Were you an assisting nurse, or by what way did you\ngain the knowledge you have of these phlegmon experiments?\n\nA. I was the nurse at that station. One day, I think it was in the late\nsummer and fall of 1943, a certain Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz came to me,\nwith a Standartenfuehrer by the name of Laue or Lauer\u2014I am not quite\nsure which\u2014and inspected the surgical department. He was shown a number\nof patients. We had to take their bandages off, and he examined their\nwounds\u2014or rather, he just looked at them very superficially. After\nthat, the chief physician of the concentration camp Dachau, Dr. Walda,\nwas called in, and he received the order to see to it that the patients\nreceived biochemical treatment for some time.\n\nQ. Witness, will you kindly explain to the Tribunal in what manner these\nphlegmon experiments were conducted; that is, the details of the\nexperiments? What did they do to the victim?\n\nA. Mainly, phlegmon was treated. It was very general in the camp. That\nis to say, phlegmon was the typical camp disease. The biochemical\ntreatment was carried out in the following manner:\n\nThree similar cases were observed. One of these cases was given\nallopathic treatment; another biochemical, and the third one received\nonly ordinary surgical treatment. That is, the third one received no\ndrugs whatsoever, and the wound was treated in an ordinary way with\nbandages and so on. These were the directives of the physicians who were\nthere. We saw on many occasions that the patient was cured much faster\nwho received no drugs or injections.\n\nExperiments of that kind were conducted for many weeks, and if I may as\na layman make a judgment, I must say that the physicians, according to\nmy observations, were not satisfied with these experiments.\n\nIn addition, I have to emphasize that not only wounds were treated\naccording to these methods, but internal diseases, too. They tried to\nfind out whether biochemical treatment was suitable for treating the\nthirst for water, which was so frequent in the camp. We saw that the\nbiochemical drugs had no influence whatsoever as to the cause of this\nillness.\n\nI emphasize that I am speaking as a layman and that all these are my\nobservations.\n\nDuring the fall, this Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Schuetz told the camp doctor,\nwho was named Babo, to infect a number of people with pus. We nurses\nwere told nothing about that, and we did not know the purpose. These\nexperiments were conducted on a group of men, and they extended over a\nperiod of approximately six to seven weeks.\n\nFirst a group of Germans were infected with pus. We nurses had no idea\nof the cause of the illness, and we gave the patients the drugs that\nwere ordered by the physicians. I emphasize again that half of these\npeople received allopathic and the other half biochemical treatment. As\nnurses, we could observe the following facts:\n\nThe patients who received allopathic treatment were cured much quicker,\nthat is, if they had any power of resistance to their illness, but the\npatients who had to take those pathological tablets, if I remember\ncorrectly, died with the exception of one person. There were\napproximately 20 persons who, at that time, were infected. The second\ngroup consisted of 40 clergymen of all nationalities and brothers of\nreligious fraternities. These patients were selected from the block\nwhere the clergymen were housed. They were selected by the Chief\nPhysician Dr. Walda and were sent to the operational room of the\nconcentration camp Dachau. They were operated on by Dr. Schuetz and Dr.\nKieselwetter [Kieselwecker (?)] I think that was his name\u2014and these\nexperiments were conducted on them. A number of nurses, and also the\npersonnel of the operating room, and I myself, saw how the injections\nwere made. We were standing in the anteroom of the operating room.\n\nQ. Witness, will you explain to the Tribunal what the word \u201cphlegmon\u201d\nmeans?\n\nA. Phlegmon, as far as a layman can answer that question\u2014means an\ninflammation of the tissues, and in the camp of Dachau phlegmons were\nvery numerous because the people there were mostly sent to the hospital\ntoo late. Typical camp phlegmons, as far as I know, are caused by germs.\nPersons got phlegmons who suffered from lack of water.\n\nQ. Witness, did you say that inmates were used for experiments in which\nthey were injected with pus?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Did you see these injections of pus being administered?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. How were the inmates to be used for these experiments selected?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t understand your question.\n\nQ. In what manner did they select the inmates to be used for these\nexperiments which dealt with the injection of pus? In other words, how\nwere they selected? What type of prisoners? What were their\nnationalities, etc.?\n\nA. They were 40 persons coming from the so-called clergymen block.\n\nQ. Were these inmates used for these experiments with injection of pus\nhealthy inmates?\n\nA. Completely healthy and strong men.\n\nQ. You have told us that they had one group, the first group, of ten\nGermans. How many died in that group?\n\nA. I believe that the first group consisted of ten people of whom, as\nfar as I remember, seven died.\n\nQ. Now, you have told us of a second group of 40 clergymen. How many\ndied in that group?\n\nA. I have seen a list of the survivors, and according to that list, 12\nclergymen, or rather brothers, must have died.\n\nQ. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know whether they were prisoners of war or not. We could not\ntell the difference in the camp of Dachau, whether they were prisoners\nof war or not; at least I could not.\n\nQ. Were the victims used in these experiments treated by medical doctors\nafter they had been injected with pus?\n\nA. The operation was done by physicians.\n\nQ. Well, after they had been infected with pus what kind of treatment\nwas given to them?\n\nA. After the injection, Sturmbannfuehrer Schuetz gave instructions to\nthe nurses that one-half of them should receive allopathic and the other\nhalf biological treatment. I emphasize that the group which received\nallopathic treatment had special drugs, the so-called sulfanilamide\ndrugs. We had the impression that the physicians wanted to prove that\nthe biological drugs were not suitable to cure such a severe disease.\n\nQ. Then you say, Witness, that 50 percent were treated with\nsulfanilamide and the other 50 percent with biological medicants?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, after these injections with pus, did abscesses develop on the\ninmate?\n\nA. The greater part of those who were treated biologically, or rather,\nall of them, developed abscesses and very deep abscesses. Some of the\npersons who received allopathic and prophylactic treatment with\nsulfanilamide had no abscesses.\n\nQ. Did the inmates who endured this treatment suffer pain?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Severe pain?\n\nA. As far as I know, the pain was very severe.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT GEBHARDT[76]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SEIDL: The next document which I intend to submit to the witness is\nNO-409 which has been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 249. It is\na letter from Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz to the Reich Leader SS\nHimmler dated 29 August 1942. It refers to the biochemical treatment of\nsepsis. This document came to your knowledge, didn\u2019t it? And this is\nshown by a comment you wrote: \u201cSeen at Ravensbrueck on 3 September 1942.\n(Signed) KARL GEBHARDT.\u201d Did you know beforehand about the performance\nof these experiments and did you agree with them?\n\nDEFENDANT GEBHARDT: I did not have any previous knowledge of these\nexperiments, and with regard to this document may I state somewhat more\nin detail what it shows? This is a letter to Himmler, dated the end of\nAugust, and signed by Grawitz. It was never mentioned that I was to\nreceive this letter or that this letter was to be routed through me. It\ndoes not have any note from me to the effect that I countersigned it, or\nwas in agreement with it, in this form. It was also not discussed in\nBerlin or Hohenlychen or in the headquarters, but in Ravensbrueck, and,\nin particular, on 3 September when this discussion took place between\nGrawitz and me, because of the second group of our sulfanilamide\nexperiments. Grawitz, who at that time came in order to show us that he\nwas not in agreement, as far as I can recall, brought this letter and\nthis description along from Dachau. We then discussed it in detail,\nbecause on my part there were many reasons for raising the sharpest\nprotest against it. And, may I point out how much can be seen from this\ndocument about how Grawitz planned to publish experiments or to describe\nthem, in contrast to my procedure at the time. Under point (1) it\nstates, \u201cSS Hospital, Dachau\u201d and it actually looks in general as though\nthis were a hospital report. And most of the case histories also speak\nin favor of that, too. For example, the reference on page 3 to a joint\nplastic, certainly is a big operation which can only be performed in a\nhospital. On the following page there is \u201cartificially induced sepsis.\u201d\nOn the second page, \u201cthe cases of sepsis were mainly artificially\ninduced.\u201d Then on the other side it is stated that in the fatalities\nthere is no mention of the 8 cases of sepsis that were artificially\ninduced, but of 10. I proved to Grawitz, especially on this page, that\nthe description he wanted to make of a camouflaged mixture of\nexperiments and clinical results might later on be read by somebody\nsuperficially, and he would come to the word \u201cartificially induced\u201d and\nwould not be able to decide. Then there was a fundamental point with\nregard to all persons concerned. This was the impracticability of\nperforming an experiment in this establishment. Then on page 3 it states\nthat the drugs were to be taken every five minutes, even at night. At\nthe time I didn\u2019t even think of giving the report to Grawitz, after I\nhad found out about it by chance. I wrote \u201cread\u201d in the margin and drew\na logical conclusion with regard to Himmler and Grawitz. In this\nconnection I not only concluded Grawitz\u2019 influence on our experiments,\nbut I also asked Himmler how these biochemical experiments were brought\nabout. I request permission of the Tribunal to permit me here to\ndescribe what Himmler thought with regard to such experiments, and to\nshow, therefore, how impossible it was in certain cases, in spite of\nobtaining knowledge, to effect any change. For a person who has studied\nschool medicine it is impossible to believe that through the homeopathic\nadministration of sulphur and phosphorus, surgical case histories, as\nwell as internal case histories, and metabolistic diseases can be\ninfluenced. However, in medicine one can, of course, take a completely\ndifferent point of view, and that is the basic conception of\nbiochemistry up to homeopathy, to which Himmler completely adhered. And\nhere in two sentences we have described how all the elements which\nappear in nature also have traces in the human body. Now, if one small\ntrace of an element is lacking, then the human being is susceptible to\nand suffering from some disease or other. The therapy and method of\ntreatment by the biochemist is the exact contrast of medicine as\npracticed by a person who has studied it at school. They make test\nexperiments on human beings and discover what element is lacking in that\nhuman being, and no matter from what disease he is suffering, the\npatient is treated with minimum doses of the element which he lacks.\nNever in the world has it been possible for a typical school\npractitioner and a biochemist to agree, because they want to treat the\nhuman being completely in contrast to each other. From this example you\ncan see now that when I went to Himmler and said that it was madness for\nnot only an experiment to be performed on out-patients, but that also\nsimultaneously ten or twelve different cases should be treated with the\nsame medicine, when I told Himmler this, he said that he had one of the\nmost experienced biochemists, and a layman, Herr Laue with him, and that\nhe was absolutely convinced that this method of treatment was correct.\nHimmler always attempted to discover old-fashioned popular remedies. In\nspite of my objection and in spite of my proof that my own surgical\npatients would suffer from it, these experiments were performed until I\nsucceeded in bringing this Dr. Laue and Dr. Kieselwecker from Marburg\n(who enjoyed Himmler\u2019s complete confidence on this question) to\nHohenlychen. There we performed a similar experiment together on my\npatients in order to show that this method of treatment was impossible.\nBut even in this way I was not able to achieve my purpose with Himmler,\nbecause afterwards it was said we had not applied the drugs properly,\nand so on. Therefore, one can conclude from this that it was not the\ncase that Himmler adhered to one certain medical concept, and if one\naccidentally heard of an experiment, one could convince him. Himmler\nmaintained a hostile attitude toward school medicine, and from nature\ncures to biochemistry he was accessible to every thought, and when Laue\nconvinced him of the fact that this drug was of decisive importance,\nthen the experiment was performed. May I state in this connection, that\nthe knowledge of this document had the following three results with me:\nthat Grawitz, who was ready to make compromises as is shown here, did\nnot allow anyone to tell him anything at all about the sulfanilamide\nquestion; that I gave Himmler clear knowledge of the false idea without\nbeing able to convince him because of his favorable attitude toward\nbiochemistry; and that the experiment would perhaps be discontinued,\nmainly on account of subsequent examinations at Hohenlychen. I shall\ngive evidence of this as soon as I receive the appropriate testimony of\nwitnesses.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[74] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947,\npp. 10874-10910.\n\n[75] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17\nDecember 1946, pp. 574-594.\n\n[76] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 4, 5, 6,\n7, 10 March 1947, pp. 3981-4256.\n\n 13. POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane\nacts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the\nindictment, were committed in the course of polygal experiments. These\nexperiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of\nparagraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of\nexperimentation. On this charge the defendants Handloser, Blome, and\nPoppendick were acquitted and only the defendant Sievers was convicted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the polygal experiments\nis contained in its closing brief against the defendant Blome. An\nextract from this brief is set forth below on pages 670 to 672. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these\nexperiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant\nBlome. It appears below on pages 672 to 675. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 675 to 683.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT BLOME_\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn order to test the effectiveness of a blood coagulant \u201cpolygal,\u201d\nRascher carried out experiments in which inmates of the Dachau\nconcentration camp were shot. Rascher\u2019s uncle, in his affidavit,\ndescribes the murderous experiments which were carried out by his\nnephew. In August 1943, he visited Rascher in Dachau and, while Rascher\nwas away from his office, he saw a report which he describes as follows:\n\n \u201cIt refers to a report about the shooting (execution) of four\n people for the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic\n preparation \u2018Polygal 10.\u2019 As far as I remember they were a\n Russian Commissar and a cretin, I do not remember who the other\n two were. The Russian was shot in the right shoulder from above\n by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet emerged near the\n spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched convulsively,\n then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. In the\n dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the\n aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures\n were tamponed by hard blood clots. That could have been the only\n explanation for the comparatively long span of life after the\n shot.\u201d (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex. 462._)\n\nThis evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the witness Stoehr\n(_Tr. p. 587_) and the affidavit of Pohl (_NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_). Even\nthe defendant Gebhardt admitted, during his testimony, that he knew that\nRascher had carried out blood coagulation experiments on concentration\ncamp inmates who had been shot for the purpose. (_Tr. pp. 4240-1._)\n\nThe evidence proves that Blome collaborated with Rascher in the polygal\nresearch. This collaboration began at least as early as the middle of\n1943 in connection with cancer research. (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237_; _see\nalso NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122, entries for 18 February, 7 April, 14 April,\nand 26 June 1943_.) The defendant Sievers stated in his affidavit that:\n\u201cBlome also had full knowledge of the blood coagulation experiments at\nDachau. He received reports from Rascher and should have a complete\nknowledge of these matters.\u201d (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237._) Blome admitted\nthat Rascher had been commissioned by Himmler to work with him in the\nfield of blood coagulation. (_Tr. p. 4642._) One of the collaborators of\nRascher in the polygal research was an inmate of the Dachau\nconcentration camp by the name of Robert Feix. By letter of 15 September\n1943, Rascher requested Sievers to approach Blome, so that the latter\nmight arrange for the release of Feix and for his reinstatement in his\nformer category as half-Aryan. Rascher stated in his letter that \u201cBlome\nhas given me great hopes in this respect.\u201d (_NO-611, Pros. Ex. 239._)\nThis proves that Blome was already collaborating with Rascher on polygal\nresearch in the summer of 1943. Obviously, Blome would not have put\nhimself out to assist in this work without knowing precisely what had\nbeen done to test polygal.\n\nIn the latter part of 1943, Rascher and Dr. Haferkamp wrote a paper on\npolygal. This paper draws a clear distinction between _experiments_ on\nhuman beings to test the effect of polygal and _clinical tests_. It\nstates that: \u201cBefore we tried the clinical use of the drug and had it\nprobed, it was tested on _human beings_ by thorough experiments as to\nits influence on the period of clotting and bleeding.\u201d Curves were\nincluded to show the reaction of polygal on clotting and bleeding. Later\non, the paper discusses clinical observations during operations.\n(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) The experiments mentioned in this paper\nobviously are the ones during which inmates were shot. They were not so\ndescribed in the paper because it was written for publication. Blome\ntestified that the only experiments he knew about were ones where one\ncubic centimeter of blood was withdrawn to see how fast it would\ncoagulate in a test tube. (_Tr. p. 4643._) Such tests cannot be\ndescribed as experiments. It is impossible to conceive of Rascher\u2019s\ntesting a blood coagulant to be used on soldiers wounded on the\nbattlefield in such a manner. And this was better known to Blome at the\ntime than it is now to the Tribunal. He knew that Rascher had conducted\nthe freezing experiments with resultant loss of life. He had been\ninformed about the Buchenwald typhus experiments. (_Tr. p. 4640._)\nMoreover, this devious explanation of Blome does not cover experiments\nto test the effect of polygal on bleeding; to test blood in a test tube\ncovers only coagulation reaction, not bleeding reaction. So he had to\nadd to the implausible by saying that Rascher once told him that he or\nanother doctor had rubbed the upper thigh of a person under anesthetic\nuntil it became bloody and then tested the efficacy of polygal. But\nBlome said, \u201cI didn\u2019t take this statement of his seriously.\u201d (_Tr. p.\n4635._) The thing which cannot be taken seriously is Blome\u2019s display of\nignorance about experiments in which the documents prove he had a direct\npersonal interest.\n\nBlome approved the publication of the paper mentioned above in the\nMunich Medical Weekly [Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift]. (_Tr. p.\n4639; NO-616, Pros. Ex. 244._) Both Grawitz and Pohl raised objections\nto the publication of the article because they had not been consulted\nand because Dachau 3 K and human experimental subjects were mentioned.\n(_NO-614, Pros. Ex. 245_; _NO-615, Pros. Ex. 246_.) Both these men knew\nof the murderous experiments carried out by Rascher to test polygal.\nGebhardt knew. Yet Blome asks the Tribunal to assume that he was too\nnaive to have known; that he didn\u2019t even believe Rascher when he was\ntold that he had deliberately rubbed the hide off of an inmate\u2019s leg to\ntest polygal.\n\nOn 23 February 1944 Rascher received a research assignment on polygal\nfrom the Reich Research Council. (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247._) _Blome\nadmitted that he issued this assignment._ (_Tr. p. 4634._) Siever\u2019s\ndiary reveals that on 1 February 1944, polygal production by Rascher was\nlisted as a war economy industry by the Reich Research Council. On 22\nFebruary Sievers had a conference with Rascher in which supply questions\nfor the production of this drug, _experiments of Blome_, and the polygal\nreport for the defendant Gebhardt were discussed. On 24 February Sievers\nhad a telephone conversation with Blome in which Blome informed him that\nHimmler had issued an order concerning Blome\u2019s work in Dachau in\ncollaboration with Rascher, (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) Blome admitted\nthat Himmler requested him to cooperate with Rascher on polygal\nresearch. (_Tr. p. 4510._) When Ploetner took over Rascher\u2019s work on 31\nMarch (_Tr. p. 973_), Blome continued his interest in polygal as shown\nby a telephone conversation with Sievers on this matter on 24 July.\n(_Tr. p. 976._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n BLOME_\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe question of _polygal_ was from the beginning one of the weakest\ncounts of the indictment against Dr. Blome. It is a remedy to make the\nblood clot and to prevent people from bleeding to death as a result of\nwounds inflicted in battle or by operation, or from injury due to\nexcessive loss of blood. This equally innocuous and beneficial remedy\nwas apparently made the object of a charge only because Dr. Rascher once\nmaintained that he had killed four concentration camp inmates with\npistol shots in order to try out polygal on them. (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex.\n462_; _NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_.) But I believe that every intelligent\nperson must have approached this contention of Rascher\u2019s with the\nstrongest distrust, because one cannot try out a styptic on a dead\nperson, and Dr. Blome, like other physicians, has repeatedly assured me\nthat they did not understand what Dr. Rascher had in mind with such\nactions, which of course had nothing to do with \u201cexperiments\u201d. But even\non the assumption that these stories of Dr. Rascher were true\u2014that he\nhad actually killed some concentration camp prisoners in order to\n\u201cexperiment\u201d on them with \u201cpolygal\u201d\u2014by what right can Dr. Blome be held\nresponsible for this, a man who knew nothing at all about these crimes\nof Dr. Rascher? Dr. Blome has been waiting in vain for evidence to be\nsubmitted by the prosecution to prove that he (Dr. Blome) had had\nanything to do with those actions of Dr. Rascher, that he had at least\napproved or at any rate had some knowledge of them. The document\npresented by the prosecution proves that Dr. Blome can certainly not be\nheld responsible for the alleged shooting of four concentration camp\ninmates by Dr. Rascher. (_NO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462._) This murder committed\nby Dr. Rascher, if it was committed at all, happened before August 1943,\naccording to Document NO-1424. It was during this month that the witness\nFriedrich Karl Rascher found in the writing table of his nephew, Dr.\nRascher, the report on the shooting of the four concentration camp\ninmates. Dr. Blome, however, heard about polygal for the first time only\nduring his second visit to Himmler in August or September 1943; before\nthat time the matter was unknown to him. This statement by Dr. Blome\nconcerning the date is in agreement with the testimony of Sievers of 10\nApril 1947, according to which the joint visit of Dr. Blome, Sievers,\nand Rascher to Himmler took place in the autumn of 1943. From this it is\nevident that the murder of the four concentration camp inmates by Dr.\nRascher, if it has really any connection with polygal, happened without\ndoubt at a time when Dr. Blome still had no knowledge of this styptic.\nDr. Blome has rightly pointed out that it would have been a completely\nincomprehensible insanity to kill people only for the purpose of testing\na styptic at a time when every day offered an abundance of material for\nthe observation and study of the effect of polygal in the thousands of\nwounded soldiers and of patients operated on at the front as well as\namong the civilian population.\n\nIn this connection it is, incidentally, quite interesting to learn from\nthe interrogation of the witness Neff that he never saw or observed any\nsuch \u201cexperiments\u201d by Dr. Rascher. Neither did Dr. Rascher tell Neff\nanything about them, although Neff held a particularly confidential\nposition with Rascher and otherwise learned much about Rascher and his\n\u201cexperiments\u201d. Even in the camp nothing was said at the time about these\nalleged \u201cexperiments\u201d of Dr. Rascher with polygal, although it could\ncertainly not have been and also did not have to be kept secret in the\ncamp if Rascher had actually shot four concentration camp inmates in\norder to carry out \u201cexperiments\u201d on them with polygal.\n\nThese facts justify serious doubts as to whether those \u201cexperiments\u201d\never took place at all and especially whether they have anything to do\nwith the hemostatic polygal.\n\nIn reality, polygal is an absolutely harmless drug, whether it is\ninjected or taken in tablet form, and the use of such a drug in this\nform can in no case be considered a criminal experiment against humanity\nas specified by the indictment before this Tribunal. Even when\nadministered by injection with the subsequent drawing of a few drops of\nblood from the experimental subject, it is completely harmless. It does\nnot cause any more \u201cpain\u201d than any other injection, and the whole test\nof this drug consists solely of taking one cc. of blood from the vein of\nthe so-called experimental subject. Thus we are not dealing with any\nexperiment of the kind that could be considered criminal because it\ncauses severe pains or because it is dangerous or for any other reasons.\n\nBesides, the concept of \u201ccriminal experiments on human beings\u201d has\nalready been explained at the trial of Field Marshal Milch[77] by the\nverdict of 16 April 1947; this verdict expressly limits the range of\nsuch experiments to experiments \u201cwhich could cause torture or death to\nthe experimental subjects.\u201d Thus one cannot, in the present proceedings,\nobject to those experiments which cannot ordinarily be assumed to cause\ndeath to the experimental subject or be accompanied by severe pain.\nNeither took place when polygal was administered. For either it serves\nas a hemostatic which can only be of advantage to the patient or, in the\nreverse case, it simply has no effect. Polygal can never have any\nharmful consequences, least of all cause any damage to health; nor could\nthis be claimed by the prosecution, for polygal is generally used in\nsurgery nowadays.\n\nAnd finally, all the persons who submitted to polygal tests were\nvolunteers. Dr. Blome, however, could not prove this here by\ninterrogating the inventor of the drug, Feix, because the prosecution\nprevented defense counsel from examining Feix by transferring the latter\nto Dachau, whence he later escaped. The transcript of the interrogation\nof Feix by the prosecution was not submitted here, even though Feix had\ntold me personally that he could not understand how any blame in\nconnection with polygal could be put on Dr. Blome. But another witness,\nnamely Walter Neff, testified here on the witness stand that the\nexperimental subjects on whom the experiments had been carried out had\nvolunteered, just as he himself had done. Since Neff was produced as\nwitness by the prosecution,[78] the latter will hardly want to declare\nthe testimony, sworn to by Neff, to be untrue.\n\nThe verdict of 16 April 1947 against Field Marshal Milch quoted above,\nstates explicitly that medical experiments are punishable only when\ncarried out without the consent of the subjects. Furthermore,\npunishability presumes that the experiments were a \u201ctorture\u201d for the\nexperimental subject or jeopardized his life. Both conditions obviously\ndo not apply to polygal. Thus one comes to the conclusion that it would\nhave been better not to mention within the limits of this trial subjects\nwhere even the closest observer has to look very carefully to see\nwhether he could not possibly find anything to object to.\n\nThis applies especially to the report of the Institute for Military\nScientific Research (Department Rascher), on coagulation of blood.\n(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) In this report, the author, Dr. Rascher,\nemphasizes the importance of \u201cPolygal 10\u201d for combat troops and in\noperations and describes five operations where polygal was used with\ngood results. There can be no doubt that those were five bona fide\noperations which were performed on patients in an entirely legitimate\nway and which tested polygal\u2019s effectiveness in stopping bleedings in an\nabsolutely proper manner, as it is usually done, with similar drugs. It\nis inconceivable how a conclusion of illegal \u201cexperiments\u201d could have\nbeen drawn from that report.\n\nOne of these five legitimate operations, by the way, is described in a\nreport by the camp physician Dr. Kahr, dated 12 October 1943 [10\nDecember 1943] (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247_); it does not offer any basis\nfor assuming an \u201cexperiment\u201d. In this connection it is worthwhile to\nnote that Dr. Blome himself, in his affidavit of 25 October 1946\n(_NO-471, Pros. Ex. 238_), under section 8 describes the use of polygal\nin cases of \u201cbattle wounds and operations\u201d, but deals with \u201cexperiments\non human beings\u201d only in the next section, 9. Therefore, Dr. Blome knew\nfrom the beginning that polygal had nothing to do with \u201cexperiments on\nhuman beings\u201d.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\nDoc. No. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-1424 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher, M. 676\n D., 31 December 1946, concerning the life\n and activities of Dr. Sigmund Rascher.\nNO-438 240 Report from the Institute for Military 676\n Scientific Research, (Department Dr.\n Rascher) on \u201cPolygal 10.\u201d\nNO-656 247 Memorandum by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Wolff, 680\n 8 May 1944; letters from Dr. Kahr to\n Rascher, 10 and 16 December 1943.\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 682\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1424\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 462\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ FRIEDRICH KARL RASCHER, M. D., 31 DECEMBER 1946,\n CONCERNING THE LIFE AND ACTIVITIES OF DR. SIGMUND RASCHER\n\n AFFIDAVIT\n\nI, Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n1. I was born on 13 August 1888 at Kellmuenz/Schwaben-Neuburg. I am a\nGerman citizen. My present civilian address is: Hamburg, Parkallee 78. I\nattended the following schools: 4 years public school at Augsburg, 4\nyears St. Anna Gymnasium at Augsburg, 2 years Real-Gymnasium at\nAugsburg, and 4 years of senior high school at Ravensburg. I graduated\nfrom junior college at Ravensburg in 1909. I studied medicine for 5\nyears at Munich. I passed my state board examination in 1914 at Munich.\nFrom 1914 to 1917 I worked as general practitioner. In the autumn of\n1917 I was drafted into the armed forces, remained however at first in\nHamburg in the home guard reserve and worked at the same time as general\npractitioner until May 1918. From May 1918 until November 1918 I was a\nmedical officer. Since the end of 1918 until now I have been a general\npractitioner in Hamburg.\n\n2. I am the uncle of Dr. Sigmund Rascher and have always maintained a\npleasant family relationship with my nephew. I also was well acquainted\nwith the wife of Dr. Sigmund Rascher, Nini Rascher nee Diehl. I also\nmaintained contact with Dr. Sigmund Rascher and his wife during the war\nuntil the arrest at the end of 1943 or beginning of 1944. For the\nreasons stated above, I am in the position to make the following\nstatement:\n\n3. While attending the wedding of my nephew in Munich he told me that he\nhad been asked to take over a laboratory in the concentration camp\nDachau by order of the Luftwaffe and in connection with the Ahnenerbe.\nThis offer was made to him through the medium of his wife and Himmler.\nHe told me that this would be a big chance to work free and undisturbed.\nAt the same time he saw in it a chance of continuing his experiments on\nblood crystallization. In these experiments he was supported by a\nrelative of his wife by the name of Fraeulein Lulu, who later committed\nsuicide. At that time I advised my nephew against accepting such a job.\n\n4. In August 1942 I heard from my nephew in Munich that he had taken\nover the laboratory at Dachau and that he would work there extensively.\nKnowing the great diligence and the ambition of my nephew I was not\nsurprised that he accepted this job.\n\nAt that time I drove with my nephew by car up to the entrance of the\nconcentration camp, but did not enter. The only thing I heard from my\nnephew at that time was that he had carried out high-altitude tests on\nhimself.\n\n5. In August 1943 I was with my nephew twice in the Dachau concentration\ncamp. The first time I went only to his private quarters and did not see\nthe laboratory. The second time he showed me his laboratory and\nintroduced me to his colleagues. I still remember the following names:\nDr. Punzengruber and Dr. Feix. I inspected the chemical exploitation of\nblood coagulation. At that time he also told me of freezing experiments.\nHe said that he had carried these out on himself at first and then he\nintroduced to me one of his colleagues who had volunteered three times\nfor these experiments. If I remember rightly, Himmler is supposed to\nhave been present at one of these experiments and to have pardoned the\nman who was condemned to death. During the absence of my nephew, I\naccidentally found the following document in his desk:\n\nIt refers to a report about the shooting (execution) of four people for\nthe purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic preparation \u201cPolygal\n10\u201d. As far as I remember they were a Russian Commissar and a cretin, I\ndo not remember who the other two were. The Russian was shot in the\nright shoulder from above by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet\nemerged near the spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched\nconvulsively, then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes.\nIn the dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the\naorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures were\ntamponed by hard blood clots. That could have been the only explanation\nfor the comparatively long span of life after the shot. After reading\nthis first protocol I was so shocked that I did not read the others. At\nthe time I took a sample of the hemostatic preparation from the desk\nwhich I submit herewith to the files.\n\n6. On the way to Munich after this visit to Dachau, which was my last, I\ncalled my nephew to account. He raved when he learned that I knew of\nthis matter. After appealing to his conscience, from the scientific as\nwell as from the humane point of view, he broke down and cried: \u201cI dare\nnot think, I dare not think.\u201d In Munich my nephew and I continued this\nconversation during the whole night. Dr. Sigmund Rascher admitted at the\ntime that he was on the wrong path but that he didn\u2019t see any\npossibility of resigning from it.\n\n7. At the end of 1943 or beginning of 1944 I received a letter from my\nnephew, in which he informed me that he and his wife had been arrested\nbecause of illegal adoption (and registration) of a child. This letter\nwas accompanied by a note by Kriminalrat Schmidt from Munich in which he\ninformed me that I should contact him if I knew anything about this\nmatter. I wrote at the time to Munich that I considered this to be\nimpossible because I myself had once seen Frau Rascher in a pregnant\nstate. I am a doctor and examined her myself. That was before the birth\nof the second child; she was then in the 6th or 7th month of pregnancy.\nI wish to add that the first son looked very much like his father and\nalso had similar habits.\n\n8. Since this occurrence in 1943 or 1944 I have not heard from either\nDr. Sigmund Rascher or his wife. Only in 1946 I learned from various\npeople that my nephew had been shot in Dachau before the arrival of the\nAmericans and that his wife had been hanged at Ravensbrueck or Berlin on\norders of Himmler. I also submit to the files three pictures taken\nduring the youth of Dr. Sigmund Rascher. All my nephew\u2019s documents which\nI had in my possession I burned in 1944 because I was afraid of the\nGestapo.\n\nI have read the above affidavit in the German language consisting of 2\npages and declare that it is true and correct to the best of my\nknowledge and belief. I was given the opportunity of making alterations\nand corrections in the above affidavit. This affidavit was made by me\nvoluntarily, without any promise or reward and I was subjected to no\ncompulsion or duress of any kind.\n\n [Signature] RASCHER\n\nHamburg, 31 December 1946.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-438\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 240\n\nREPORT FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, (DEPARTMENT\n DR. RASCHER) ON \u201cPOLYGAL 10\u201d\n\n [Handwritten]\n Mue. med. Wo. Schri.\n delivered 20 Dec. 1943.\n\n From the Institute for Military Scientific Research (Department Dr.\n Rascher) \u201cPolygal 10\u201d, a hemostat to be administered orally\n by\n Dr. med. S. Rascher, Munich, and Dr. med. H. Haferkamp,\n Waltershausen (Thuringia).\n\nA good hemostat has to have the following qualifications:\n\n1. It must be harmless.\n\n2. It must be administered easily (orally).\n\n3. It must not have an unpleasant taste.\n\n4. It must have a deep and long-lasting effect on bleeding and clotting\ntime.\n\n5. After the effect wears off it must be possible to administer another\ndose without any danger.\n\nHemostats now on sale commercially meet these demands only partially. No\nunobjectionable hemostat is known so far which is in tablet form,\ndurable, unimpaired by cold temperatures and therefore easily\ntransportable. But it would be worthwhile to produce such a preparation\nwhose application would have the following important advantages:\n\n1. It could be given prophylactically to the combat troops before an\nattack and to air crews before action. Too great a loss of blood could\nbe avoided that way when tending to wounds is delayed; similarly it\nwould prevent the wounded from becoming incapacitated by delaying the\nloss of blood.\n\n2. Before operations in which greater areal bleeding is to be expected,\nit could be used to keep the operational region clear of interfering\nbleeding.\n\n3. Persons having a long blood clotting time could benefit inestimably\nfrom such a remedy in cases of teeth extractions, etc.\n\n4. In severe cases of lung or stomach hemorrhage which cannot be treated\nsurgically at once, such a remedy could be life saving.\n\nWe believe we have such a remedy in \u201cPolygal 10,\u201d a preparation composed\nand tested in our institute, which does fulfill the above requirements.\n\u201cPolygal 10\u201d is a drug composed on a \u201cpectin\u201d base; its new method,\ndifferentiating it from other hemostats on a pectin base is to be found\nin the activation of pectin before composing it into the hemostat.\n\nBefore we tried the clinical use of the drug and had it probed, it was\ntested on _human beings_ by thorough experiments as to its influence on\nthe period of clotting and bleeding. The period of clotting was\noccasionally established in short intervals by 10 parallel definitions\nof free flowing venous blood according to the method of _Buercker_. The\nperiod of bleeding was measured by a stop watch after a wound at the ear\nhad been inflicted by a \u201cFrankeschen Schnepper.\u201d\n\nOn the enclosed graphic chart (not reproduced) the curves of two\nexperimental subjects are displayed (experimental subjects Nos. 200 and\n207). The depth of decline and the duration of effect correspond to the\naverage. It is to be mentioned with reference to the curves that\n_various persons_ were always used for the _experiments_ in order to\navoid a possible accumulation of effect by the drug.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-656\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 247\n\n MEMORANDUM BY SS OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER WOLFF, 8 MAY 1944; LETTERS FROM\n DR. KAHR TO RASCHER, 10 AND 16 DECEMBER 1943\n\n [Handwritten] The Preparation of Polygal\n\n Waischenfeld/Oberfranken 8 May 1944\n No. 135 Telephone No. 2\n Journal No. Wo/He.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff\nOffice Ahnenerbe\n\n SUMMARY\n\nSS Hauptsturmfuehrer S. Rascher MD. was assigned the following research\ntasks by the Reich Research Council:\n\n * * * * *\n\n2. On 23 February 1944 Journal No. Rf 3717/44g Code word: \u201cPolygal.\u201d\nResearch task for the development of production methods for the\npreparation of the hemostat polygal. Priority SS/44 Wehrmacht order\nnumber: SS 4118-0391/44 Rf 2829.\n\nPoint 11 as an addition to the task.\n\nProcurement of supplies, etc., has a priority rating SS 4950 (Group I).\n\n [Signature] WOLFF\n SS Obersturmfuehrer\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Copy_\n\nConcentration Camp Dachau\nThe Camp Physician\n\n Dachau, 10 December 1943\n\nSubject: Administering \u201cpolygal\u201d after amputation of the thigh of\n a 40-year-old male patient.\nTo: Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher\nDachau\n\nOn 10 December 1943 the effectiveness of \u201cpolygal\u201d in the case of the\namputation of the thigh was tested. The drug was administered per os 45\nminutes before the operation and was placed in the patient\u2019s mouth to be\ndissolved. A blood transfusion of 500 cc. had been made the previous day\nin preparation for the operation. Blood pressure on the day of the\noperation was 180/80.\n\nAs regards the effectiveness of \u201cpolygal\u201d one can say that it was\nabsolutely evident how little the tissues bled. After the first rush of\nblood from the vessels which had been cut, when completely emptied of\nblood no more bleeding occurred after this first flow of accumulated\nblood, so that it was not necessary to apply any ligatures to the\nsurface of the muscles and the fatty tissues, or the subcutaneous\ntissues, as had always been the case with other amputations. The\neffectiveness of \u201cpolygal\u201d must in this case be described as complete.\n\n By order:\n [Signed] DR. KAHR\n SS Obersturmfuehrer\n The First Camp Physician, Concentration Camp Dachau\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Copy_\n\nConcentration Camp Dachau\nThe Camp Physician\n Dachau 16 December 1943\nTo: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher\nDachau\n\n\u201cPolygal 10\u201d was used for 2 herniotomies. The patients were men of 35\nand 42 years of age, respectively. In both cases the tablets were\nadministered to the patients 40 minutes before the operation. Blood\npressure before the operation was 135/80 in the case of the 35-year-old\npatient and 145/80 in the case of the 42-year-old patient. Both patients\ntolerated \u201cpolygal 10\u201d without complaint, nor were there any unpleasant\naccompanying symptoms in the stomach.\n\nIt is to be said of the operation itself that the loss of blood was\nconspicuously slight in both cases. As in the case of all preceding\noperations where \u201cpolygal 10\u201d had been administered, it was only\nnecessary in this case, to cut off the bleeding from the vessels. In the\nfirst case, that of the 35-year-old patient, stronger bleeding from the\nsubcutaneous tissues occurred after the skin had been cut, which,\nhowever, was stopped by mere wiping, so that in this case the\napplication of clips to the subcutaneous tissues was unnecessary. Only\nafter cutting the cremaster was it necessary to apply some ligatures,\nbecause then some smaller vessels were pierced. During the further\ncourse of the operation, i. e., the separation of the hernial sac from\nthe funiculus spermaticus (it was an indirect inguinal hernia), several\nspots bled in the beginning, but bleeding came to a standstill at once\nand the use of ligatures was superfluous.\n\nThe same observations were made in the second case, the case of the\n42-year-old patient. Hemostasis by application of ligatures was\nnecessary in only a few spots, and this was always in those places where\nvessels had been injured during the operation. The favorable effect of\n\u201cpolygal 10\u201d in surgical operations consists not only in its causing\nslight bleeding and preventing great loss of blood, but also in that it\nmakes possible considerably faster operations, because the applications\nof clips and later ligatures always takes up a certain time, which can\nbe saved by the use of \u201cpolygal 10.\u201d\n\n [Signed] DR. KAHR\n SS Obersturmfuehrer\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[79]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. WEISGERBER: The prosecution has submitted a single Document,\nNO-1424, Prosecution Exhibit 462. This is an affidavit of Dr. Fritz\nFriedrich Karl Rascher, who is an uncle of Dr. Rascher. It becomes\nevident from this document that Rascher was carrying out fatal\nexperiments on human beings in connection with the development of\npolygal. Did you know about that at any time?\n\nDEFENDANT SIEVERS: No, I heard nothing about it. After Rascher\u2019s arrest,\nhowever, in 1944, the Police President of Munich, von Eberstein, gave me\na rather excited description of this criminal Rascher. He said that\nRascher had even shot at a human being in order to test his coagulating\ndrug. A confirmation of this statement could not be obtained at that\ntime. I didn\u2019t believe it at first because so many rumors were flying\naround about him and his wife after his arrest\u2014one of them was that he\nremoved his collaborator Muschler by murdering her. Rascher,\nincidentally, succeeded in clearing himself of this suspicion of murder.\nAfter everything has become known through this trial\u2014everything that\nRascher has on his conscience\u2014I am rather inclined to believe it. Uncle\nRascher\u2019s statements also reveal how secret Rascher kept his misdeeds.\nOnly by interfering with his nephew\u2019s desk did Uncle Rascher gain\nknowledge of whatever he is testifying here. At the same time, he\nconfirms in his statement that his nephew was furious when he found out\nabout his interference.\n\nQ. Concluding these questions, I put to you Pohl\u2019s affidavit which is\nDocument NO-065, Prosecution Exhibit 221. I quote (this is on top of\npage 3): \u201cSievers told me the following: Ahnenerbe, of which Sievers was\nmanager, was developing a drug in Dachau, by order of Himmler, which had\nas its result the quick coagulation of blood. He said that it was very\nimportant for fighting units because it prevented their bleeding to\ndeath. The experiments in Dachau, during which one inmate was shot at,\nhave proved these results.\u201d Did you tell Pohl anything to that effect?\n\n * * * * *\n\nA. I told Pohl exactly what I had found out from Eberstein. As I already\nsaid, the development stage of polygal was already concluded when he\nreceived Himmler\u2019s order to take care of the production. If Rascher shot\nat an inmate in connection with polygal research then this, at any rate,\noccurred at a time when he had nothing to do with that matter. I only\nheard of this alleged shooting after Rascher\u2019s arrest, as I have already\ntestified.\n\nQ. Mr. President, in this connection I offer Document Sievers 10 as\nSievers Exhibit 8. I beg your pardon, Sievers Exhibit 9. This is an\naffidavit of Oswald Pohl. The essential points to be found on page one\nof this document are, and I quote:\n\n \u201c1. My affidavit of 23 July 1946 concerning medical experiments\n was submitted to me with reference to my statements in paragraph\n 4, Sievers (Ahnenerbe).\n\n \u201c2. Sievers\u2019 diary of 1944 (_3546-PS_) was submitted to me with\n reference to the entry of 15 June 1944, 9 o\u2019clock (page 167):\n\n \u201cSS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.\n\n \u201c1. Production of polygal and settlement Felix.\u201d\n\nParagraphs two to six are not interesting here and I shall skip them. I\nquote again:\n\n \u201cAfter having read this entry in the diary, I can remember\n Sievers\u2019 visit very well and I can state according to the best\n of my knowledge and conscience:\n\n \u201cWhen all the relevant points concerning the possibility of\n producing (installation for manufacture) the blood-stanching\n remedy \u2018polygal\u2019, as well as the other items had been discussed,\n Sievers told me a few things about the Rascher case before I\n called in SS Standartenfuehrer Maurer to discuss the employment\n of scientist prisoners in mathematical calculating problems. He\n informed me that Rascher and his wife had been arrested for\n jointly committing child substitution and abduction. Through\n Rascher\u2019s arrest, several unbelievable things had apparently\n come to light which were now being investigated. It was also\n maintained that Rascher was supposed to have fired at a prisoner\n in order to test the \u2018polygal\u2019. Sievers therefore expresses an\n assumption which he himself had only heard, and not a fact based\n on his own knowledge.\u201d\n\nAnd then follows the certification.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[77] United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. See Vol. II.\n\n[78] Neff was called as witness by the Tribunal.\n\n[79] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10,\n11, 14 Apr 1947, pp. 5656-5869.\n\n 14. GAS OEDEMA (PHENOL) EXPERIMENTS\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhuman acts\nand atrocities (as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the indictment)\nwere committed in the course of gas oedema experiments. These\nexperiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of\nparagraph 6 of the indictment, which particularized 12 specific types of\nexperimentation. On this charge the defendants Mrugowsky and Hoven were\nconvicted and the defendant Handloser was acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the gas oedema\nexperiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant\nMrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 684 to\n685. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on\npages 685 to 694.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT\n MRUGOWSKY_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Gas Oedema Serum Experiments_\n\nThe affidavit of Dr. Erwin Schuler, alias Ding, states that at a\nconference in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin, at the end of\n1942, in which he took part, one of the topics of discussion was the\nfatality of gas oedema serum on wounded soldiers. The affidavit goes on\nto state that among the participants in the discussion were Killian,\nGeneral Schreiber, Mrugowsky, and a medical officer who was unknown to\nhim. Killian and Mrugowsky gave reports on soldiers who had received the\nserum in high quantities and hours later, after apparently having\nrecovered, died suddenly without visible reason. It was suspected that\nthe phenol content of the serum brought about the fatal result. In the\npresence of Killian and Schreiber, Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part\nin the performance of euthanasia with phenol on a concentration camp\ninmate and to describe the results in detail. Ding later witnessed the\nexecution of four or five persons with phenol injections by the\ndefendant Hoven in the Buchenwald concentration camp. According to\norders, Ding reported his findings to Berlin. (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283._)\n\nMrugowsky denied having given any such order to Ding. It is quite\napparent, however, that Ding-Schuler, who was under arrest at the time\nhe executed this affidavit, would not have implicated himself in a crime\nwhich did not occur. Mrugowsky\u2019s continued interest in the effect of the\nphenol contained in serum is evidenced by a letter of 24 August 1944\nfrom Grawitz to him. Grawitz stated that the Reich Leader SS had\napproved experiments proposed by Mrugowsky on the tolerance of serum\ncontaining phenol. (_NO-1198, Pros. Ex. 466._)\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\nDoc. No. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-429 281 Extracts from the affidavit of Waldemar Hoven, 685\n 24 October 1946, concerning the killing of\n inmates by phenol and other means.\nNO-257 283 Extract from a sworn statement by Dr. Erwin 686\n Schuler (Ding), 20 July 1945, concerning\n euthanasia with phenol injection.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtracts from testimony of the defendant Mrugowsky 688\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF WALDEMAR HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946,\n CONCERNING THE KILLING OF INMATES BY PHENOL AND OTHER MEANS\n\nI, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n1. I was born in Freiburg, Breisgau, on the 10th of February 1903. I\nattended high school but did not complete my education until many years\nlater. Between the years 1919 and 1933 I visited Denmark, Sweden, United\nStates, and France. In 1933 I returned to Freiburg and completed my high\nschool course and then attended the Universities of Freiburg and Munich.\nIn 1939 I concluded my medical studies and joined the Waffen SS as a\nphysician. The last rank I held in the Waffen SS was Hauptsturmfuehrer\n(captain). In 1934 I had joined the Allgemeine SS.\n\n2. In October 1939 I was assigned as an assistant medical officer in the\nSS hospital in the Buchenwald concentration camp and held that position\nuntil 1941 when I was appointed the medical officer in charge of the SS\ntroops stationed in the camp. At the end of 1941 I was transferred to\nthe camp hospital and became the assistant medical officer therein. This\nhospital was for the inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp. In\nJuly 1942 I was elevated to the position of chief physician and thereby\nhad the full responsibility for the inmate patients in the hospital. I\nheld this position until September 1943 when I was arrested by the SS\npolice court of Kassel and remained under arrest until 15th of March\n1945.\n\n3. Due to my various positions in the Buchenwald concentration camp\nduring this period of nearly four years I became acquainted with all\nphases of the medical activities therein and am hereby able to make the\nfollowing statement:\n\n * * * * *\n\n10. In the camp we had a great many prisoners who were jealous of the\npositions held by a certain few of the inmates, that is, some of the\npolitical prisoners held key positions and were able to get better\nliving conditions than the average. Hence, many of the prisoners envied\nthese positions and made every effort to discredit the men who held the\nkey positions. Such traitorous actions became known through the\n\u201cgrapevine\u201d to the men in the key positions and then such traitors were\nimmediately killed. In each case I was later notified in order to make\nout the death statements of the prisoners killed. These statements did\nnot indicate the actual cause of death but were made out to indicate\nthat the prisoner died of natural causes.\n\n11. In some instances I supervised the killing of these unworthy inmates\nby injections of phenol at the request of the inmates. These killings\ntook place in the camp hospital and I was assisted by several inmates.\nOn one occasion Dr. Ding came to the hospital to witness such killings\nwith phenol and said that I was not doing it correctly, therefore he\nperformed some of the injections himself. At that time three inmates\nwere killed with phenol injections and they died within a minute.\n\n12. The total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom 60 were\nkilled by phenol injections, either by myself or under my supervision in\nthe camp hospital, and the rest were killed by various means, such as\nbeatings, by the inmates.\n\nThe above affidavit written in the English language, consisting of five\n(5) pages, is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.\nThis affidavit was given by me freely and voluntarily, without promise\nof reward and I was subjected to no duress or threat of any\n\n [Signed] DR. WALDEMAR HOVEN\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-257\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 283\n\n EXTRACT FROM A SWORN STATEMENT BY DR. ERWIN SCHULER (DING), 20 JULY\n 1945, CONCERNING EUTHANASIA WITH PHENOL INJECTION\n\n Freising, 20 July 1945\n\nErwin Schuler, M. D.\n\nCase 508\n\nAs ordered I am briefly answering two questions:\n\n1. _Witness of Euthanasia with Phenol at Buchenwald._\n\nAt the end of 1942 I took part at a conference in the Military Academy\nof Medicine in Berlin. The topic of discussion was the fatal effect of\ngas gangrene serum on wounded men.\n\nPresent: Generalarzt Professor Schreiber, hygienist of the Military\nAcademy of Medicine; SS Oberfuehrer Professor Mrugowsky, hygienist;\nOberstabsarzt Professor Killian, professor in the University of Breslau,\nsurgeon; a medical officer (surgeon) whose name I did not know; and\nmyself, as department chief of the Central Institute for the Combating\nof Epidemics, Berlin.\n\nKillian and Mrugowsky gave reports on soldiers who had been given gas\ngangrene serum in high quantities (up to 1,500 cc.) and hours\nafterwards, while feeling perfectly well, had died suddenly without any\nvisible reason. Mrugowsky suspected that the cumulative effect of the\nphenol content of the injections was responsible for the deaths.\n\nIn the presence of the other gentlemen, Mrugowsky ordered me to take\npart in euthanasia with phenol in a concentration camp and to describe\nthe result in detail, since neither I nor Mrugowsky had ever seen a case\nof death by phenol. Mrugowsky himself could not take part in the\neuthanasia because of an urgent trip to the East, on the other hand the\naffair was urgent for the fighting troops, and the publication of a new\ncircular for the troop doctors.\n\nA few days later I asked Dr. Hoven in Buchenwald to notify me when he\nperformed euthanasia with phenol. The next evening he asked me to come\nto the operating theater in the inmates\u2019 hospital. Besides himself and\nanother doctor\u2014probably Dr. Plaza\u2014only two other prison male nurses,\nwhom I cannot remember, were present.\n\nI talked to the doctor about the composition of the phenol injection\nand, as far as I can remember, it consisted of undiluted raw phenol,\nwhich was to be administered in doses of 20 cc.\n\nOne by one, four or five prisoners were led in. The upper part of the\nbody was naked so that their nationality patch [on their clothing] could\nnot be distinguished. The condition of their bodies was bad and their\nage was advanced. I do not remember a diagnosis as to why euthanasia was\nto take place, but probably I did not ask about it either.\n\nThey sat down quietly on a chair, that is without any sign of\nexcitement, near a light. A male nurse blocked the vein in the arm and\nDr. Hoven quickly injected the phenol. They died in an immediate total\nconvulsion during the actual injection without any sign of other pain.\nThe time between the beginning of the injection and death I estimate at\nabout \u00bd second. The rest of the dose was injected as a precautionary\nmeasure, although part of the injection would have been enough for the\nfatal result (I estimate 5 cc.).\n\nThe dead were carried into an adjoining room by the nurses\u2014I estimate\nthe time of my presence at 10 minutes.\n\nI reported in Berlin according to orders. I know nothing further to say.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY[80]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FLEMMING: I now turn to the gas gangrene experiments. When examining\nthe defendants Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, and the witness\nBernhard Schmidt, we heard to what extent gas gangrene became prevalent\nat the front. I refer you to the Document NO-578, Prosecution Exhibit\n284. I shall have it submitted to you. Would you please tell the\nTribunal whether, in connection with gas gangrene, there was an extreme\nnecessity in concentration camps and in the army to discover protective\nmeans to combat this disease?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: It was pointed out frequently that no infection can\nbe taken so seriously in the surgical field as the infection by gas\ngangrene, since the mortality cases of these injuries were very high. In\nconcentration camps, as Noeling told me, we often had cases of gas\ngangrene. Therefore, the Asid Works suggested that vaccine should be\nused in the same manner as in the case of diphtheria. This was done in\nthese works sometimes in cases of tetanus. Such vaccine against gas\ngangrene was produced by the Behring Works and was tested on students at\nMarburg University at first, about which a publication is available. I\nreceived a small part of this gas gangrene toxin in order to protect\npeople in danger. This gas gangrene toxin I gave to Noeling and he used\nit at Buchenwald. The chart is available concerning persons on whom this\nvaccine was used. It becomes evident from that that there is even an\nincrease in temperature following that vaccination, and that we are here\nconcerned with a completely harmless project which has nothing at all to\ndo with an infection.\n\nQ. Dr. Ding in an affidavit (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) stated that at the\nMilitary Medical Academy a conference took place on the question of gas\ngangrene serum. What do you know about that?\n\nA. It is correct that such a conference actually took place. Whenever\ngas gangrene occurred a large amount of gas gangrene serum had to be\nused for treatment in order to insure success. It was not a mere ten or\nfifteen cubic centimeters, but 400 to 800 cubic centimeters which was\ngiven to the patient in the course of a few days. In Germany all serums\nwhich are obtained from animals, mostly horses, are mixed with 0.5\npercent of phenol and carbolic acid\u2014in order to preserve them\u2014i. e.,\nto 400 cubic centimeters I added a concentration of two cubic\ncentimeters of phenol acid. This amount is, of course, far above the\ntolerance of human beings. Carbolic acid is one of the strongest acids\nwe possess. When treating people with gas gangrene serums a number of\ndeaths occurred. We discussed whether we were dealing with cases of\nserum death, resulting from the serum, or whether death was caused by\nthe phenol added. Ding and I participated in that conference with\nothers.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Did you give Dr. Ding an assignment on the basis of this discussion\nto test this phenol question?\n\nA. Yes, I told him to study the literature and to make use of the\nlibraries of the pharmacological and forensic medicine institute in\nJena. He was in touch with those institutes.\n\nQ. Did you give him the assignment to participate in euthanasia with\nphenol?\n\nA. No. I never heard anything about his having carried out such\neuthanasia, or of such killings having been carried out. I could not,\ntherefore, have given him any such order.\n\nQ. You are aware that in an affidavit of your codefendant Hoven it is\nstated that Ding himself carried out killings in Buchenwald with phenol.\nHad you given him instructions to that effect?\n\nA. No. I did not give him any such instructions, and there was no\noccasion to do so because death by phenol is well known in literature;\nsimply reading works on the subject would have sufficed.\n\nDR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I submit Document Mrugowsky 28. I should\nlike to submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit 46. It is an affidavit of\nProfessor Killian, who is a university professor at Halle/Saale. He\nsays:\n\n \u201cIn 1941-1943 I was consulting surgeon with the 16th Army in the\n East. We had experienced numerous cases of death and injury to\n the circulatory system due to the effects of gas gangrene serum.\n In my opinion, these bad effects cannot only be attributed to\n the inoculation of great quantities of unrelated serums, but\n also to the addition of one-half percent phenol, as is\n prescribed by law. Since up to 150 cc. of gas gangrene\n serum\u2014sometimes even more than that\u2014was given intravenously to\n wounded in the field, in my opinion the total quantity of phenol\n added then approached becoming a danger. This became obvious\n after four of my collaborators had had themselves injected\n intravenously with a phenol common salt solution of 0.5 percent\n density. All of them showed typical signs of phenol poisoning to\n a different degree. In a letter to the medical inspectorate I\n called their attention to the disappointing effects of the gas\n gangrene serum and to the detrimental effect of phenol, and made\n proposals for a change. Consequently, I was officially ordered\n to report during my stay in Berlin to Oberstarzt Professor\n Schreiber, who was a specialist on this matter. Present at this\n conference were Professor Mrugowsky and a junior physician whose\n name I no longer remember. I did not know any of the three\n gentlemen; I saw and spoke to them then for the first time.\n Apart from a few general questions concerning bacteriology, we\n discussed mainly the gas gangrene serum problem. I had to give\n an exact report on what took place at the front and on the\n symptoms of poisoning. The discussion then took two directions.\n First, the question whether it was possible for industry to\n substitute a harmless disinfectant for the dangerous phenol, and\n which one of the many substances would be suitable for this\n purpose.\u201d\n\nNumber two is not important. And I can skip the next paragraph too. I\ncome to the last paragraph:\n\n \u201cI well remember the substance of the discussions and declare\n that no mention was made of any experiments in a concentration\n camp, or of effecting euthanasia by injecting phenol. Such\n considerations never even came up for discussion, let alone an\n order in my presence by one of the medical officers. This would\n certainly have remained in my memory. I may add that a reason\n for such experiments did not exist since the symptoms of phenol\n poisoning are well known and may be found in any book on\n pharmacology. Apart from this, the question had been\n sufficiently settled by the above-mentioned experiments which\n the physicians had carried out on themselves. I am convinced\n that Dr. Ding\u2019s statements are not true.\u201d [Signed by Professor\n Killian, and certified.]\n\nOn the basis of instructions that he was to inform himself from\nliterature about phenol poisoning\u2014instructions which you gave to\nhim\u2014what did Ding report? Was the question of gangrene serum, and the\ndeaths resulting from it, settled?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: Ding made a report. I waited for it for some time\nand when it did not come I myself read up on this question. Then I was\nno longer interested in his report.\n\nQ. On page 20 of the Ding diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_) it says that a\nspecial experiment on four persons was carried out on behalf of\nGruppenfuehrer Nebe. What do you know about that?\n\nA. I have already mentioned the case of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler, who\nwas at the hospital at Weimar, who died from poisoning. Inaccurate\nstatements were given about his death and autopsy. It was said that they\noccurred in the Buchenwald concentration camp\u2014which is not true. At the\ndiscussion of the autopsy findings in the Reich Criminal Police Office,\nthe opinion had been expressed that this death might have resulted from\npervitin together with a narcotic drug. I participated in this\ndiscussion.\n\nDR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I have already submitted the affidavit by\nDr. Konrad Morgen. (_Mrugowsky 29, Mrugowsky Ex. 36._) When I submitted\nit I read the first one and one-half pages. I should now like to read\nthe following portion:\n\n \u201cProfessor Dr. Timm\u201d\u2014that is, the forensic medical expert from\n Vienna who performed the autopsy on Koehler\u2014\u201ccame to the\n opinion that there were two possibilities: first, that a South\n American poison had been used which was totally unknown to us\n and which dissolves completely in the human body; second, that a\n combination of drugs had been used. One drug had excited the\n circulation to the point of exhaustion, the other drug had acted\n as an antidote. Professor Dr. Timm spoke of the possibility that\n pervitin had been used together with a soporific. The idea that\n a South American poison had been used was rejected from a\n criminological point of view. From a technical point of view the\n second possibility would have been quite possible.\n\n \u201cI had to report the case to the Reich Security Main Office.\n Subsequently, a conference took place in the Reich Security Main\n Office at which quite a number of persons were present. The\n chief of the Reich Security Main Office [sic], Gruppenfuehrer\n Mueller, presided. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe of the Reich Criminal\n Police was also present, as well as Professor Dr. Mrugowsky. At\n the conference various persons, among others also Dr. Mrugowsky,\n pointed out that pervitin was not a poison, that it could be\n obtained without a prescription. One of the gentlemen present\n pointed out that in America experiments were carried out where\n up to 100 tablets of pervitin were administered and the effects\n were not fatal. But no one present could answer the question of\n whether a combination of pervitin and a soporific would be\n harmless, or whether it would lead to an increased reaction to\n any one direction. The latter appeared improbable to the\n experts. In order to settle this question Gruppenfuehrer Mueller\n ordered that an experiment be conducted. He ordered that Dr.\n Ding, whom he knew, should conduct this experiment in\n Buchenwald.\n\n \u201cIt was ruled that in this experiment, which was to settle the\n purely criminal side of the question, only minute quantities of\n pervitin and soporific should be used, since it would be\n impossible to give large quantities of pervitin and a soporific\n unobtrusively to the prospective victim. Moreover, larger\n quantities of these drugs would have been found in any case by\n means of a chemical analysis. The scientific theoretical problem\n concerning the harmfulness or even deadliness of maximum doses\n did not interest anyone.\n\n \u201cI was present at the experiments at Buchenwald.\n\n \u201cFive persons were presented to us for testing, because\n Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had ordered experiments to be conducted\n on five persons. I checked the papers of the persons to be\n experimented on prior to the experiment. They were Russians who\n had deserted, or workers, who had formed a gang, stolen, and\n plundered, and had even been charged with murder. They had all\n been sentenced to death before a special court in Pomerania.\n Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had already previously been given the\n order for their execution.\n\n \u201cI had agreed with Dr. Ding that a preliminary experiment should\n be made on three persons to see the kind of reaction this\n combination had in the organism. Some of the condemned could\n speak German. They were told that the experiments were neither\n dangerous nor painful, and that by taking part they would at\n least put off their execution. Thereupon they all volunteered.\n Dr. Ding chose three of them. They were transferred to Block 46.\n There they were given a dose of pervitin and a subcutaneous\n injection of a soporific. Then they had to go to bed. They fell\n asleep. Their sleep was very restless. One of them slept for 20\n hours. The others awoke a little earlier * * *.\u201d\n\nThen he says that none of them showed the symptoms which Koehler had\nshown, and that the experiment was considered completed. In the last\nsentence of the next paragraph he says, \u201cTherefore, I told Dr. Ding that\nhe should not make any more experiments, and I reported this to\nGruppenfuehrer Mueller.\u201d I shall read the last paragraph in another\nconnection.\n\nAccording to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, Mueller ordered Ding to carry\nout the experiment at Buchenwald. Did you receive a report on this\nexperiment?\n\nA. No, I did not receive a report on it.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\nMR. HARDY: Prior to the afternoon recess, Doctor, we were discussing the\nphenol problem. Now, in this connection, did you at any time propose\nexperiments to be conducted at Buchenwald concerning the tolerance of\nserum or sera containing phenol? That is, did you propose that in 1942\nor 1943 at any time?\n\nDEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: No. No such suggestions were made and they were not\nnecessary, because in Germany every serum contains phenol. In the German\nserum industry there is no serum produced without phenol. I am speaking\nof the sera for therapeutic purposes, not vaccines.\n\nQ. Then at no time did you even propose that experiments be conducted to\ndetermine the tolerance of sera containing phenol; is that what you say?\n\nA. No. I never suggested that.\n\nQ. Are you sure, Doctor?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nMR. HARDY: At this time, your Honor, I offer Document NO-1198 as\nProsecution Exhibit 466, for identification. This is a letter dated\nBerlin, 24 August 1944. Subject: Service of experiments. It has\nreference-file indexes, addressed to the chief hygienist on the staff of\nthe Reich Physician SS and Police, Berlin-Zehlendorf:\n\n \u201cDear Mrugowsky,\n\n \u201cI am able to inform you that the Reich Leader SS has approved\n today the series of experiments proposed by you.\n\n \u201c1. Specific therapy with typhus.\n\n \u201c2. Tolerance of sera containing phenol.\n\n \u201cI agree that both series of experiments in the department for\n typhus and virus research of the Hygienic Institute of the\n Waffen SS in Weimar-Buchenwald should be carried out, and\n request that I be informed of the course of the findings,\n perhaps through intermediary reports.\u201d\n\n \u201cBy order of Grawitz.\u201d\n\nThe signature is \u201cNICOLAI\u201d.\n\nQ. Now this states that the Reich Leader SS has approved a series of\nexperiments proposed by you and the experiments may be carried out in\nBuchenwald. You stated that you never proposed experiments to determine\nthe tolerance of sera containing phenol. Now do you maintain, Doctor,\nthat you never initiated any experimentation to determine the tolerance\nof sera containing phenol?\n\nA. Yes. The connection here is something quite different. I shall\ndiscuss point two first.\n\nI have already said that in Germany there were no sera without phenol.\nIn connection with this phenol question in German serum, I informed\nGrawitz about the question which is being discussed here\u2014Killian and\nSchreiber were present\u2014and I told him that industry should try to\nproduce sera without phenol, as the French serum industry had been doing\nfor some time. I knew that suggestions to that effect had been sent to\nthe industry, but that the German serum industry had refused, during the\nwar, to effect any such basic change in its production because it was\nnot in a position to obtain the necessary special apparatus, filters,\netc. I therefore told Grawitz that in serum therapy for ordinary\ndiseases\u2014I was thinking primarily of diphtheria, where large quantities\nof serum were used at the time in the therapy against diphtheria once it\nhad broken out, because the highly concentrated serum was no longer\navailable in necessary quantities\u2014I told him that in the case of such\ndiseases one should watch to see whether injury from phenol might\nresult. I told him also that it would be desirable to know whether serum\nwithout phenol would definitely prevent such shock. I also remember that\nthis point too had connection with the fact that we had negotiated with\nthe Behring Works for the production of serum frequently in small\nquantities in order to use it, and to compare it with other serum. If I\nremember correctly this involved diphtheria serum, that is the serum\nwhich is used most in Germany. The comparison was to be made of symptoms\nfollowing the administration of the usual antidiphtheria serum\ncontaining phenol on children, and it was to be noted whether the\nsymptoms would appear; and the symptoms following the administration of\nserum free of phenol were also to be noted. This was what Grawitz meant\nhere, and he called that a series of experiments. I might point out that\nthis expressed series of experiments in this case cannot refer to\nartificial infection, because it is not possible to have a human being\nartificially infected with diphtheria serum.\n\nQ. Doctor, after receiving this confirmation of your proposals to\nperform experiments as outlined in this letter, you must have issued\norders in that regard. Now to whom did you issue those orders?\n\nA. No. I did not issue any orders. In my opinion this concerns\nactivities of some civilian hospitals; for among the troops, and in\nconcentration camps, we did not have any diphtheria patients.\n\nQ. Just a moment, Doctor. But it is said in this letter that Grawitz\nagrees that these experiments can be carried out in the Department for\nTyphus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in\nWeimar-Buchenwald. Did you or did you not carry out these experiments in\nWeimar-Buchenwald?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Never issued any orders to carry out such experiments to Ding, for\ninstance?\n\nA. I have already explained what this series of experiments means. It is\npossible that I suggested, for example, that he was to vaccinate one\nchild with one kind of serum and another child with another serum. That\nis possible; I don\u2019t remember about that. But to try out serum\ncontaining phenol on human beings, that I did not order. * * *\n\n-----\n\n[80] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27, 28,\n31 Mar and 2, 3 Apr 1947, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.\n\n 15. EXPERIMENTS FOR MASS STERILIZATION\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky,\nPoppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and Oberheuser were charged with special\nresponsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving\nsterilization experiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment). In the course\nof the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the case of the\ndefendants Mrugowsky and Oberheuser. On this charge the defendants\nGebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and Brack were convicted, and the defendants\nKarl Brandt, Poppendick, and Pokorny were acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on the experiments for mass\nsterilization is contained in its closing brief against the defendant\nRudolf Brandt. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages\n695 to 702. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on\nthese experiments has been selected from the final plea for the\ndefendant Gebhardt and closing brief for the defendant Pokorny. It\nappears below on pages 702 to 708. This argumentation is followed by\nselections from the evidence on pages 710 to 738.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT\n RUDOLF BRANDT_\n\n _Sterilization Experiments_\n\nBy 1941 it was the accepted policy of the Third Reich to exterminate the\nJewish population of Germany and the occupied countries.[81] Because of\nthe pressing need for laborers, sterilization of Jews able to work was\nconsidered as an alternative to outright extermination. (_NO-205, Pros.\nEx. 163._)\n\nIn order to ascertain cheap and fast working methods for sterilization,\nexperimentation on concentration camp inmates by means of drugs\n(_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_), injection of an irritating solution (_NO-212,\nPros. Ex. 173_) and X-rays and surgical operation (_Tr. pp. 556-9_) were\ncarried out on a large scale. Brandt not only had full knowledge of\nthese experiments, but collaborated actively in all of them.\n\nThe purpose of the sterilization experiments is well described by Brandt\nin his own affidavit:\n\n \u201cHimmler was extremely interested in the development of a cheap\n and rapid sterilization method which could be used against\n enemies of Germany, such as the Russians, Poles, and Jews. One\n hoped thereby not only to defeat the enemy but to exterminate\n him. The capacity for work of the sterilized persons could be\n exploited by Germany, while the danger of propagation would be\n eliminated. As this mass sterilization was part of Himmler\u2019s\n racial theory, particular time and care were devoted to these\n sterilization experiments. Surgical sterilization was of course\n known in Germany and applied; this included castration. For mass\n application, however, this procedure was considered as too slow\n and too expensive. It was further desired that a procedure be\n found which would result in sterilization that was not\n immediately noticeable.\u201d (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)\n\nSterilization experiments in order to ascertain the efficacy of a drug\nknown as caladium seguinum (Schweigrohr) were suggested to Himmler by\nthe defendant Pokorny in October 1941. Pokorny reported that Dr. Madaus\nhad found, as a result of his research on medical sterilization of\nanimals, that caladium seguinum produced sterility in animals when\nadministered orally or by injection. Pokorny further stated in his\nletter that:\n\n \u201c* * * the immense importance of this drug in the present fight\n of our people occurred to me. _If, on the basis, of this\n research, it were possible to produce a drug which after a\n relatively short time effects an imperceptible sterilization on\n human beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our\n disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at\n present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could\n be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens\n the most far reaching perspectives.\u201d\n\nHe therefore advocated immediate research on human beings in order to\ndetermine the dose and length of treatment, the cultivation of the plant\ncaladium seguinum in hothouses, and chemical research in order to\nproduce the drug synthetically on a large scale. (_NO-035, Pros. Ex.\n142._)\n\nHimmler agreed to Pokorny\u2019s suggestions and requested Pohl, on 10 March\n1942, to contact Dr. Madaus and to \u201coffer him possibilities for doing\nresearch in cooperation with the Reich Physician SS (Grawitz) on\ncriminals who would have to be sterilized in any case.\u201d He further\nordered that the intended plan of research should be submitted to him.\nIt was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who forwarded a copy of this letter\nto Grawitz (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_) and furnished him, on 20 April,\nwith a copy of Pokorny\u2019s report and information on the publications of\nMadaus concerning medicinal sterilization of animals. (_NO-037, Pros.\nEx. 146._)\n\nBrandt\u2019s office submitted Madaus\u2019 report on the studies of experiments\non animals to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, Chief of the Security\nPolice and SD. The letter of transmittal, dated 23 April 1942, bears the\nsame file number as Himmler\u2019s letter to Pohl (752/5) and refers\nexpressly to \u201cthe question of sterilization by medicine.\u201d (_NO-047,\nPros. Ex. 145._)\n\nIn June 1942 Brandt requested a report from Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, as\nto the progress of the preparation for experiments. (_NO-038, Pros. Ex.\n147._) Pohl reported on 3 June 1942 that since \u201cSchweigrohr,\u201d from which\ncaladium seguinum was derived, grew only in North America and could not\nbe exported in adequate quantities, attempts to grow the plant from seed\ncultivated in hothouses had been made by Dr. Koch of the Biological\nInstitute of the Madaus Works. These attempts had been successful, but\nthe process of growing the plant and developing the drug was not speedy\nenough and the yield not sufficient to permit experimentation on a\n_large scale_. In order to remove these difficulties, he said that it\nwould be necessary to build a larger hothouse. (_NO-046a, Pros. Ex.\n148._) On 11 June, Brandt advised Pohl that he had informed Himmler of\nhis letter and that Himmler wanted Pohl to see to it that a large\nhothouse was placed at Dr. Koch\u2019s disposal as soon as possible as\nHimmler considered the experiments extremely important. Brandt also\nasked Pohl for further reports in the matter. (_NO-046b, Pros. Ex.\n149._) Only eight days later Brandt himself had a conference with Pohl\nin which, among other things, he informed Pohl of Himmler\u2019s request to\nhave the ingredients of caladium seguinum thoroughly investigated to\ndetermine whether equally effective ingredients could be found in plants\nmore easily accessible. Brandt requested that the work of Dr. Koch\nshould be carried out to the fullest extent. He informed Pohl that\nexperiments should be conducted in concentration camps with the amount\nof the drug then available. Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at\nonce. (_NO-044, Pros, Ex. 150._) Department IV-B-4 of the Reich Security\nMain Office, the agency which was in charge of the solution of the\nJewish question[82] was informed by a subordinate of Brandt about\nMadaus\u2019 research work and requested to collaborate closely with Pohl in\nthis matter. (_NO-050, Pros. Ex. 151._) A copy of this letter was\nforwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt. (_NO-051, Pros. Ex. 152._)\n\nThe Deputy Gauleiter of Gau Lower Danube (Lower Austria), SS\nObergruppenfuehrer Gerland, informed Himmler on 24 August 1942 that the\nDirector of the Office for Racial Policy in that province, Dr.\nFehringer, had examined the question of mass sterilization and, in this\nconnection, had come across Dr. Madaus\u2019 studies on medicinal\nsterilization with caladium seguinum. For reasons similar to those\nsuggested by the defendant Pokorny (_NO-035, Pros. Ex. 142_), Gerland\nadvocated experimentation on inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach in\nGau Lower Danube. Gerland pointed out that if these experiments were\nsuccessful, as was expected, it would be possible to sterilize\npractically unlimited numbers of people in the shortest time and in the\nsimplest way conceivable. (_NO-039, Pros. Ex. 153._)\n\nIt was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who took the matter up and informed\nGerland on 29 August of the steps which had already been taken in\nrespect to experiments with caladium seguinum. From Brandt\u2019s letter, it\nis apparent that Himmler was not present at that time. Brandt took care\nof this matter on his own initiative and informed Gerland that Pohl and\nGrawitz were in charge of the experiments. He requested information from\nGerland whether Dr. Fehringer had caladium seguinum available and what\nmeans for the procurement of this plant the latter would suggest.\n(_NO-040, Pros. Ex. 154._) Copies of Gerland\u2019s letter were forwarded by\nBrandt to Pohl and Grawitz. On 7 September 1942, Pohl gave Gerland\nfurther details and informed him that he and Dr. Lolling were personally\nsupervising the experiments. Pohl, in turn, sent copies of this letter\nto Rudolf Brandt and Grawitz. In the covering letter to Brandt, Pohl\ninformed him that he had been to the Madaus Works to convince himself of\nthe progress of the experiments and that Dr. Lolling would cooperate in\nthem. An agreement had been reached with Madaus \u201cto transfer the\nexperiments to our concentration camps as soon as possible.\u201d (_NO-041,\nPros. Ex. 156._)\n\nOn 14 October 1942, Gerland wrote to Rudolf Brandt and informed him of\nthe letter he had received from Pohl. He stated that he considered Dr.\nFehringer\u2019s suggestion to use inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach as\nobsolete, as Pohl had informed him that Lolling was already\ncollaborating with the Biological Institute of Madaus. He further\nadvised Brandt that Fehringer was of the opinion that it was quite\npossible to produce caladium seguinum chemically or have the plant\ncultivated in hothouses to an extent which would be sufficient for\nexperimental purposes. He also suggested collaboration between Lolling\nand Fehringer. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Brandt\u2019s reply of 25 October\nreveals that he, on his own initiative in Himmler\u2019s absence, agreed to\nthe collaboration between Fehringer and Lolling. (_NO-049, Pros. Ex.\n159._) Brandt sent copies of Gerland\u2019s letter of 14 October (_NO-043,\nPros. Ex. 157_) and his reply (_NO-049, Pros. Ex. 159_) to Pohl. In his\ncovering letter to Pohl he expressed the conviction that in spite of the\nfact that he could not consult Himmler, he was convinced that the latter\nwould certainly welcome experiments to produce caladium seguinum\nsynthetically. He asked Pohl to arrange for a contact between Lolling\nand Fehringer. (_NO-048, Pros. Ex. 158._)\n\nThere is no reasonable doubt that the sterilization experiments with\ncaladium seguinum were, in fact, carried out on concentration camp\ninmates. Himmler, who was the highest authority to decide such\nquestions, not only gave his consent to these experiments (_NO-036,\nPros. Ex. 143_) but considered them \u201cextremely important\u201d (_NO-046b,\nPros. Ex. 149_) and requested that they should be carried out in the\nconcentration camps _in any case_. (_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) Pohl, who\nwas in charge of the administration of the concentration camps, agreed\nupon the request of Brandt to take the necessary steps immediately.\n(_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) There can be no doubt that Department IV-B-4\nof the Reich Security Main Office, which was charged with the solution\nof the Jewish question, was informed about Madaus\u2019 research work for the\npurpose of furnishing the necessary Jewish victims for the experiments.\nThe collaboration of Dr. Lolling, who was the doctor in charge of all\nconcentration camps, can only be explained in connection with\nexperimentation in these camps. This is also clear from Gerland\u2019s letter\nto Brandt:\n\n \u201cSS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has informed me that _the doctor of\n his Main Office_ is already collaborating with the Madaus\n Biological Institute for research on the effects of caladium\n seguinum, so that the suggestion of my District Main Office\n Leader, Dr. Fehringer, _becomes obsolete_.\u201d [Emphasis added.]\n (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._)\n\nIt can only be concluded that Pohl and Lolling carried out the\nexperiments in concentration camps as was agreed upon between them,\nHimmler, Brandt, and Madaus. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Moreover, Brandt\nhimself admitted in his affidavit that experiments with caladium\nseguinum on human beings were performed in concentration camps:\n\n \u201cAs result of Pokorny\u2019s suggestion experiments were conducted\n upon concentration camp prisoners in order to test the effect of\n the drug. Simultaneously all efforts were made to cultivate the\n plant in large quantities. Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic\n and Administrative Main Office, took a personal interest in this\n matter. Hothouses were used, with a certain amount of success,\n to cultivate this plant, and the experiments were continued.\u201d\n (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)\n\nOn 30 May 1942, Dr. Clauberg wrote to Himmler asking his support on\nsterilization experiments on female concentration camp inmates.\n(_NO-211, Pros. Ex. 169._) On 4 June the defendant Poppendick forwarded\nto Rudolf Brandt a list of doctors who were authorized to carry out\nsterilization. Clauberg is listed among these doctors. (_NO-214, Pros.\nEx. 168._) On 7 and 8 July, a conference took place between Himmler,\nGebhardt, Gluecks, and Clauberg. The topic of discussion was the\nsterilization of Jewesses. Clauberg was promised by Himmler that the\nAuschwitz concentration camp would be placed at his disposal for\nexperiments on human beings. He was assigned the task of performing\nexperiments to test a method of sterilizing persons without their\nknowledge. He was ordered to report on this matter as soon as possible\nso that measures could be taken \u201cfor the practical realization of the\nsterilizations on a larger scale\u201d. It was suggested that Hohlfelder be\nconsulted on the sterilization of men by X-rays. The participants in the\nconference were admonished that these experiments were a matter of\nutmost secrecy. Rudolf Brandt denied having been present at this\nconference. Be that as it may, one of the two file memoranda which\nreveal complete knowledge of all details discussed in this conference\nwas dictated by Brandt (_NO-215, Pros. Ex. 172_), and the other was\nsigned by him. (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170._)\n\nOn 10 July 1942, Rudolf Brandt wrote a letter to Clauberg in which he\ninformed him of the details of his assignment and the plans for the\nexecution of the experiments. Clauberg was ordered to report to Himmler\non how long it would take to sterilize, a thousand Jewesses by his\nmethod. It was suggested that Clauberg should contact Pohl and a camp\nphysician of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in order to perform\nthere his sterilization experiments. Brandt stated further:\n\n \u201cThorough experiments should be conducted to investigate the\n effect of the sterilization, largely in a way that you could\n find out after a certain time, which would have to be _fixed,\n perhaps by X-rays_, what kind of changes have taken place. In\n some cases a practical experiment might be arranged by locking\n up a Jewess and a Jew together for a certain period and then\n seeing what results are achieved.\n\n \u201cI ask you _to let me know your opinion about my letter for the\n information of the Reich Leader SS_.\u201d [Emphasis added.]\n (_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._)\n\nCopies of this letter were sent by Brandt to Pohl, Grawitz, SS\nSturmbannfuehrer Koegel of the Economic and Administrative Main Office,\nand to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller of the Reich Security Main Office. On 7\nJune 1943, Clauberg was able to report, on the basis of his experiments,\nthat it would be possible to sterilize several hundred, if not a\nthousand, per day by his methods. He stated that sterilization could be\n\u201cperformed by a single injection made from the entrance of the uterus in\nthe course of the usual customary gynecological examination\u201d. (_NO-212,\nPros. Ex. 173._)\n\nThe sterilization experiments of Clauberg were, in fact, carried out in\nthe Auschwitz concentration camp. Brandt communicated with Clauberg on\nthis matter again on 19 June and 22 July 1943. While these two letters\nare not available, it is clear from Clauberg\u2019s reply to Brandt, dated 6\nAugust, that these communications were reminders to Clauberg to expedite\nhis experimentation. In his reply, Clauberg stated:\n\n \u201cI really do need the _second X-ray installation\u2014I can give you\n the explanation only by word of mouth\u2014at any rate the\n probability exists that even more of the installations will be\n needed later on_ (_it depends on, the application of my results\n the moment these are determined_). For I can get the\n installation without further difficulties, that is, it is\n \u2018_waiting_\u2019 for me\u2014_really I have got it already_!\n\n \u201cI had an opportunity _to acquire one myself_ and I quickly laid\n hands on it, and the installation has been set up for some\n weeks. But what I care for is the following:\n\n \u201c_I urgently need this installation here in Koenigshuette for my\n contrary (positive) research. But I cannot spare it in Auschwitz\n until I get a second installation from the Waffen SS._ If I may\n tell you something between ourselves\u2014the fact is that I will\n _be able to replace my own existing installation provided the\n Reich Leader SS will give me his approval_. I would not bother\n either him or you with this _unless it were really necessary_.\u201d\n (_NO-210, Pros. Ex. 174._)\n\nBrandt himself admitted in his affidavit that Clauberg did carry out\nsterilization experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp on a large\nscale. He stated:\n\n \u201cDr. Clauberg developed further a method for the sterilization\n of women. This method was based upon the injection of an\n irritating solution into the uterus. Clauberg conducted\n widespread experiments on Jewish women and gypsies in the\n Auschwitz concentration camp. Several thousand women were\n sterilized by Clauberg in Auschwitz.\u201d (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)\n\nSterilization of Jews by means of X-rays was suggested to Himmler by the\ndefendant Brack in the spring of 1941. (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160._)\nHimmler requested Brack to investigate with some of the physicians who\nwere active in the euthanasia program, the possibility of sterilization\nwhich would keep the victims unaware of their terrible fate. (_Tr. p.\n7484._) On 28 March 1941, Brack forwarded to Himmler a report of the\nresults of experiments concerning X-ray castrations in which he stated\nthat mass sterilization by means of X-rays could be carried out without\ndifficulty. Brack estimated that with twenty X-ray installations,\nsterilization of 3,000 to 4,000 victims could be carried out daily.\n(_NO-203, Pros. Ex. 161._) On 12 May 1941 a subordinate of Brandt, SS\nSturmbannfuehrer Tiefenbacher, acknowledged receipt of Brack\u2019s report\nand sent a copy to the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich.\n(_NO-204, Pros. Ex. 162._)\n\nThe invasion of Russia began in the summer of 1941 and Brack\u2019s proposal\nwas not acted on immediately, but on 23 June 1942, when Germany appeared\nto be on the verge of victory, Brack again wrote to Himmler suggesting\nthe sterilization of Jews who were able to work. Jews unable to work\nwere being exterminated. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) Himmler wrote to\nBrack on 11 August 1942 that further experiments to ascertain the\neffectiveness of X-ray sterilization should be carried out on\nconcentration camp inmates by expert physicians who were to be furnished\nby Brack\u2019s chief, Bouhler. Rudolf Brandt sent copies of this letter to\nPohl and Grawitz in order to put Himmler\u2019s decision into effect.\n(_NO-206, Pros. Ex. 164._) Brack ordered his deputy, Blankenburg, to\ncontact the chiefs of the concentration camps for this purpose.\nBlankenburg\u2019s letter, which communicated this fact to Himmler, was\nreceived by Brandt\u2019s office on 15 August 1942. (_NO-207, Pros. Ex.\n165._) As a result, experiments on inmates in the Auschwitz\nconcentration camp were carried out by Dr. Schumann. (_NO-208, Pros. Ex.\n166._) One of the victims of these atrocious experiments who, after\nhaving been subjected to severe doses of X-ray in the genital area, was\ncastrated by operation in order to determine the effects of the X-ray.\n(_Tr. p. 541._) At least 100 involuntary experimental subjects\u2014Poles,\nRussians, French, and prisoners of war\u2014were used for these experiments.\nOnly young, well-built inmates, in the best of health, were selected for\nthem. (_Tr. pp. 556-7._) Nearly all the victims of these experiments\nwere exterminated as the severe X-ray burns made them incapable of\nworking. (_Tr. p. 557; Tr. p. 543._) Brandt admitted in his pretrial\naffidavit that \u201csterilization experiments were likewise conducted with\nX-rays. Dr. Schumann applied this procedure in Auschwitz and sterilized\na number of men.\u201d (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n GEBHARDT_[83]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Sterilization Experiments_\n\nThe defendant Gebhardt is also accused of special responsibility for\nthese experiments and of participation in them. The evidence, however,\nproved that this contention of the indictment is not true. First of all\nit should be pointed out that the life work of the defendant Gebhardt as\na physician was based on the principle of helping the physically and\nmentally affected and to find cures for restoring them as fully\nqualified members of human society. That was the reason for the\nestablishment of the training camp Hohenaschau in the lower Alps of\nBavaria, which was repeatedly mentioned in the evidence. He also made\nthis principle the finding principle of his work as chief physician of\nthe hospital at Hohenlychen. The defendant Gebhardt did not hold the\nopinion that a sound population policy could be realized by negative\nmeasures only; on the contrary, he was convinced that the faculties of\nphysically and mentally handicapped patients ought to be improved by new\nmethods of treatment and their efficiency thus increased. He applied\nthese principles not only in his rehabilitation surgery dealing with\ninjuries but also in the cure of hereditary physical defects. I am here\nreferring to the affidavits of Professor Dr. Iseling, Professor Dr.\nBuerkle de la Camp, and of the Generalarzt, Dr. von Heuss. (_Gebhardt 7,\nGebhardt Ex. 1_; _Gebhardt 8, Gebhardt Ex. 2_; _Gebhardt 9, Gebhardt Ex.\n3_.) I further refer to the affidavits presented in court as exhibits in\nvolume II of my document books. All these witnesses\u2019 affidavits in\nconnection with the defendant\u2019s own statements make it obvious that his\nmedical attitude was not based on the principle of negative selection\nand the destruction of unworthy lives or the prevention of propagation\nof such human beings but, on the contrary, that he was led by the\nconviction that these human beings must be helped insofar as medical\nscience was able to help them at all. In their presentation of evidence,\nthe prosecution presented documents concerned with the sterilization\nexperiments. It is obvious from these documents that three different\nmethods of quick and simple sterilization had been considered.\n\nThe first experiments were supposed to be carried out with caladium\nseguinum. The documents presented in this connection proved clearly that\nthe defendant Gebhardt had nothing to do with this matter and that he\napparently had no knowledge of it. May I, as a matter of precaution,\npoint out the following: to start with, I wish to refer to the letter of\nReich Leader SS Himmler to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of 10 March 1942,\nwhich proves that the experiments with caladium seguinum were supposed\nto be carried out on criminals whose sterilization had been ordered\nbefore that anyway. (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143._) In this connection I\nshould like to point out that the German Penal Code expressly provides\nin certain cases for compulsory sterilization and castration of certain\ntypes of criminals. The experiments in themselves, therefore, need not\nbe contrary to the law. From the other documents presented by the\nprosecution it is, however, to be seen that the plans to carry out\nsterilizations with caladium seguinum were dropped. It turned out that a\ncultivation of this plant, or at least of a quantity adequate for\nexperimental purposes was impossible. From the evidence presented by the\nprosecution it is obvious that it only came to preparatory measures\nwhich, according to generally acknowledged principles, cannot be\nconsidered punishable.\n\nThe second part of the documents deals with sterilization by X-rays. The\nprosecution presented no evidence from which it can be concluded that\nthe defendant Gebhardt had knowledge of this matter.\n\nFinally, the third part of the documents deals with sterilization\nexperiments conforming with the methods of Professor Dr. Clauberg. From\nProfessor Dr. Clauberg\u2019s letter to the Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 30\nMay 1942 presented by the prosecution as evidence, it is obvious that\nthe initiative for these experiments and the methods used originated\nexclusively with Professor Clauberg himself. In this connection, it must\nbe pointed out that it was quite obvious that Professor Clauberg\u2019s\nintention was not only to develop the simplest possible method of\nsterilization, but that he aimed at the establishment of an\nall-inclusive \u201cResearch Institute for Propagation Biology\u201d with due\nconsideration for the demands of a positive population policy. This is\ndemonstrated among other things by the content of Document NO-211,\nProsecution Exhibit 169, and the plan for this research institute\nattached to that document.\n\nIn the course of evidence and referring to the sterilization\nexperiments, the prosecution has submitted two file notes of the\ndefendant Rudolf Brandt (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170_; _NO-215, Pros. Ex.\n172_) which refer to a discussion with the Reich Leader SS on 7 July\n1942 and 8 July 1942, in which the defendant Gebhardt had participated.\nThe evidence has shown that these are two file notes which refer to the\nsame discussion. The evidence, however, has further demonstrated that\nthis was the very discussion during which the conditions were\nestablished under which the sulfanilamide experiments were to be carried\nout. This was the reason why the defendant Gebhardt took part in this\ndiscussion at all. The defendant Rudolf Brandt who had written these\nfile notes did not participate in the discussion, and obviously the file\nnotes were made due to some remarks made by Reich Leader SS Himmler to\nthe defendant Brandt following the discussion.\n\nThe fact that the defendant Gebhardt had nothing whatsoever to do with\nthese sterilization experiments is also demonstrated by another document\nwhich was also introduced as evidence by the prosecution. I refer in\nthis connection to the letter which the defendant Brandt by order of the\nReich Leader SS sent to Professor Clauberg on 10 July 1942, that is, a\nfew days after the discussion mentioned. This letter has been submitted\nto the Tribunal by the prosecution. (_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._) Copies of\nthis letter were sent to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to SS\nGruppenfuehrer Grawitz in his capacity as Reich Physician SS and to two\nother offices, but not to the defendant Gebhardt. There can be no doubt\nthat a copy of this letter would have been sent to this defendant, too,\nif his participation in Clauberg\u2019s experiments would have been decided\nupon or even considered in any form. This seems to be the more\nimpossible, apart from the reasons already given, since the defendant\nGebhardt at no time concerned himself with sterilization problems. In\nthis connection it is necessary to refer briefly to the affidavit of the\ndefendant Rudolf Brandt, of 19 October 1946, which has been introduced\nby the prosecution and in which it is asserted among other things that\n\u201cDr. Karl Gebhardt apparently performed surgical sterilization at the\nRavensbrueck camp.\u201d (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) By the wording of this\naffidavit it is already demonstrated that here only an assumption is\nstated. The defendant Rudolf Brandt could not state any facts on which\nhe could base this assumption. In view of the other result of the\nevidence, and above all because of Rudolf Brandt\u2019s own statements, no\nsubstantial value can be attached to this affidavit. In these\ncircumstances it will be useless to discuss this question any further,\nespecially also in view of the fact that surgical sterilization offers\nno problems and that it is difficult to understand what reasons the\ndefendant Gebhardt could have had to work on this field which was quite\nforeign to him.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n POKORNY_\n\n * * * * *\n\nSterilization with caladium seguinum is impossible as is shown by the\nfollowing opinions:\n\n1. Opinion of Dr. August Wilhelm Forst of the University of Munich.\n(_Pokorny 20, Pokorny Ex. 28._) This opinion states:\n\n \u201cApart from all these restrictions it appears to me that the\n whole idea cannot claim to have any actual significance, since\n it would hardly have been possible to import tropical plants in\n large numbers to Europe during the war and to work out a\n rational method for production of the effective substance as\n well as the initiation of animal experiments on a broad basis.\n This would have required disproportionally more time than was\n available up to the time when the war was lost.\u201d\n\n2. Opinion of Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, Director of the\nPharmacological Institute of the Medical Academy in Duesseldorf.\n(_Pokorny 19, Pokorny Ex. 27._) This opinion states:\n\n \u201cAsked whether it can be assumed that after studying the work of\n G. Madaus and Dr. E. Koch, \u2018Studies in Animal Experiments\n concerning Medical Sterilization by Caladium Seguinum\u2019 in the\n Journal of Experimental Medicine, page 68, 1941, a doctor can\n come to the conclusion that he can sterilize human beings with\n caladium seguinum, I have the following comment:\n\n \u201cIn the research mentioned it was proved that the authors\n managed to sterilize rats by feeding them with the juice of\n caladium seguinum. The proof is not only given by pairing\n experiments but by anatomical examinations. In order to achieve\n this sterilization of female as well as of male rats weighing\n 150-180 grams, daily doses of \u00bd cubic centimeter for each rat\n had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times,\n respectively, without assuring a certain result. Applied to a\n human being weighing 70 kilograms this would mean that 200 grams\n of juice would have to be administered daily.\n\n \u201cIt is also proved in these examinations that a large number of\n the animals treated died from the poisonous effects of the\n caladium juice. The juice has therefore no specific action on\n the reproductive system. It is still completely unknown if these\n injurious complications are caused by the main substance of the\n juice or any other ingredients.\n\n \u201cSuch nonspecific damage to the reproductive system in similar\n ways but with different substances is also observed in human\n beings, for example as result of serious abuse of nicotine,\n morphine, etc., where it also occurs only together with most\n severe harm to other functions.\n\n \u201cThe question arises for every doctor if these experiments on\n rats can be applied to human beings at all. Madaus and Koch\n reject them on principle because they merely want to determine\n if the layman\u2019s belief about sterilizing men with large amounts\n of the caladium extract can be proved in animal experiments.\n\n \u201cA prerequisite for the use of the caladium extract on human\n beings in our countries would be the cultivation in central\n Europe of the South American caladium. This appears extremely\n improbable to any student of natural science with the least\n experience. Even if it could be cultivated, this would not prove\n that it would produce the same effective substances in\n sufficient quantities in our moderate climate.\n\n \u201cBecause of the uncertain effect of the caladium extract, its\n high toxicity, the doubts as to its successful cultivation and\n use in our moderate climate, I consider it extremely improbable\n that even a doctor with only average intelligence could in\n seriousness embark on an experiment to sterilize human beings\n with caladium extract. No other convincing foundation on which\n the problem under discussion might be based besides the work of\n Madaus and Koch is known to me.\u201d\n\n3. Opinion of Dr. Friedrich Jung, lecturer at the Pharmacological\nInstitute of Wuerzburg University. (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30._) This\nopinion states:\n\n \u201cSummary: The findings of Madaus and Koch in their work \u2018Studies\n in Animal Experiments concerning Medical Sterilization by\n Caladium Seguinum\u2019 are certainly valid, but they do not prove\n anything with regard to a specific sterilizing effect of\n caladium seguinum; they are rather to be accepted as part of the\n general poisonous effect of the caladium extract. One can\n therefore sterilize with caladium or achieve the effect of\n castration, but not more and not less than one can sterilize by\n hunger, vitamin deficiency, infections, psychic insults, etc.\n The experiments of Madaus and Koch are in no way conclusive with\n regard to human beings. The symptoms on the sexual glands of the\n experimental animals are only a reversible partial symptom of a\n long lasting, almost fatal, serious injury to the entire\n organism, and have no connection with an actual sterilization or\n castration. Dr. Pokorny\u2019s proposals based upon certain\n completely unfounded conclusions drawn from Madaus\u2019 work can be\n recognized even by slightly educated men as quite apparently\n utopian.\u201d\n\n4. The expert witness of the prosecution, Dr. Friedrich Scheiffart,\nwrites (_NO-3347, Pros. Ex. 546_):\n\n \u201cThe experimental sterilization by caladium seguinum is a\n scientifically interesting but, in practice, an unimportant\n addition to the group of pharmacological methods of\n sterilization, which without exception in their totality have\n not gone beyond a certain theoretical interest.\u201d\n\nThe prosecution itself states (_Tr. p. 525_):\n\n \u201cThe prosecution admits openly that it cannot prove that\n sterilization was actually brought about through this drug. We\n have not been able to find anybody who has been actually\n sterilized by it. But we maintain that it is nevertheless a\n crime. We strongly hope that no permanent sterilization has been\n caused in any case with this drug. However it is fortunate that\n the plants from which this substance was received could not be\n cultivated to a greater extent.\u201d\n\n_Final Summary of the Defense_:\n\nNothing could or did occur with the caladium plant as the prosecution\nadmits and as has completely been proved by the expert opinions.\n\nIn an affidavit by Karl Tauboeck (_NO-3963, Pros. Ex. 528_) the\nprosecution referred to the idea that sterilization with caladium\nseguinum is not an ideal one, but a matter which lies well within the\nbounds of possibility.\n\nThe defense on the other hand contends that this affidavit is lacking in\ncredibility because of the expert opinions. The expert witness of the\ndefense, university lecturer Dr. Friedrich Jung, in his enclosure to the\nexpert opinion (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30_) comments as follows on\nKarl Tauboeck\u2019s affidavit:\n\n \u201cConcerning the person\u2014\n\n \u201cDr. Tauboeck is, according to his education, a natural\n scientist with additional specialized studies in plant\n chemistry. His medical education is confined to histology,\n physiology, physiological chemistry, immunology, and\n pharmacology. By virtue of his education, he calls himself \u2018a\n specialist in this field\u2019, i. e., in the field of medicamental\n sterilization. I should like to stress the fact that the title\n \u2018specialist\u2019 in the field of sterilization presupposes\n considerable medical and in particular gynecological knowledge,\n which generally may be acquired only in a complete study of\n medicine or a penetrating study over several years in the\n _materia medica_.\n\n \u201cThe affidavit of Dr. Tauboeck in several places lacks that\n critical attitude which is so necessary in scientific questions,\n especially if they are discussed under oath. Dr. Tauboeck\n states, for example, under point 5, that caladium seguinum was\n used as a means of sterilization by the natives of Brazil. He\n calls this assertion of the Indians, which has been reported in\n literature, a fact. Under point 6 he calls the reports from\n Brazil vague, only to assert literally several lines further on\n that \u2018the Brazilian natives have already reached castration\n effects with an arrow wound, i. e., with an intramuscular\n injection\u2019. This assertion is not proved, and is therefore, in\n my opinion, out of place in an affidavit. Furthermore Dr.\n Tauboeck makes a large number of apodictic assertions, for which\n he brings no direct proof whatever and which he tries to\n strengthen with the help of absolutely impermissible\n generalizations of the examples listed under points 7 a-d. Such\n analogical conclusions are not permissible in a serious\n scientific explanation, the more so since also the examples\n brought by him are by no means unobjectionable. Moreover, Dr.\n Tauboeck, under point 8, draws a conclusion from the experiments\n by Madaus and Koch, which can only be based on an insufficient\n knowledge of these experiments. He writes literally: \u2018This\n bitter substance was lacking in the plants of the firm Madaus,\n the use of the pressed juice for feeding was accomplished there\n without any irritation of the pharyngeal mucous membranes or the\n tongue.\u2019 According to the evidence on hand, Madaus and Koch\n administered the pressed juice through probing, no doubt in\n order to avoid this very irritation.\n\n \u201cThese findings may be further enlarged upon by attentive\n reading of Dr. Tauboeck\u2019s statement. I, therefore, do not\n consider Dr. Tauboeck to be qualified as a scientific expert in\n this question.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Conclusion of the Defense_:\n\nThe affidavit of Karl Tauboeck produced at the end of the case-in-chief\ncannot alter the fact that it is impossible to sterilize or castrate\nhuman beings with caladium seguinum.\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n Pros. Ex.\nDoc. No. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-3963 528 Extracts from affidavit of Karl Wilhelm 710\n Friedrich Tauboeck, 18 June 1947, concerning\n the development of, and experiments with\n sterilization drugs.\nNO-035 142 Letter from Pokorny to Himmler, October 1941, 713\n concerning a sterilization drug to be used\n against Germany\u2019s enemies.\nNO-036 143 Letter from Himmler, 10 March 1942, to Pohl 714\n (initiated by Rudolf Brandt) concerning a\n sterilization drug and suggesting further\n research on criminals.\nNO-038 147 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, June 1942, 715\n transmitting an inquiry by Himmler as to the\n progress made with experiments for medical\n sterilization.\nNO-046a 148 Letter from Pohl to Himmler, 3 June 1942, 716\n concerning the development of a\n sterilization drug by the firm of Dr. Madaus\n and Co.\nNO-046b 149 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, 11 June 717\n 1942, asking him on behalf of Himmler to set\n up a large hothouse for the development of a\n sterilization drug.\nNO-039 153 Letter from Gund to Himmler, 24 August 1942, 717\n concerning research in medical sterilization\n and development of sterilization drugs.\nNO-203 161 Covering letter from Brack to Himmler, 28 719\n March 1941, with report on experiments\n concerning sterilization and castration by\n X-rays.\nNO-205 163 Letter from Brack to Himmler, 23 June 1942, 721\n proposing sterilization of two to three\n million Jews.\nNO-206 164 Letter from Himmler (countersigned by Rudolf 722\n Brandt), 11 August 1942, addressed to Brack,\n concerning Himmler\u2019s interest in\n sterilization experiments.\nNO-208 166 Letter from Blankenburg to Himmler, 29 April 723\n 1944, regarding employment of Dr. Horst\n Schumann on experiments concerning the\n influence of X-rays on human genital glands\n in connection with similar experiments\n conducted at concentration camp Auschwitz.\nNO-211 169 Letter from Professor Clauberg to Himmler, 30 724\n May 1942 (referring to a letter from Rudolf\n Brandt), concerning the urgency of research\n into biological propagation and\n sterilization without operation, and draft\n of a \u201cResearch Institute for Biological\n Propagation.\u201d\nNO-216 170 Memorandum of Rudolf Brandt, July 1942, on a 728\n discussion between Himmler, Gebhardt,\n Gluecks, and Clauberg concerning\n sterilization experiments conducted on\n Jewesses.\nNO-213 171 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Clauberg, 10 July 729\n 1942, transmitting instructions of Himmler\n to perform sterilizations on Jewesses at\n concentration camp Ravensbrueck.\nNO-212 173 Letter from Professor Clauberg to Himmler, 7 730\n June 1943, reporting on research in\n connection with the sterilization of women.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of the defendant Viktor Brack 732\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-3963\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 528\n\n EXTRACTS FROM AFFIDAVIT OF KARL WILHELM FRIEDRICH TAUBOECK, 18 JUNE\n1947, CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF, AND EXPERIMENTS WITH STERILIZATION\n DRUGS\n\nI, Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Tauboeck, swear, depose, and state:\n\n1. I was born on 21 September 1904 in Josefstadt, Czechoslovakia. I have\nbeen an Austrian citizen all my life. From 1910 to 1915 I attended the\nelementary school in Leitmeritz and Pilsen, Czechoslovakia. From 1915 to\n1923 I attended the gymnasium (high school) in Pilsen (Czechoslovakia),\nLjubljana (Yugoslavia) and Klosterneuburg (Austria). In June 1923 I\ngraduated from the Klosterneuburg high school. From 1923 to 1925 I\nstudied natural science at the University of Vienna, Austria,\nspecializing in plant physiology and chemistry. In 1925 I studied at\nKiel (Germany), where I devoted myself mainly to problems of marine\nbiology and bacteriology. From 1926 to 1927 I again studied the\nabove-mentioned natural science subjects in Vienna (Austria). In\nDecember 1927 I was made Doctor of Philosophy with special distinction.\nMy thesis dealt with a problem concerning vegetable chemistry\u2014urea in\nthe plant world.\n\n2. From 1928 to 1929 I was assistant in the Institute of Plant\nPhysiology of the University of Vienna, Austria. In this capacity I had\nto direct the practical studies of the students and was able to carry\nout my own research in the field of vegetable chemistry. I also\ncontinued my studies there in the medical faculty of that University, in\nseveral medical subjects, especially in histology, physiology,\nphysiological chemistry, immunology, and pharmacology. These\nabove-mentioned studies made it possible for me to be able to carry out\nindependently tests on the efficacy of drugs in animal experiments.\n\n3. From 1930 to 1945 I was employed as a biochemist and botanist in the\nbiological laboratory of the I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. at\nLudwigshafen/Rhine. I specialized there in drugs with particular effects\non the animal and human organisms, respectively. Through this work I\ninvented various new remedies based on biology. In particular I studied\nthe question of animal poisons for many years and thus produced a new\nremedy for rheumatism. I also worked on the question of the stimulant\nfrom the sensitive plant (Mimosa pudica) and similar substances\neffective in minimum quantities. During the war years I worked on\nbiochemical problems concerning agriculture and as a result of my work\nproduced an improved fertilizer.\n\nThe I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. at Ludwigshafen at Rhine employed\nseveral hundred natural scientists and technicians. Since 1937 I was the\nsenior specialist in vegetable chemistry there.\n\n4. In the fall of 1942, I was instructed by the director of my\nlaboratory, Dr. Mueller-Cunradi, to devote my time to research on the\neffective substance from the plant caladium seguinum (Schweigrohr). At\nthe beginning of November 1942, I was sent to Dr. Schamberger of the\nResearch Institute Grunewald-Berlin for the purpose of obtaining further\ninformation. The Research Institute Grunewald was a cover name for a\ncamouflaged SS office. The address was Grunewald-Berlin,\nDelbrueckstrasse 6. There I was told that this plant was to be used for\nsterilizing mental patients. In order to obtain further information\nabout the progress of experiments with caladium seguinum which had\nalready taken place, I had to visit the firm Madaus in Dresden-Radebeul,\ntogether with Dr. Schamberger and another SS man. This firm had already\nmade animal experiments with this plant and published the results in a\nmedical journal in 1941. I was introduced to the firm Madaus as Dr.\nWeiss, so that nobody should know that I was an employee of I. G.\nFarben. The senior pharmacologist of the firm Madaus asked us: You must\nbe a commission from SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to which the SS men\nreplied \u201cyes\u201d. The pharmacologist went on to tell us that a few days\npreviously Pohl himself had visited the firm Madaus together with\nseveral other people and had mentioned the especial urgency of this\nwork. Furthermore, while visiting the firm Madaus, I checked all the\nequipment and experiments in the course of one day. By careful\nexamination of sections of mice and rats and of the histological\npreparations, I was convinced that the publications of the firm Madaus\nwere perfectly true. By this examination I, as a specialist in this\nfield, gained the conviction that sterilization with caladium seguinum\nis no Utopia, but something which is quite within the bounds of\npossibility. On the return journey from Dresden to Berlin, the SS men\nrevealed to me that this research was being carried out on the express\norder of Reich Leader SS Himmler in order to suppress births among the\neastern nations. After this fact had been revealed to me I was sworn to\nsecrecy. I was furthermore informed at the Research Institute\nGrunewald-Berlin that the first preparations were to be supplied as soon\nas possible, as the Reich Leader SS had ordered the testing of the new\nmethod on inmates of concentration camps to take place at once.\n\n5. In order to point out the effectiveness and practical possibility of\nusing caladium seguinum as a sterilization drug, I would like first of\nall to go into the subject of the history of this plant. Before doing\nso, however, I would like to add that caladium seguinum is not\nconsidered a sterilization drug in the ordinary sense of the word, but a\ncastration drug. This is evident from the fact that the experiments\ncarried out by the firm Madaus have clearly shown that a destruction of\nthe sexual glands of the experimental animals occurred which is\nequivalent to the surgical removal of such glands. Caladium seguinum is\na plant which comes from Brazil. As I know from the literature and the\npublications made by the firm Madaus, this plant has already been used\nby the Brazilian natives as a means of sterilization of their enemies.\nIt was administered to the enemies either in food or in arrow wounds. By\nthis method of injection by arrows, only relatively small portions of\npoison gained from caladium seguinum could have been administered, as\nthe wound produced by arrows may be compared with a large intramuscular\ninjection. From this fact, as learned from literature, results the\nconclusion that this poison, if obtained by the correct process, is\neffective even in very small doses. This drug is described in literature\nas secret, which shows that the enemy did not know that he was being\nsterilized.\n\n6. Inspired by this experience of the Brazilian natives, the firm Madaus\ncarried out their experiments on animals. The results obtained by the\nfirm Madaus which I have seen with my own eyes confirm the effectiveness\nof caladium seguinum as a means of sterilization for human beings. It\nwas possible to doubt whether the caladium seguinum was actually\neffective according to the first rather vague reports coming from Brazil\nbefore the experiments of the firm Madaus had been carried out. The\nexperiments of Madaus, however, have eliminated all doubts in this\ndirection.\n\n * * * * *\n\n11. As a result of all examples and explanations mentioned, I am of the\nopinion that mass production of a castrating preparation from caladium\nseguinum in Germany or in the German occupied countries is no dream, but\ncould easily have been put into practice. Another proof of the\nharmfulness of the caladium poison is the fact that the Madaus\nexaminations confirmed beyond doubt the castrative effect of caladium\ndespite all the shortcomings already described. All this made me realize\nat once the criminal character of such research and for this reason did\nnot carry it out as far as my specific order was concerned. The SS,\nhowever, took a great interest in this matter. I received my orders as\nan employee of the I. G. Farbenindustrie from the Chief of the Security\nPolice, first through the camouflaged office of the Research Institute\nGrunewald-Berlin and later direct. I know, however, that the firm Madaus\nplaced their orders through SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl separately and I\nam not acquainted with the development of this matter.\n\nI have read the above statement consisting of seven pages, in German,\nand declare it to be the whole truth to my best knowledge and belief. I\nwas given an opportunity of making alterations and amendments in the\nabove statement. I have made this statement of my own free will, under\nno duress, without promise of reward.\n\nNuernberg, 18 June 1947. [Signature] DR. KARL TAUBOECK\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-035\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 142\n\nLETTER FROM POKORNY TO HIMMLER, OCTOBER 1941, CONCERNING A STERILIZATION\n DRUG TO BE USED AGAINST GERMANY\u2019S ENEMIES\n\nTo the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German\n Folkdom,\nSS H. Himmler, Chief of Police,\nBerlin.\n\nI beg you to turn your attention to the following arguments. I have\nrequested Professor Hoehn to forward this letter to you. I have chosen\nthis direct way to you in order to avoid the slower process through\nchannels and the possibility of an indiscretion in regard to the\neventually enormous importance of the ideas presented.\n\nLed by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but destroyed,\nI feel obliged to present to you, as the Reich Commissioner for the\nConsolidation of German Folkdom, the following:\n\nDr. Madaus published the result of his research on a _medicinal\nsterilization_ (both articles are enclosed). Reading these articles, the\nimmense importance of this drug in the present fight of our people\noccurred to me. _If, on the basis of this research, it were possible to\nproduce a drug which, after a relatively short time, effects an\nimperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have a new\npowerful weapon at our disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million\nBolsheviks, at present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that\nthey could be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens\nthe most far-reaching perspectives.\n\nMadaus found that the sap of the Schweigrohr (caladium seguinum) when\ntaken by mouth or given as injection to male and also to female animals,\nafter a certain time, produces permanent sterility. The illustrations\naccompanying the scientific article are convincing.\n\nIf my ideas meet your approval, the following course should be taken:\n\n1. Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The enemy\nlistens!)\n\n2. Multiplying the plant. (Easily cultivated in greenhouses!)\n\n[Written notation] Dachau\n\n3. Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to determine\nthe dose and length of the treatment.\n\n4. Quick research of the constitutional formula of the effective\nchemical substance in order to\n\n5. Produce it synthetically if possible.\n\nAs German physician and chief physician of the reserves of the German\nWehrmacht, retired [d. R. a. D.], I undertake to keep secret the purpose\nas suggested by me in this letter.\n\n [stamp] Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] DR. POKORNY\n Specialist for skin and venereal diseases, M. U.\n Dr.\nAd. Pokorny\nKomotau\nGraben 33\nKomotau, October 1941\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-036\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 143\n\nLETTER FROM HIMMLER, 10 MARCH 1942, TO POHL (INITIALED BY RUDOLF BRANDT)\n CONCERNING A STERILIZATION DRUG AND SUGGESTING FURTHER RESEARCH ON\n CRIMINALS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nJournal No. 752/5, RF/H.\n\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 10 March 1942\n 2 W 1.5.\n\nDear Pohl,\n\nI read Dr. Pokorny\u2019s very interesting memorandum and Dr. Madaus\u2019\npublications on medicinal sterilization. I would ask you to get in touch\nwith Dr. Madaus and to inform him, on my behalf, that he should not\npublish anything else on these questions of medicinal sterilization, and\noffer him possibilities of doing research, in cooperation with the Reich\nPhysician SS, on criminals who would have to be sterilized in any case.\n\nThe intended plan of research is, however, to be submitted to me by the\noffice engaged on the subject.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n\nA copy is forwarded to the Reich Physician SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr.\nGrawitz with request to take cognizance.\n\n By Order:\n [Initial] BR. [BRANDT]\n SS Sturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-038\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 147\n\nLETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO POHL, JUNE 1942, TRANSMITTING AN INQUIRY BY\n HIMMLER AS TO THE PROGRESS MADE WITH EXPERIMENTS FOR MEDICAL\n STERILIZATION\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff\nJournal No. AR/752/5, Bra/Bn.\n\n Fuehrer Headquarters, June 1942\n Top Secret\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl\nBerlin\n\nDear Obergruppenfuehrer,\n\nOn 10 March 1942, the Reich Leader SS sent you a memorandum written by\nDr. Pokorny and the publication of Dr. Madaus on medicinal\nsterilization. In cooperation with the Reich Physician SS, experiments\nwere to be made accordingly.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS inquired today as to how things were progressing. I\nwould appreciate it if I might have some information soon.\n\n Heil Hitler\n Yours,\n [Signed] R. BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-046a\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 148\n\nLETTER FROM POHL TO HIMMLER, 3 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF\n A STERILIZATION DRUG BY THE FIRM OF DR. MADAUS AND CO.\n\nChief of SS, Economics and Administrative Main Office\nCh. Po/Ha\n\n Berlin, 3 June 1942\n\nSubject: Sterilization by means of drugs.\nRe: Your letter of 3 October 1942. Journal No. AR. 752/52, RF/H\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8\n\nDear Reich Leader:\n\nIn reference to the above matter, I had a conversation today with E.\nKoch, Ph. D. and M. D., director of the Biological Institute of Dr.\nMadaus and Co., at Dresden-Radebeul.\n\nI advised him of your desire to have publications on this subject\ndiscontinued for the time being. Dr. Koch will comply with your request.\n\nFurthermore, experiments have reached a dead point because the caladium\nseguinum grows only in North America and during the war cannot be\nimported in adequate quantities. Dr. Koch\u2019s attempts to grow this plant\nfrom seed cultivated in hothouses have been successful, it is true; but\nthe process is very slow and the yield is not sufficient to permit\ncarrying on experiments on a large scale.\n\nDr. Koch is hopeful that this will be remedied if it is possible for us\nto obtain permission for him to build a larger hothouse. I promised him\nthis.\n\nFor the time being this is the first and only practical step to promote\nthe project.\n\nI shall continue reports periodically.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] POHL\n SS Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen SS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-046b\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 149\n\nLETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO POHL, 11 JUNE 1942, ASKING HIM ON BEHALF OF\n HIMMLER TO SET UP A LARGE HOTHOUSE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A\n STERILIZATION DRUG\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\nPersonal Staff, Diary No. 1230/42, Bra/Bu\n Fuehrer\u2019s Headquarters, 11 June 1942\nRe: Medical sterilization.\nTo SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl\nBerlin\n\nDear Obergruppenfuehrer,\n\nI have informed the Reich Leader SS of your letter of 3 June 1942. He\nasks you to see to it without fail that a large hothouse is set up as\nsoon as possible for Dr. Koch. He considers the experiments extremely\nimportant.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS asks you to continue to send in further reports.\n\n Heil Hitler\n [Signed] B.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-039\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 153\n\n LETTER FROM GUND TO HIMMLER, 24 AUGUST 1942, CONCERNING RESEARCH IN\n MEDICAL STERILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STERILIZATION DRUGS\n\n Secret\nThe Deputy Gauleiter of Lower Danube [Lower Austria]\n\n Vienna, 9, Wasagasse 10, 24 August 1942\n Ge/Schd\u2014310/42 g\n\nTo: The Reich Leader SS Pg. Heinrich Himmler\nBerlin SW 1, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8\nSir,\n\nAt the orders of Gauleiter Dr. Jury, his staff have hitherto busied\nthemselves especially with the problems of population, racial policy,\nand antisocial elements. Since the prevention of reproduction by the\ncongenitally unfit and racially inferior belongs to the duties of our\nNational Socialist racial and demographic policy, the present Director\nof the District Office for Racial Policy, Gauhauptstellenleiter Dr.\nFehringer, has examined the question of sterilization and found that the\nmethods so far available, castration and sterilization, are not\nsufficient in themselves to meet expectations. Consequently, the obvious\nquestion occurred to him whether impotence and sterility could not be\nproduced in both men and women by the administration of medicine or\ninjections. So he came to the studies of the Biological Institute of Dr.\nMadaus, in Dresden-Radebeul, on animal experiments for medical\nsterilization, which became accessible to him through the Madaus Annual\nReport, IVth year, 1940, and are of the greatest interest for our\ndemographic policy. Madaus and Koch found that caladium sequinum used in\nhomeopathic doses, that is, administered in infinitesimal quantities,\nfavorably affects impotence, sterility, and frigidity (sexual\nindifference), so that clinical and medical research should not proceed\nwithout regard to this fact. It was established by an extensive series\nof experiments on rats, rabbits, and dogs that, as the result of the\nadministration or injection of caladium extract, male animals became\nimpotent and females barren, and the differences in effect of the\nvarious methods of applying the drug could be seen. From the animal\nexperiments, it seems that a permanent sterility is liable to result in\nmale animals and a more temporary one in females.\n\nIt is clear that these observations could be of tremendous importance if\nalterations of potency or fecundity could also be successfully brought\nabout in human beings by the administration of a caladium extract.\nResearch on human beings themselves would, of course, be necessary for\nthis. The director of my race policy office points out that the\nnecessary research and human experiments could be undertaken by an\nappropriately selected medical staff, basing their work on the Madaus\nanimal experiments in cooperation with the pharmacological institute of\nthe Faculty of Medicine of Vienna, on the persons of the inmates of the\ngypsy camp of Lackenbach in Lower Danube.\n\nIt is quite clear that such research must be handled as a nationally\nimportant secret matter of the most dangerous character, because enemy\npropaganda could work tremendous harm all over the world by the\nknowledge of such research, should it come by such knowledge.\n\nSince these considerations are only a theory, the fundamental accuracy\nof which has already been established by animal experiments and the\npossibility of the application of which to human beings is highly\nprobable, a mere indication only can be given of the prospects of the\npossibility of the sterilization of practically unlimited numbers of\npeople in the shortest time and in the simplest way conceivable.\n\nIn this connection, I may perhaps point out that it would surely be\nworth while to study the old cults and the knowledge of their priests\nconcerning the promotion and prevention of human potency and fecundity.\nPrimitive, primeval populations which are close to nature had, and still\nhave, a very extensive knowledge of this subject without these things\nbeing known to science. It is known, for instance, that the natives of\nSouth America attempted to destroy the potency of their enemies by\nadministering caladium seguinum to them.\n\nI should be particularly grateful to you if you would give me your\nopinion in this respect when the occasion arises, or even order a\nconcrete working plan to be submitted to you. Gauleiter Dr. Jury would\npersonally have approached you with this plan were he not at present\naway on a vacation.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours faithfully,\n [Signed] K. GUND\n SS Oberfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-203\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 161\n\n COVERING LETTER FROM BRACK TO HIMMLER, 28 MARCH 1941, WITH REPORT ON\n EXPERIMENTS CONCERNING STERILIZATION AND CASTRATION BY X-RAYS\n\nViktor Brack\nOberdienstleiter\n\n Berlin, 28 March 1941\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8\nH. H. [Handwritten initials]\n\n Top Secret\n\n [Handwritten]: 1 read\n 2+\n 5 May 41\n\nDear Reich Leader:\n\nEnclosed herewith for your information is the result of the\ninvestigations into the possibility of sterilization or castration,\nrespectively, by means of X-rays. I request your instructions as to what\nfurther theoretical or practical steps, if any, are to be taken in this\nmatter.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [SIGNED] BRACK\nEnclosure\n\nThe experiments in this field are concluded. The following result can be\nconsidered as established and adequately based on scientific research:\n\nIf any persons are to be sterilized permanently, this result can only be\nattained by applying X-rays in a dosage high enough to produce\ncastration with all its consequences, since high X-ray dosages destroy\nthe internal secretion of the ovary, or of the testicles, respectively.\nLower dosages would only temporarily paralyze the procreative capacity.\nThe consequences in question are for example the disappearance of\nmenstruation, climacteric phenomena, changes in capillary growth,\nmodification of metabolism, etc. In any case, attention must be drawn to\nthese disadvantages.\n\nThe actual dosage can be given in various ways, and the irradiation can\ntake place quite imperceptibly. The necessary local dosage for men is\n500-600 r, for women 300-350 r. In general, an irradiation period of 2\nminutes for men, 3 minutes for women, with the highest voltage, a thin\nfilter and at a short distance, ought to be sufficient. There is,\nhowever, a disadvantage that has to be put up with: as it is impossible\nunnoticeably to cover the rest of the body with lead, the other tissues\nof the body will be injured, and radiologic malaise, the so-called\n\u201cRoentgenkater\u201d, will ensue. If the X-ray intensity is too high, those\nparts of the skin which the rays have reached will exhibit symptoms of\nburns\u2014varying in severity in individual cases\u2014in the course of the\nfollowing days or weeks.\n\nOne practical way of proceeding would be, for instance, to let the\npersons to be treated approach a counter, where they could be asked to\nanswer some questions or to fill in forms, which would take them 2 or 3\nminutes. The official sitting behind the counter could operate the\ninstallation in such a way as to turn a switch which would activate the\ntwo valves simultaneously (since the irradiation has to operate from\nboth sides). With a two-valve installation about 150-200 persons could\nthen be sterilized per day, and therefore, with 20 such installations as\nmany as 3,000-4,000 persons per day. In my estimation a larger daily\nnumber could not in any case be sent away for this purpose. As to the\nexpenses for such a two-valve system, I can only give a rough estimate\nof approximately 20,000-30,000 RM. Additionally, however, there would be\nthe cost of the construction of a new building, because adequately\nextensive protective installations would have to be provided for the\nofficials on duty.\n\nIn summary, it may be said that, having regard to the present state of\nradiological technique and research, mass sterilization by means of\nX-rays can be carried out without difficulty. However, it seems to be\nimpossible to do this in such a way that the persons concerned do not\nsooner or later realize with certainty that they have been sterilized or\ncastrated by X-rays.\n\n [Signed] BRACK\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-205\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 163\n\n LETTER FROM BRACK TO HIMMLER, 23 JUNE 1942, PROPOSING STERILIZATION OF\n TWO TO THREE MILLION JEWS\n\nViktor Brack\nSS Oberfuehrer\n\n Berlin, W 8, Voss-Strasse 4, 23 June 1942\n [Initial] HH\n\n Top Secret\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police\nHeinrich Himmler,\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8\n\nDear Reich Leader,\n\nOn the instructions of Reich Leader [Reichsleiter] Bouhler I placed some\nof my men\u2014already some time ago\u2014at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer\nGlobocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I have\nnow transferred additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer\nGlobocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jewish action should be\ncompleted as quickly as possible so that one would not get caught in the\nmiddle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the\naction necessary. You, yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed\nyour view, that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage\nalone. Both points which in principle arrive at the same result are more\nthan justified as far as my own experience goes; nevertheless would you\nkindly allow me to submit the following argument:\n\nAmong 10 millions of Jews in Europe there are, I figure, at least 2-3\nmillions of men and women who are fit enough to work. Considering the\nextraordinary difficulties the labor problem presents us with, I hold\nthe view that those 2-3 millions should be specially selected and\npreserved. This can, however, only be done if at the same time they are\nrendered incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that\nagents of mine had completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.\nI would like to recall these facts once more. Sterilization, as normally\nperformed on persons with hereditary diseases, is here out of the\nquestion, because it takes too long and is too expensive. Castration by\nX-ray however is not only relatively cheap, but can also be performed on\nmany thousands in the shortest time. I think, that at this time it is\nalready irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having\nbeen castrated after some weeks or months once they feel the effects.\n\nShould you, Reich Fuehrer, decide to choose this way in the interest of\nthe preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler would be prepared\nto place all physicians and other personnel needed for this work at your\ndisposal. Likewise he requested me to inform you that then I would have\nto order the apparatus so urgently needed with the greatest speed.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] VIKTOR BRACK\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-206\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 164\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER (COUNTERSIGNED BY RUDOLF BRANDT), 11 AUGUST 1942,\n ADDRESSED TO BRACK, CONCERNING HIMMLER\u2019S INTEREST IN STERILIZATION\n EXPERIMENTS\n\nThe Reich Leader SS\n1314/42 [Handwritten]\n\n XIa/126 [Handwritten]\n 11 August 1942\n Figure 11\u2014[Handwritten]\nSS Senior Col. (SS Oberfuehrer) Brack Field Headquarters\nBerlin W 8 Voss-Strasse 4\n Top Secret\n 4 copies\n 4th copy\nDear Brack:\n\nIt is only today that I have the opportunity of acknowledging the\nreceipt of your letter of 23 June. I am positively interested in seeing\nthat sterilization by X-rays is tried out at least once in one camp in a\nseries of experiments.\n\nI will be very much obliged to Reichsleiter Bouhler if, to begin with,\nhe would place the expert physicians for the series of experiments at\nour disposal.\n\nI will mail a copy of this letter to the Reich Physician SS and to the\ncompetent Chief of the Main Office for concentration camps.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n\nSS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl\nSS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz\n For information.\n By order [Handwritten] BR.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n[Stamp] 11 August 1942\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-208\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 166\n\nLETTER FROM BLANKENBURG TO HIMMLER, 29 APRIL 1944, REGARDING EMPLOYMENT\nOF DR. HORST SCHUMANN ON EXPERIMENTS CONCERNING THE INFLUENCE OF X-RAYS\nON HUMAN GENITAL GLANDS IN CONNECTION WITH SIMILAR EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED\n AT CONCENTRATION CAMP AUSCHWITZ\n\nChancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP\nFile No: IIa/Kt.\n\n Berlin W 8, Vosstrasse 4, 29 April 1944\n Telephone No.: local 120054\n Long distance 126621\n\n Top Secret\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler\n\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 9\nDear Reich Leader!\n\nBy order of Reich Leader (Reichsleiter) Bouhler I submit to you as an\nenclosure a work of Dr. Horst Schumann on the influence of X-rays on\nhuman genital glands.\n\nPreviously you have asked Senior Colonel [Oberfuehrer] Brack to perform\nthis work, and you supported it by providing the adequate material in\nthe concentration camp Auschwitz. I point especially to the 2d part of\nthis work, which shows that by those means a castration of males is\nalmost impossible or requires an effort which does not pay. As I have\nconvinced myself, operative castration requires not more than 6 to 7\nminutes, and therefore can be performed more reliably and quicker than\ncastration by X-rays.\n\nSoon I shall be able to submit a continuation of this work to you.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Handwritten] Your devoted,\n [Signed] BLANKENBURG\n\nEnclosure\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-211\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 169\n\n LETTER FROM PROFESSOR CLAUBERG TO HIMMLER, 30 MAY 1942 (REFERRING TO A\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT), CONCERNING THE URGENCY OF RESEARCH INTO\nBIOLOGICAL PROPAGATION AND STERILIZATION WITHOUT OPERATION, AND DRAFT OF\n A \u201cRESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL PROPAGATION\u201d\n\nProfessor C. Clauberg, M. D. Chief Physician of the Gynecological\nClinics of the Miners\u2019 (Knappschaft) Hospital and of the St. Hedwig\nHospital.\n\n Koenigshuette, Upper Silesia, 30 May 1942\n Telephone 409-31\n [Handwritten]\n Wednesday 8 July\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS Heinrich Himmler Through SS Obergruppenfuehrer\nand General of the Police Schmauser\n\n [Handwritten]\n discussed H. H. [Heinrich Himmler]\n\nDear Reich Leader!\n\nIn answer to my letter of 5 June 1941 \u201cconcerning the Research Institute\nfor Biological Propagation\u201d I received at that time by return mail the\nanswer of your personal adjutant, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Brandt, dated 19\nJune 1941 saying that you, Reich Leader, would come back to my expose as\nsoon as possible. Without any doubt the far more important events of the\nwar which happened shortly afterwards prevented this.\n\nIf I may remind you briefly, the continuation of my work had been\nrendered impossible because of the problem of carrying out the\nprocurement of female concentration camp inmates. On the occasion of a\nscientific discussion with the Stabsfuehrer of your office here, SS\nObersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Arlt, I also happened to speak about my\nresearch activities in the field of biological propagation. Dr. Arlt\ntold me then that the one person in Germany today who would be\nparticularly interested in these matters and who would be able to help\nme would be you, most honorable Reich Leader. In his capacity as a\nmember of the SS and Stabsfuehrer of your office here, I then told him\nbriefly that I had already submitted this matter to you.\n\nAfter this discussion, I most obediently take the liberty of asking you\nto make it possible for me to carry out these tasks here in Upper\nSilesia.\n\nIn order to explain what would be necessary at the moment\u2014that is, at\nleast for the time being\u2014the two most urgent questions and fundamental\nproblems should be stated briefly once more.\n\nA. In the question of the positive population policy, the eventual or\nmost probable importance of agriculture for the female capacity for\npropagation demands clarification. This is to be thoroughly probed and\ntested by experiments on animals, namely, on the experimental animal\nwhich is proverbially most fertile and at the same time variable in its\nfertility\u2014the rabbit. The question is whether good general nutrition\nwith food obtained through intensive farming can reduce fertility, and\nif this should be the case, what factor (positive or negative) is\nresponsible.\n\nB. In the question of the negative population policy the situation now\nis such that from animal experiments (in which I have demonstrated the\npossibility of sterilization without operation) we must proceed to the\nfirst experiments on human beings.\n\nFor that purpose the following is necessary:\n\nWith ref. to A. _Problem of fertility and agriculture._\n\n1. Land\u2014that is, as much \u201cuntouched\u201d, \u201cwild\u201d or hitherto \u201cbadly\u201d farmed\nland as possible. For the first animal experiments to be conducted at\nleast 10 Morgen [Morgen = 2/3 of an acre] would be needed.\n\n2. Personnel to till the land.\n\n3. Animal material\u2014that is, a few hundred female rabbits and the\ncorresponding number of males necessary.\n\n4. Animal hutches and shelters.\n\n5. Persons to attend and guard the animals.\n\nWith ref. to B. _Sterilization without operation._\n\n1. Occasional special billeting for 5 to 10 women (single rooms or rooms\nfor two persons) corresponding to the conditions of sick rooms.\n\n2. Special X-ray apparatus with installation and accessories.\n\n3. Smaller outfit of instruments and material.\n\nReich Leader! Without wishing to anticipate your decision, I am taking\nthe liberty of proposing that the experiments necessary for A and B be\ncarried out at the Auschwitz concentration camp and that the facilities\nthere be used. As I already told you in the course of our conversation,\nI would be very much pleased to work under you as head of an\nexperimental institute, directed exclusively by you.\n\nI believe that in view of the procurement of the land, the necessary\nanimals, the attending personnel, and the human material to be provided,\nan annex to your camp in Upper Silesia would offer the best facilities.\nCash would be needed only for the procurement of\u2014\n\nWith ref. to A.\n\n1. _Animal material._\n\n2. _Material for the animals\u2019 stables and shelters._\n\n3. _A conscientious working person to attend them._\n\nWith ref. to B.\n\n4. _Special accommodations for 5 to 10 female camp inmates undergoing\nexperiments._\n\n5. _Eventually a special X-ray installation._\n\n6. _Smaller outfit of instruments and material._\n\nReich Leader! The explanations and dispositions made here are related to\nthe fact that the most necessary and most urgent means for solution of\nthis problem should at once be created and set in motion. My suggestions\nare absolutely adapted to the present times and attempt to meet the\ncircumstances. As one problem arises from the other or\u2014I should rather\nsay\u2014as many further problems will arise, the ideal pattern of such a\n\u201cResearch Institution of the Reich Leader SS for Biological Propagation\u201d\nthe establishment of which is to be considered, would present itself as\nan entity, on the one hand far greater in scope, and on the other hand\nmore concentrated and closely knit in shape. A short sketch is enclosed\nas a suggestion for that purpose. This suggestion is to demonstrate the\npossibility of realization of all the thoughts discussed and submitted\nto you.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours most obediently,\n [Signed] PROF. CLAUBERG.\n\n * * * * *\n\n Draft of a \u201cResearch Institute for Biological Propagation\u201d\n\nThe center from which all ideas start, all problems are raised and their\nexecution directed, and finally turned over into practical use, is and\nremains the clinic. It must be an obstetric clinic at the same time. For\nthe problems (which are mostly of a hormonal nature) do not merely\nextend into practical gynecology and obstetrics but also reach deeply\ninto them and remain most closely connected with pregnancy and\nobstetrics as well. These problems are just as unlimited and therefore\nmust necessarily be solved step by step, as they are proving to be\nsuccessful for obstetrics also in the future.\n\nIn this clinic the possibility must be provided\u2014\n\n_a._ for most intensive treatment of women hitherto sterile but desirous\nof bearing children and for applying and testing of newly gained\nexperiences in cases hitherto seemingly hopeless.\n\n_b._ to evaluate the method of sterilization without operation\n(bloodless sterilization) on women unworthy of propagation and to use\nthis method continually after it is finally proved efficient.\n\nAttached to this clinic there is to be\u2014\n\n_c._ a laboratory for extensive animal experiments, which will always\nserve as a basis for further research.\n\nThere should also be incorporated in this research station\u2014\n\n_d._ an experimental farm as a basis for the solution of the questions\nof \u201cagriculture and fertility,\u201d that is\u2014\n\n1. far reaching nutrition experiments on animals, and\n\n2. far reaching nutrition experiments on human beings (female camp\ninmates).\n\nSketch enclosed.\n\n[Handwritten] 30 May 1942.\n\n CLAUBERG\n \u201c_Research Institute for Biological Propagation_\u201d\n\n_Experimental Farm_\u2014\n\n _a._ For far reaching nutrition experiments on the animal.\n\n Laboratory for further experimental research on animals.\n\n _b._ For far reaching nutrition experiments on human beings.\n (Special production of food for female camp inmates.)\n\n _Clinic for gynecology and obstetrics_\n\n_Clinical and Polyclinical Department_\u2014\n\n _a._ Treatment of sterile women desired to propagate.\n\n _b._ Further clinical research on cases of sterility hitherto\n seemingly hopeless.\n\n_Clinical department_\u2014\n\n For sterilization without operation (bloodless sterilization) on\n women (women unworthy of propagation or women whose propagation\n is not desirable\u2014at first to test method without operation,\n later for current use).\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-216\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 170\n\nMEMORANDUM OF RUDOLF BRANDT, JULY 1942, ON A DISCUSSION BETWEEN HIMMLER,\n GEBHARDT, GLUECKS, AND CLAUBERG CONCERNING STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS\n CONDUCTED ON JEWESSES\n\n Fuehrer Headquarters, July 1942\n Top Secret\n 1 copy\n\nOn 7 July 1942 a discussion took place between the Reich Leader SS, SS\nBrigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt, SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, and SS\nBrigadefuehrer Clauberg, Koenigshuette. The topic of the discussion was\nthe sterilization of Jewesses. The Reich Leader SS has promised SS\nBrigadefuehrer Professor Clauberg that Auschwitz concentration camp will\nbe at his disposal for his experiments on human beings and animals. By\nmeans of some fundamental experiments, a method should be found which\nwould lead to sterilization of persons without their knowledge. The\nReich Leader SS wanted to get another report as soon as the result of\nthese experiments was known, so that the sterilization of Jewesses could\nthen be carried out in actuality.\n\nIt should also be examined, preferably in cooperation with Professor Dr.\nHohlfelder, an X-ray specialist in Germany, what way sterilization of\nmen could be achieved by X-ray treatment.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS called the special attention of all gentlemen\npresent to the fact that the matter involved was most secret and should\nbe discussed only with the officers in charge and that the persons\npresent at the experiments or discussions had to pledge secrecy.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-213\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 171\n\n LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO CLAUBERG, 10 JULY 1942, TRANSMITTING\n INSTRUCTIONS OF HIMMLER TO PERFORM STERILIZATIONS ON JEWESSES AT\n CONCENTRATION CAMP RAVENSBRUECK\n\nReich Leader SS Personal Staff\nJournal Number 1266/42, Bra/Dr.\n\n [Handwritten]\n Returned 31 October 1942 by Pol. Administration K.\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 10 July 1942\n Top Secret\n [Handwritten]\n Original handed to G.\n 6 copies\u20146th copy\n\n1. Professor Clauberg\nKoenigshuette.\n\n [Handwritten]\n W 1-10\n 1-5-43\n\nDear Professor!\n\nToday the Reich Leader SS charged me with transmitting to you his wish\nthat you go to Ravensbrueck after you have had another talk with SS\nObergruppenfuehrer Pohl and the camp physician of the women\u2019s\nconcentration camp Ravensbrueck, in order to perform the sterilization\nof Jewesses according to your method.\n\nBefore you start your job, the Reich Leader SS would be interested to\nlearn from you how long it would take to sterilize a thousand Jewesses.\nThe Jewesses themselves should not know anything about it. As the Reich\nLeader SS understands it, you could give the appropriate injections\nduring a general examination.\n\nThorough experiments should be conducted to investigate the effect of\nthe sterilization largely in a way that you find out after a certain\ntime, which you would have to fix, perhaps by X-rays, what kind of\nchanges have taken place. In some cases a practical experiment might be\narranged by locking up a Jewess and a Jew together for a certain period\nand then seeing what results are achieved.\n\nI ask you to let me know your opinion about my letter for the\ninformation of the Reich Leader SS.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n2. To SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin.\n[Handwritten] delivered to Boemer\n\nPlease acknowledge. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegel also received a copy\nfor the information of the camp physician. Moreover the Reich Physician\nSS and the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) received a copy.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n3. To SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz, Reich Physician SS.\n\nPlease acknowledge.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n4. To SS. Obersturmbannfuehrer Koegel, WVHA.\n\nPlease acknowledge and inform the camp physician.\n\n [Signed] BRANDT\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n5. To the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA), Berlin.\n\nSS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther, IV B 4 (Department for Jews).\n\n [Handwritten] SS GRUF. MUELLER\n\nPlease acknowledge.\n\n [Initialed] BR.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-212\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 173\n\n LETTER FROM PROFESSOR CLAUBERG TO HIMMLER, 7 JUNE 1943, REPORTING ON\n RESEARCH IN CONNECTION WITH THE STERILIZATION OF WOMEN\n\nProfessor Dr. C. Clauberg,\n\nChief Physician of the Clinics for Women of the Miners\u2019 (Knappschaft)\nHospital and the St. Hedwig Hospital\n\n Koenigshuette O. S., 7 June 1943\n Telephone: 409-31\n\n Secret\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS\nHeinrich Himmler\nBerlin\nDear Reich Leader,\n\nToday I am fulfilling my obligation to report to you from time to time\nabout the state of my research work. In doing this I am, as before,\nadhering to the procedure to report only if the matter is essential. The\nfact that, after my most recent interview in July 1942, I could not do\nso before today is due to temporary difficulties against which I myself\nwas powerless and with which I could not bother you, Reich Leader. I\nmention as an example that only since February 1943 am I in possession\nof an X-ray installation, which is of great value to my special\nresearch. In spite of the short period of actually only 4 months, it is\nalready today possible to report to you the following:\n\n_The method I contrived to achieve the sterilization of the female\norganism without operation is as good as perfected. It can be performed\nby a single injection made through the entrance of the uterus in the\ncourse of the customary gynecological examination known to every\nphysician._\u2014If I say that the method is \u201cas good as perfected,\u201d this\nmeans:\n\n1. Still to be worked out are only minor improvements of the method.\n\n2. Already today it could be put to practical use in the course of our\n_regular_ eugenic sterilization and could thus replace the operation.\n\nAs to the question which you, Reich Leader, asked me almost one year\nago, i. e., how much time would probably be required to sterilize 1,000\nwomen by using this method. Today I can answer you with regard to the\nfuture as follows:\n\nIf my researches continue to have the same results as up to now\u2014and\nthere is no reason to doubt that\u2014then the moment is not far off when I\ncan say:\n\n \u201c_One_ adequately trained physician in _one_ adequately equipped\n place, with perhaps 10 assistants (the number of assistants in\n conformity with the speed desired) _will most likely be able to\n deal with several hundred, if not even 1,000 per day_.\u201d\n\nPlease permit me to postpone my report about the other part of my\nresearches (positive population policy) because it will take some time\nuntil something decisive can be said in this field.\n\nReich Leader! The main reason for my reporting to you today, shortly\nbefore the possibility of even more final results, is the following:\n\nI know that the settlement of the last part of this particular complex\nof problems\u2014in contrast to the external forces which determined the\nprogress so far\u2014depends _now_ almost entirely on me. In this\nconnection, several minor but nevertheless fundamental changes would be\nnecessary which only you, my dear Reich Leader, can personally direct\nand order. I had hoped that I would be able to give you personally a\nshort description of these requirements in the event of a visit to Upper\nSilesia. Since I have not had this opportunity, I am asking you for your\ndecision today.\n\nIn addition I should like to make a further request. It was SS\nBrigadefuehrer _Dr. Blumenreuter_ who finally managed to get me the one\nsuitable X-ray installation. I am in urgent need of another installation\nof the same kind, and he informed me in February that he had another one\nstored in Berlin. He was ready to deliver it to me if I would secure\nyour approval.\n\nMay I ask you, Reich Leader, for this approval?\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] CLAUBERG\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEFENDANT VIKTOR BRACK[84]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. FROESCHMANN: What plans are you talking about?\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: The plans to exterminate the Jews which I told you\nabout before. Having known them and having been in the Party Chancellery\nin the course of this conversation when I told Himmler that Grafeneck\nwas to be abandoned, Himmler also told me of communications he had\nreceived from Poland, according to which the Jews there were using the\ntemporary impotence of the Polish government to strengthen their own\nposition and Himmler said something had to be done about this. He said\nsomething had to be undertaken to stop this because through the mixing\nof blood in the Polish Jews with that of the Jews from Western Europe a\nmuch greater danger for Germany was arising than even before the war,\nand he said it was his intention to sterilize the Jews according to\nreliable methods, according to a procedure which would permit mass\nsterilization. Operative sterilization was out of the question for one\nthing because you couldn\u2019t do that without leaving some scar. Then he\nbrought up the question, could not this be done with X-ray treatment?\nHowever, I didn\u2019t know about this for sure, and in fact nobody knew\nabout it, and especially didn\u2019t know whether the person in question\ncould be treated without noticing something. Himmler then said that\nBouhler had gathered together so many scientists and doctors in the\nEuthanasia Program, consequently I should try to find out from him what\nhe could tell me about sterilization, and tell him to report to me\nagain.\n\nQ. Well, what was the effect of this communication from Himmler on you?\n\nA. This made a great impression on me. I believed that Heydrich could\nreally have been the instigator of all of this.\n\nIn my interrogation I told the interrogator that I regarded such a plan\nto exterminate the Jews as unworthy of Germany and its leaders. From\nwhat I knew of Himmler it would never have occurred to me that such a\ndestructive idea could have originated in his mind. Be that, however, as\nit may, whether the idea originated with Heydrich or Bormann, my\nattitude was opposed to this; and I felt that I was under the obligation\nto do anything I could to prevent this. If I had raised the least\nobjection to it openly, I would have aroused great suspicion of myself\nand would have aroused a false reaction in Himmler. Therefore, I had to\nmake the best of a bad job and had to pretend that I agreed with\nHimmler. I pretended to be willing to clarify the question of mass\nsterilization through X-ray methods. Many years ago I had been subjected\nto X-ray treatment for quite a period of time and had discussed with the\ndoctor the effect of X-rays on the human body. Now I remembered from\nthose discussions that the effect of X-rays on the sexual organs is only\nof slight importance and not lasting. Moreover, I knew that one of my\nassociates was personally acquainted with an X-ray specialist and he\ntold me that this specialist was conducting experiments on the effects\nof X-rays on the fertility of animals. However, there seemed to be no\nresult.\n\nQ. Mr. President, I present an affidavit of 25 February 1947, by Dr.\nMartin Zeller, a specialist, born 3 December 1880, living in Munich,\nsigned by him on this same date and certified by myself. (_Brack 26,\nBrack Ex. 31._) This affidavit contributes to the understanding of this\nmatter now under discussion and I quote:\n\n \u201cI remember distinctly that 10 to 15 years ago I spoke to Viktor\n Brack about X-ray injuries. Brack was worried that he might\n develop an X-ray injury; at that time his knee had been X-rayed.\n When some time afterwards he had rough hands he thought that\n might be an X-ray burn. I explained to him that no injuries\n could result from our X-ray examinations since the quantities of\n radiation used for diagnosis were small and besides, the more\n distant parts of the body (that is, in the case of a picture of\n the knee being taken, the hands and genitals) were not in the\n danger zone under modern technical conditions.\n\n \u201cI also made the remark that even an intentional sterilization\n by X-ray treatment would, especially in the case of young\n persons, be difficult to achieve and even then only with a\n strong dose of prolonged radiation.\u201d\n\nAnd then in paragraph 2 the witness continues:\n\n \u201cIt is quite possible that Brack in this way developed the views\n he brought forward, i. e., that the effect of X-rays upon the\n sexual organs is negligible, and that the danger of\n sterilization does not exist at all. The layman will not\n differentiate between X-ray diagnostics and X-ray therapy.\u201d\n\nA. I took this associate into my confidence and told him of my intention\nto deceive Himmler, if only to gain time. We agreed to deceive Himmler\nby giving him a certificate that seemed to say that sterilization by\nX-ray methods was possible and we would thus get him to pursue a false\npath. Just what was said in this certificate I do not know any longer.\nAt any rate there were no positive results in it so that we couldn\u2019t put\nit to Himmler in this form.\n\nDR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, let me remark in this connection, that\nafter great efforts I have succeeded in finding the man who drew up this\ncertificate of which the witness has just been speaking. I have found\nout his name and address. He lives in the Russian zone and for that\nreason it was not possible for me to get a copy of that certificate that\nhe drew up at that time. However, I have contacted this doctor and he\nhas declared his readiness to come to Nuernberg and to give me an\naffidavit, because as he said it, it would be a matter of course that he\nshould help an innocent man if his testimony could do so. He does\nremember having given this certificate to Brack or to his associates and\nI ask permission to reserve the right to put this affidavit in evidence\nas soon as I have it, and when perhaps the doctor has had a chance to\nspeak to the defendant.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel for defendant Brack may offer the\naffidavit as soon as it is received so long as it complies with the\nevidence in the case.\n\nDR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you, your Honor. Witness, please continue.\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: Naturally, this factor of uncertainty had to be taken\ninto consideration.\n\nQ. What exactly are you speaking of?\n\nA. I am talking about the report we received.\n\nQ. You mean the man who drew up the certificate, the expert?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Now, counsel, I don\u2019t want you to misunderstand\nme. I said counsel may offer the affidavit; that means it is offered\nsubject to any objection raised by the prosecution as to the form of the\naffidavit or its relevancy. Yesterday, the affidavits from Brazil were\npossibly offered by you because the Tribunal had said that they might be\noffered. The right to offer simply means offered, subject to objection,\nand that is not equivalent to saying that the affidavit will be received\nin evidence but it may be offered. That is the sense in which I have\nused the word \u201coffer\u201d towards this affidavit.\n\nDR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, your Honor, I understood the President and I shall\nonly submit an affidavit which is in compliance with the regulation of\nthis Tribunal. Would you please continue, Witness?\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: My collaborator changed the contents of this\ncertificate in such a manner that sterilization becomes apparent as\nsomething possible from a medical point of view. That is exactly what is\ncontained in my affidavit. Thus, this letter dated 28 March 1941,\noriginated with Document NO-203, Prosecution Exhibit 161.\n\nQ. Mr. President, let us reconstruct this letter quite shortly. I shall\nquote. It is addressed by Brack to Himmler, marked \u201cTop Secret.\u201d\n\n \u201cDear Reich Leader:\n\n \u201cEnclosed I send to you for your information the report of the\n examination regarding the possibility of an X-ray sterilization\n or castration. I ask you to tell me whether anything can be done\n in the matter either theoretically or practically.\u201d\n\nThat is the covering letter. This covering letter, Witness, in\nconnection with the report which is attached was considered by the\nprosecution as being a serious suggestion for sterilization and the\nprosecution in that connection has stated that this needed no comment.\nWhat is your attitude toward it?\n\nA. Neither the former nor the latter is correct. I admit that if one\nreads this letter or report without knowing the connections that\nimpression can be created. I therefore have to attempt to analyze this\nreport in order to explain to the Tribunal what we tried to achieve with\nthis letter. I have to emphasize once more that the entire thing was a\nmaneuver of deceit.\n\nQ. With reference to the report which you attached to this letter\n(_NO-203, Pros. Ex. 161_) I should like to quote from it a very brief\npassage:\n\n \u201cReport on experiments concerning X-ray castration.\n\n \u201cThe experiments in this field are concluded. The following\n result can be considered as established and adequately based on\n scientific research.\n\n \u201cIf any persons are to be sterilized permanently, this result\n can only be attained by applying X-rays in a dosage high enough\n to produce castration with all its consequences, since high\n X-ray dosages destroy the internal secretion of the ovary or of\n the testicles, respectively. Lower dosages would only\n temporarily paralyze the procreative capacity. The consequences\n in question are, for example, the disappearance of menstruation,\n climacteric phenomena, changes in capillary growth, modification\n of metabolism, etc. In any case, attention must be drawn to\n these disadvantages.\n\n \u201cThe actual dosage can be given in various ways, and irradiation\n can take place quite imperceptibly. The necessary local dosage\n for men is 500-600 r, for women 300-350 r. In general, an\n irradiation period of 2 minutes for men, 3 minutes for women,\n with the highest voltage, a thin filter, and at a short distance\n ought to be sufficient. There is, however, a disadvantage that\n has to be put up with. It is impossible unnoticeably to cover\n the rest of the body with lead, the other tissues of the body\n will be injured, and radiologic malaise, the so-called\n \u2018Roentgenkater,\u2019 will ensue.\u201d\n\nWitness, would you define your attitude toward this letter which I\npartly read?\n\nA. I was speaking in connection with the talk I had with Himmler in the\nyear of 1941. This becomes apparent from the paragraph \u201cI herewith\nsubmit the result of an X-ray examination.\u201d It looks now as though in\neffect experiments had been carried out by scientists, which was not the\ncase. Himmler had to be reassured and that is why we had to emphasize\nthat the experiments had been concluded and the result could be based on\nscientific work. Of course, we couldn\u2019t state the result as being\nabsolutely positive. We had to leave it to Himmler himself to judge it.\nIn the first instance it was our intention to get Himmler off the idea.\nThat is why we chose the formulation which can be seen in that\nletter\u2014\u201cIf any persons are to be sterilized permanently.\u201d It meant in\neffect that this was theoretically possible. At the same time, however,\nwe pointed out that this success cannot be concealed and that phenomena\nwill arise. That obviously was shown by the contents of the certificate\nitself, and it is emphasized that permanent sterilization makes a high\ndosage of X-rays necessary. These high dosages would then bring about\nthe effects of castration with all of the accompanying symptoms which\nwould be noticed immediately. If, however, lower dosages were used, you\nwould only have stopped procreative capacity for a short time. We\nactually said that at the end of the report, namely, that the result of\nsterilization could be ascertained after a comparatively short time but\nthat it was impossible to achieve the results of bringing about\nsterilization without being noticed, and in this way we thought we could\nget Himmler to give up that idea.\n\nQ. Now, this was the first part of the letter. Now, let us discuss the\nsecond part. I am again referring to the method which you suggested to\nHimmler. You thought at that time \u201cOne practical way of proceeding would\nbe, for instance, to let the persons to be treated approach a counter,\nwhere they could be asked to answer some questions or to fill in forms,\nwhich take them 2 or 3 minutes. The official sitting behind the counter\ncould operate the installation in such a way as to turn a switch which\nwould activate the two valves simultaneously (since the irradiation is\nto operate from both sides). With a two-valve installation about 150-200\npersons could then be sterilized per day and, therefore, with 20 such\ninstallations as many as 3,000-4,000 persons per day. In my estimation a\nlarger daily number could not in any case be sent away for this\npurpose.\u201d\n\nHerr Brack, how could you arrive at this idea of turning switches? This\nis completely nonunderstandable for a layman.\n\nA. Himmler wanted this procedure to be carried out as simply as\npossible. Therefore, we had to suggest as simple a method as we could\nthink of. On the other hand, this method increased the uncertainty of\ndirecting the rays to the corresponding parts of the body. That is what\nwas discussed by my collaborator with his acquaintance. We suggested\nthis switch method to Himmler with the idea of making this matter as\nsimple as possible and at the same time preventing any active X-ray\nreaching the body. Furthermore, only 2-3 minutes were suggested as the\nlength of time for these people to be subjected to these X-rays. How we\narrived at these 500-600 figures\u2014or 350 r.\u2014I don\u2019t know whether they\nwere just invented or whether they were based upon something. I don\u2019t\nknow. But looking at it as a whole it contained a number of points that\nwere to demonstrate to Himmler that the whole thing could not be carried\nout. There is a scientific basis for these suggestions.\n\nDR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, in connection with this point I have\ntried to get an unobjectionable irreproachable certificate for the\ncorrectness of what the defendant just stated. I shall get a certificate\nfrom a specialist. The man concerned says that this suggestion is\nabsolutely senseless. I had, however, to wait for this certificate\nbecause I had to wait for an affidavit from another expert physician.\nWith the permission of the Tribunal, I shall obtain a corresponding\ncertificate from a radiologist who can show that it is credible that\nthis entire suggestion was really scientific nonsense.\n\nA. We had to take into account the possibility that Himmler might accept\nthis proposal in spite of all these difficulties. We knew, however, that\nthe preparation of any such installation would take a long time, for the\nbuilding, etc. We thought that the war would end very quickly, and as I\nsaid before I didn\u2019t know there was any threat from the West. And, in\ncase of peace, the Madagascar plan, which had already been rejected,\ncould once more be placed in the foreground. If on the other hand this\nsuggestion was to be accepted and if at that time the war had not yet\nended, the carrying out of this experiment on the 100-200 Jews was much\nless of an evil than Himmler taking the Jews and sterilizing them en\nmasse or doing something worse to them.\n\nQ. Mr. Brack, if I understand you correctly, you\u2019re saying that, at that\ntime, you had to make a decision between either killing millions of Jews\nor choosing the smaller evil by only suggesting this small number which\nyou have mentioned upon whom experiments might be carried out. Is my\nopinion correct?\n\nA. During my interrogations I designated this dilemma in a way by saying\nthat this was our last way out. But, naturally, when judging these two\npossibilities one must take into consideration that one decides upon one\npossibility and, at the same time, feels an inner justification for\ndoing so. The same way as a troop commander sacrifices a few thousand\npeople somewhere if he can save a hundred thousand somewhere else.\n\nQ. Now, Mr. Brack, in order to finish with this letter I want to say\nthat you have stated the following at the end of that letter, and I\nquote:\n\n \u201cIn summary it may be said that, having regard to the present\n state of radiological technique and research, mass sterilization\n by means of X-rays can be carried out without difficulty.\n However, it seems to be impossible to do this in such a way that\n the persons concerned do not, sooner or later, realize with\n certainty that they have been sterilized or castrated by\n X-rays.\u201d\n\nIn your covering letter you apparently mentioned your second letter, and\nI quote:\n\n \u201cI request your instructions as to further theoretical or\n practical steps if any are to be taken in this matter.\u201d\n\nWhat is the significance of this latter statement?\n\nA. By using this formulation I endeavored to keep control of the\ndevelopment of that matter. I never really counted on the realization of\nthese experiments and I never had any intention of submitting a serious\nproposal to Himmler which would cause the sterilization of millions of\nJews, but if Himmler was to accept this nonsensical proposal I wanted to\nhave his idea delayed as long as possible. If this suggestion had been\nserious on my part I would have had to be a fanatical Jew hater, and I\nthink I have already proved that I was not such a person.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[81] Trial of the Major War Criminals, International Military Tribunal,\nNuremberg, 1947, vol. I, pp. 247-253.\n\n[82] Judgment of the IMT. Ibid.\n\n[83] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947,\npp. 10874-10910.\n\n[84] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 7, 8, 9,\n12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 May 1947, pp. 7413-7772.\n\n\n B. Jewish Skeleton Collection\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were charged with criminal\nresponsibility and participation in plans and enterprises, involving the\nmurder of civilians and members of the armed forces of nations at war\nwith the German Reich, and specifically with the murder of 112 Jews for\nthe purpose of completing a skeleton collection for the Reich University\nat Strasbourg (par. 7 of the indictment). On this charge both defendants\nwere convicted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence and argumentation on the\nJewish skeleton collection is contained in its closing brief against the\ndefendant Sievers. An extract from this brief is set forth below on\npages 739 to 741. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the\ndefense has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant\nSievers. It appears below on pages 741 to 747. This argumentation is\nfollowed by selections from the evidence on pages 748 to 759.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Skeleton Collection_\n\nIn response to a request by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, on 9 February\n1942, Sievers submitted to him a report by Dr. Hirt of the University of\nStrasbourg on the desirability of securing a collection of Jewish\nskeletons. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) In this report, Hirt advocated\noutright murder of \u201cJewish Bolshevik Commissars\u201d for the procurement of\nsuch a collection. He stated:\n\n \u201cBy procuring the skulls of the Jewish Bolshevik Commissars, who\n personify a repulsive, yet characteristic subhumanity, we have\n the opportunity of obtaining tangible scientific evidence. The\n actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls _without_\n difficulty could be best accomplished by a directive issued to\n the Wehrmacht in the future to immediately turn over alive all\n Jewish Bolshevik Commissars to the field police.\u201d\n\nThese units were to report to a special office which would send out\nspecialists to have photographs and anthropological measurements taken\nand ascertain the origin, birth date, and other personal data of the\nvictims. Hirt further stated:\n\n \u201cFollowing _the subsequently induced death_ of the Jew, whose\n head must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the\n torso and will forward it to its point of destination in a\n preserving fluid in a well-sealed tin container especially made\n for this purpose. On the basis of the photos, the measurements,\n and other data on the head and, finally, the skull itself,\n comparative anatomical research, research on racial\n classification, pathological features of the skull formation,\n form and size of the brain, and many other things can begin. In\n accordance with its scope and tasks, the new Reich University of\n Strasbourg would be the most appropriate place for the\n collection of and research upon these skulls thus acquired.\u201d\n [Emphasis supplied.]\n\nOn 27 February 1942, Brandt informed Sievers that Himmler would support\nHirt\u2019s work and would place everything necessary at his disposal. Brandt\nrequested Sievers to inform Hirt accordingly and to report again on\nHirt\u2019s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._)\n\nHirt\u2019s murderous and inhuman plan was carried out in a way which\ndiffered but slightly from the suggestion made in his preliminary\nreport. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) The proof has shown that it was\ndecided to preserve the whole skeletons of the victims rather than\nmerely the skulls. On 2 November 1942 Sievers requested Brandt to make\nthe necessary arrangements with the Reich Security Main Office for\nproviding 150 Jewish inmates from Auschwitz to carry out this plan.\n(_NO-086, Pros. Ex. 177._) On 6 November Brandt informed Adolf Eichmann,\nthe Chief of Office IV-B-4 (Jewish affairs) of the Reich Security Main\nOffice to put everything at Hirt\u2019s disposal which was necessary for the\ncompletion of the skeleton collection. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._)\n\nFrom Sievers\u2019 letter to Eichmann of 21 June 1943, it is apparent that SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Beger, a collaborator of the Ahnenerbe Society,\ncarried out the preliminary work for the assembling of the skeleton\ncollection in the Auschwitz concentration camp on 79 Jews, 30 Jewesses,\n2 Poles, and 4 Asiatics. In this letter, Sievers stated that Beger had\nto interrupt his work because of the danger of infectious diseases in\nthe camp. Sievers requested that the inmates on whom Beger had carried\nout this work be transferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp\nbecause further activities in Auschwitz were impossible due to the\ndanger of infection. Special accommodation for the thirty women was to\nbe provided in the Natzweiler concentration camp \u201c_for a short period_\u201d.\n[Emphasis added.] (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._)\n\nThe statement of the camp commandant of the Natzweiler concentration\ncamp, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Josef Kramer, reveals that approximately 80\ninmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp, among them females, were\ntransferred to the Natzweiler concentration camp and killed there by gas\nat the request of Hirt in the beginning of August 1943. A special gas\nchamber had been built for this purpose. The corpses of the victims were\nsent in three shipments to the Anatomical Institute of Hirt in\nStrasbourg University. (_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._) This evidence is\ncorroborated by the testimony of the witness Henripierre. He testified\nthat in the beginning of August 1943, the principal autopsy technician\nof the Anatomical Institute, Bong, received the order from Hirt to\nprepare the tanks in the cellar of the Institute for approximately 120\ncorpses. At intervals of a few days, three shipments of corpses, 30\nfemale, 30 male, and 26 male, arrived by truck from an unknown place.\nAll of these victims were Jewish. These corpses were preserved in the\ncellar of the Anatomical Institute in the tanks prepared by Bong. (_Tr.\npp. 712-4._) See also the affidavit of Wagner. (_NO-881, Pros. Ex.\n280._) As proved by the Sievers\u2019 diary, Beger was ordered to prepare\nplaster casts of the victims. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)\n\nEarly in September 1944, when the Allied armies were threatening\nStrasbourg, Sievers approached the defendant Brandt with the request for\ninstructions as to what should be done with the Jewish bodies which were\nstill stored in the tanks in the cellar of the Anatomical Institute. He\ninformed Brandt that Hirt would be able to \u201cde-flesh\u201d the corpses and\nthus render them unrecognizable, but in this case part of the work would\nhave been done in vain \u201cand it would be a great scientific loss for this\n_unique collection_ because casts could not be made afterwards. The\nskeleton collection is not conspicuous. Viscera could be declared as\nremnants of corpses, apparently left in the Anatomical Institute by the\nFrench and ordered to be cremated.\u201d Sievers requested a directive from\nBrandt whether the collection should be preserved, partly dissolved, or\ncompletely dissolved. (_NO-088, Pros. Ex. 182._)\n\nFrom the memorandum of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Berg, and his telephone\nconversation with Sievers on 15 October 1944, it is apparent that it was\nfirst decided to destroy the evidence of these brutal crimes, but with a\ntemporary improvement in the military situation, this decision was\nrescinded. Sievers informed Berg on 21 October 1944 that, in compliance\nwith the orders he had received previously, the dissolution of the\ncollection had been completed. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._) But such was\nnot the case. Hirt had ordered Bong and his assistant, Meyer, to cut up\nthe 86 corpses and have them cremated in the Strasbourg crematorium, but\nthese two men alone were unable to carry out this enormous task. A\nnumber of corpses remained un-dissected and were left in the tanks,\ntogether with partially dissected corpses, in order to create the\nimpression that they were used for normal anatomical research. (_Tr. p.\n715; NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280._)\n\nThe pictures of these corpses and of the gas chambers in the Natzweiler\nconcentration camp, where the victims of the Jewish skeleton collection\nwere murdered, taken by the French authorities after the liberation of\nStrasbourg, tell the grim story of this mass murder more vividly than\nwitnesses and documents ever could. (_NO-483, Pros. Ex. 184_; _NO-807,\nPros. Ex. 185_.)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT SIEVERS_\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn 1943 a collection of Jewish skeletons was set up in the Anatomy\nDepartment of the Reich University of Strasbourg according to plans\nwhich had been prepared in 1941 by Himmler and the Director of this\nAnatomy Department, Professor Dr. Hirt. The skeletons were to be\nobtained by selecting the required number of persons in the\nconcentration camp at Auschwitz from among the Bolshevist commissars who\nhad been taken prisoner in the campaign against the Soviet Union. The\nliquidation of the persons chosen took place in the concentration camp\nat Natzweiler.\n\nWhether the liquidation entailed a death which was deserved or\nundeserved on the part of the persons chosen depends upon whether the\n\u201cCommissar Order,\u201d which was the basis of the liquidation, can be\nregarded as legal and permissible or not. A detailed examination of this\nquestion can be excluded here, since subjective grounds are of decisive\nsignificance in this connection.\n\nSievers did _not_ take part personally _either in the selection or in\nthe liquidation_ of those persons designated for the skeleton\ncollection. The choosing was undertaken by a certain Dr. Beger in the\nconcentration camp at Auschwitz. (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._) Sievers\nhimself was never in Auschwitz. The liquidation took place in the\nconcentration camp at Natzweiler. The _earliest date_ at which the\nliquidation could have taken place is shown by the date of the\naforementioned document which is dated 21 June 1943. After 23 January\n1943, Sievers was no longer in Natzweiler. Therefore, any personal\nparticipation of Sievers in the selection as well as the liquidation is\nout of the question.\n\nWe must now examine whether the setting up of the skeleton collection\nand the associated liquidation of those persons selected took place on\nSievers\u2019 orders or instructions\u2014\n\nThe _prosecution_ has submitted and read:\n\n Letter of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Ahnenerbe to\n Brandt, dated 9 February 1942, with a report from Dr. Hirt in\n which the latter suggests a collection of skulls for the\n University of Strasbourg which was to be obtained from\n Jewish-Bolshevist Commissars. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._)\n\n Letter of Brandt to Sievers, dated 27 February 1942, with the\n report that the Reich Leader SS is quite interested in the work\n of Professor Hirt and will place at his disposal everything\n which he requires for his experiments. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex.\n 176._)\n\n Letter of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Ahnenerbe to Dr.\n Brandt, dated 2 November 1942, regarding the requisition of 150\n skeletons of prisoners for certain anthropological examinations.\n (_NO-086, Pros. Ex. 177._)\n\n Personal staff Reich Leader SS to Reichssicherheitshauptamt\n (Main Office for the Security of the Reich), dated 6 November\n 1942, regarding transmission of the order of the Reich Leader SS\n to make possible the construction of the skeleton collection as\n planned. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._)\n\n Letter of the personal staff Reich Leader SS to the Ahnenerbe,\n dated 3 December 1942, regarding remedying of deficiencies\n through SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex. 180._)\n\n Letter of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the\n Reichssicherheitshauptamt (Main Office for the Security of the\n Reich), dated 21 June 1943, regarding the transfer of the 115\n persons selected by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger in the\n concentration camp at Auschwitz. (_NO-087, Pros. Ex. 181._)\n\n Telegram of the personal staff, office \u201cA\u201d, to Dr. Brandt, dated\n 5 September 1944, regarding the procurement of instructions as\n to what should happen to the collection in the event Strasbourg\n should be endangered. (_NO-088, Pros. Ex. 182._)\n\n Two memoranda of Berg, dated 15 and 26 October 1944, regarding\n the breaking up of the collection. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._)\n\n Several entries in the diary of Sievers, 1943-44.\n\n A letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt, dated 3 January 1942, has been\n offered by the prosecution. (_NO-3629, Pros. Ex. 547._) This\n letter contains the request of Himmler to Hirt to make available\n to him a detailed report regarding his experiments which then\n could serve as basis for a conference.\n\n Letter of the Reich Business Manager to Dr. Hirt, dated 29\n October 1942, regarding the granting of subsidies for research\n activities. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._)\n\nIn this respect, _counsel for the defense_ declares:\n\nThe idea of setting up a skull collection of Jewish-Bolshevist\nCommissars initiated with Dr. Hirt, director of the Anatomy Department\nof the University of Strasbourg. Dr. Hirt himself submitted to Himmler\nthe suggestion for setting up such a collection. (_Tr. p. 5704._) The\nsuggestion received Himmler\u2019s complete assistance. Himmler issued\ninstructions to place everything at Hirt\u2019s disposal which he required\nfor his experiments. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) In addition to this,\nHimmler issued an order through his personal staff on 6 November 1942\nthat everything necessary will be placed at the disposal of Professor\nDr. Hirt. (_NO-089, Pros. Ex. 179._)\n\nIt can be seen from the letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader\nSS to the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, dated 25 March 1942,\nhow energetically Himmler favored the experiments of Dr. Hirt. This\nletter states:\n\n \u201cIn this connection, please get in touch with Hirt as soon as\n possible and consider further how Hirt can best be brought\n closer to us.\u201d (_Sievers 53, Sievers Ex. 49._)\n\nIt can be seen further from the direct examination of Sievers that Dr.\nHirt was a confidant of Himmler, for Sievers was able to establish this\nfact as early as 1936 and in the subsequent years had an opportunity to\nrepeat this observation. (_Tr. pp. 5706-7._)\n\nThis can also be established by means of the conference which took place\nat Easter 1942 regarding the course of which Sievers has given a\ndetailed description. Among other things, Sievers called attention to\nthe fact that Hirt and his anatomical collection, which was a University\nmatter, did not concern the Ahnenerbe in any way.\n\nHimmler became quite active after this aggressive action of Sievers,\nfollowing which the latter requested an order in writing. (_Tr. p.\n5715._)\n\nIn this connection, the order of Himmler, dated 7 July 1942, must also\nbe mentioned. Figure 2 reads as follows (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33_):\n\n \u201cI order the Ahnenerbe\n\n \u201c1. * * *\n\n \u201c2. To aid in every possible manner the research activities of\n SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and in the same way\n promote all the experiments and work pertinent to same.\u201d\n\nThese facts were necessary in order to clarify matters for the chief\ninstigators, Himmler and Hirt. Everyone cognizant of the conditions\nknows that it was also impossible in this case to act in any way\ncontrary to the orders issued by Himmler.\n\nUntil the Easter conference of 1942, Sievers knew nothing of the\nCommissar Order; Himmler at that time showed him pictures of Bolshevist\nCommissars, men and women who had been arrested, as well as pictures of\nGerman soldiers and civilians who had been killed and mutilated in the\nmost horrible manner by these male and female monsters. This influenced\nSievers\u2019 attitude toward the \u201cCommissar Order,\u201d the contents of which he\nlearned in outline at that time. The original text of the \u201cCommissar\nOrder\u201d could not be produced during the Goering[85] trial. For a\nclarification of the contents of this order, counsel for the defense\nrefers to the\u2014\n\n \u201cDirectives for the commands of the Chiefs of the Security\n Police and of the Security Service (SD) to be transferred to the\n Stalags.\u201d (_Sievers 54, Sievers Ex. 50._)\n\nAs in the other cases, Sievers\u2019 activity consisted in forwarding\ncorrespondence, whether it came from \u201cabove,\u201d that is, Himmler, Rudolf\nBrandt, or from Hirt or other third parties. It can be shown\nconclusively that he himself issued no instructions and orders and\nthereby exercised no decisive activity.\n\nThe suggestion to set up a Jewish-Bolshevist skull collection did not\noriginate with Sievers but with Dr. Hirt. The order for this was issued\nby Himmler, who also ordered that Hirt should be granted all possible\nassistance.\n\nHimmler requested information about the anthropological experiments of\nDr. Hirt from Sievers and ordered the presentation of a report from Dr.\nHirt. Thereafter, Sievers submitted, on 9 February 1942, the report\nrequested again by Dr. Brandt on 29 December 1941.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAfter his meeting with Hirt in May 1941 and his brief report to Himmler,\nSievers obviously did not concern himself further with the entire\nmatter, until Himmler, in his letter dated 29 December 1941, requested a\ndetailed report from Hirt through Dr. Brandt. This can be seen from the\nreference memorandum of Sievers dated 9 February 1942 in his letter of 9\nFebruary 1942 to R. Brandt (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175_) and was also stated\nby Sievers on direct examination. (_Tr. p. 5704._) At that time, Himmler\nimparted the information which Sievers passed on to Hirt in his letter\nof 3 January 1942. In this letter, the question of a Jewish-Bolshevist\nskull collection was never mentioned but simply the matter of\nanthropological experiments. It is generally known that the carrying out\nof anthropological experiments forms a part of the chief duties of every\nanatomical institute, and also that such experiments are conducted on\ndesignated groups of persons, and that persons who have been executed\nare turned over to anatomical institutes for research purposes. Upon the\nrequest of Hirt for assistance in his anthropological experiments,\nHimmler immediately made a corresponding offer; as the competent chief\nof the German police, he was in a position to do so. And Sievers, at\nthat time, need not have assumed, by any stretch of the imagination that\nthe experimental subjects were to be killed for this purpose. On the\nbasis of the general practice, he could perhaps more easily assume that\nonly the corpses of those legally condemned to death and legally\nexecuted would be considered for the experiments of Hirt. Today we know\nthat it was compatible with his criminal mentality insofar as human\nexperiments and the like were concerned. At that time, the latter part\nof 1941, no one who, like Sievers, had not up to this time come in\ncontact with experiments on human beings could have suspected in advance\nthat in this case it would be a question of criminal acts.\n\nIn addition, there was no provision made at all at this time for Hirt\u2019s\nworking in connection with the Ahnenerbe. In his letter of 3 January\n1942 to Hirt, Sievers writes:\n\n \u201cIn order to effect your transfer to the Ahnenerbe, that is, to\n the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, I would like some\n information from you.\u201d\n\nNaturally, Himmler wanted Hirt to be as close to him as possible, but in\nreference to the transfer Sievers adds: \u201c* * * that is, to the Personal\nStaff of the Reich Leader SS\u201d, for neither Sievers nor Hirt assumed that\nHirt would receive the support of Himmler through the Institute for\nHumanistic Studies of the Ahnenerbe of all things. This was also\ntestified to by Sievers on direct examination. (_Tr. pp. 5715 6._)\n\nNot until later did Hirt\u2019s connection with the Ahnenerbe develop as a\nresult of the personal and extraordinary urging of Himmler, as can be\nproved by the two letters, dated 27 February 1942 (_NO-090, Pros. Ex.\n176_), and 25 March 1942 (_Sievers 33, Sievers Ex. 49_). On the basis of\nthese letters and the efforts of Himmler, Sievers then lodged a protest\nwith Himmler at Easter, 1942\u20145 April\u2014as he set forth in detail on\ndirect examination. (_Tr. pp. 5714-15._)\n\nAs a matter of fact, Hirt did not become a member of the Ahnenerbe until\nthe fall of 1942, as can be seen from the prosecution rebuttal Document\nNO-3819, Prosecution Exhibit 550.\n\nThe rebuttal documents submitted by the prosecution in this matter do\nnot, therefore, refute the testimony of Sievers on his direct\nexamination, but _confirm them_, which is also shown by the affidavits\nof Frau Dr. Schmitz (_Sievers 45, Sievers Ex. 46_; _Sievers 55, Sievers\nEx. 51_), and is shown in a further summary in the affidavit of Sievers.\n(_Sievers 64, Sievers Ex. 59._)\n\nLetter of the Chief of the Security Police (SIPO) and of the Security\nService (SD) dated 9 November 1941, regarding the transportation of the\nSoviet-Russian prisoners of war, who were to be executed, to the\nconcentration camps (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555_):\n\nIt can be seen from this document that Soviet-Russian prisoners of war\nwho were to be executed were taken to the concentration camps. Although\nthe Commissar Order was not known to Sievers in detail, it follows from\nthe context of the Easter conference of 1942, which Sievers had with\nHimmler, that Soviet-Russian Commissars were affected by this order. At\nthat time, it was generally known in the German Wehrmacht and also among\nthe German civilian population that there were female commissars in the\nSoviet-Russian Army who evidenced an unusual degree of fanaticism. It\nwas also known that strong gangs of insurgents were being formed behind\nthe German front line, who were conducting a ruthless and brutal war\nagainst members of the German Wehrmacht of both sexes contrary to all\nthe rules of international law. In the ranks of these gangs there were\nmany riflewomen who, in complete accordance with the provisions of\ninternational law, were condemned to death. In this respect, it must be\nstated that all or the great majority of the Soviet-Russian Commissars\ndid not commit crimes against international law. However, there can be\nno doubt that within their great numbers, a certain number could have\nalso been found who could have committed such crimes. Since the number\nof skeletons requested by Hirt was small, Sievers could assume that only\nsuch criminals could be considered for the collection.\n\nTherefore, it cannot be argued that Sievers must in any case have\nassumed from the letter dictated by Dr. Beger to the Reich Security Main\nOffice, dated 21 June 1943, that the persons who had been chosen by Dr.\nBeger in the concentration camp at Auschwitz were to be liquidated\nwithout trial or without any legal basis. It was not the duty of Sievers\nto check this matter. Here we must examine only whether Sievers in any\ncase is bound to have recognized that the proceedings were illegal or\nwhether he could rely on the fact that there existed a legal basis for\nthe liquidation ordered by Himmler. Considering the war conditions in\nthe East, Sievers could assume the latter fact without further ado.\n\nThese statements are only made in case it should be assumed that Sievers\nhad the obligation to examine this independently. We think, however,\nthat someone who was only engaged in a subordinate position was entitled\nto rely on the legality of the decisions of his superior.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-085 175 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 9 748\n February 1942, and report by Hirt\n concerning the acquisition of skulls\n of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars.\nNO-086 177 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 2 750\n November 1942, requesting with\n Himmler\u2019s approval, 150 skeletons.\nNO-087 181 Letter from Sievers to Eichmann (copy to 751\n Rudolf Brandt), 21 June 1943,\n concerning selection of subjects for a\n skeleton collection.\nNO-807 185 Tank containing formaldehyde for the 905\n preservation of corpses; corpses\n assembled in tanks prior to\n dissection; corpse showing incisions\n in preparation for dissection. (_See\n Selections from Photographic Evidence\n of the Prosecution._)\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nSievers 45 Sievers Ex. 46 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. Gisela 752\n Schmitz, 27 March 1947, on Sievers\u2019\n position in the Ahnenerbe Society and\n his connection with the skeleton\n collection.\nSievers 54 Sievers Ex. 50 Regulations for the Commandos 754\n (Einsatzkommandos) of the Security\n Police and the Security Service to be\n activated in Stalags.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Rudolf Brandt 757\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-085\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 175\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 9 FEBRUARY 1942, AND REPORT BY\nHIRT CONCERNING THE ACQUISITION OF SKULLS OF JEWISH-BOLSHEVIK COMMISSARS\n\nThe Ahnenerbe\nThe Reich Business Manager\n\n Berlin, 9 February 1942\n G/R/2 page 1\n\nTo: SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8\n\n Secret\nDear Comrade Brandt:\n\nFor the reason that Professor Dr. Hirt has in the meantime become\nseriously ill, I regret that I have been unable to submit any sooner Dr.\nHirt\u2019s report which you requested in your letter of 29 December 1941,\nJournal No. AR/493/37. He was stricken with pulmonary hemorrhages, the\ndiagnosis was \u201ccystlung\u201d, so at least it is not TB. In addition to that\nhe suffered from circulatory asthenia. At present he is still in the\nhospital, but hopes that the doctor will release him soon so that he\ncan, at least to a limited degree, resume his work. Due to those\ncircumstances Professor Hirt was able to furnish only a preliminary\nreport which, however, I still should like to submit to your attention.\nThe report concerns\u2014\n\n1. His research in the field of microscopy of living tissues, the\ndiscovery of a new method of examination, and the construction of a new\nresearch microscope, and\n\n2. a proposal for securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars.\n\nAs a supplement to report 1, some special publications are attached; of\nwhich the two parties from the \u201cZeiss Nachrichten\u201d #10 (Vol. II) and 1-5\n(Vol. III) facilitate most rapid general orientation, whereas other\npublications deal with difficult, individual scientific studies.\n\n Sincerely yours\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] SIEVERS\n\n_Enclosures_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Enclosure_\n\nSubject: Securing skulls of Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars for the purpose\nof scientific research at the Reich University of Strasbourg.\n\nThere exist extensive collections of skulls of almost all races and\npeoples. Of the Jewish race, however, only so very few specimens of\nskulls are at the disposal of science that a study of them does not\npermit precise conclusions. The war in the East now presents us with the\nopportunity to remedy this shortage. By procuring the skulls of the\nJewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who personify a repulsive yet\ncharacteristic subhumanity, we have the opportunity of obtaining\ntangible scientific evidence.\n\nThe actual obtaining and collecting of these skulls without difficulty\ncould be best accomplished by a directive issued to the Wehrmacht in the\nfuture to immediately turn over alive all Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to\nthe field police [Feldpolizei]. The field police in turn is to be issued\nspecial directives to continually inform a certain office of the number\nand place of detention of these captured Jews and to guard them well\nuntil the arrival of a special deputy. This special deputy, commissioned\nwith the collection of the material (a junior physician attached to the\nWehrmacht or even the field police, or a medical student equipped with\ncar and driver), is to take a prescribed series of photographs and\nanthropological measurements, and is to ascertain, insofar as is\npossible, the origin, date of birth, and other personal data of the\nprisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose\nhead must not be damaged, he will separate the head from the torso and\nwill forward it to its point of destination in a preserving fluid in a\nwell-sealed tin container especially made for this purpose. On the basis\nof the photos, the measurements and other data on the head and, finally,\nthe skull itself, comparative anatomical research, research on racial\nclassification, pathological features of the skull formation, form and\nsize of the brain, and many other things can begin. In accordance with\nits scope and tasks, the new Reich University of Strasbourg would be the\nmost appropriate place for the collection of and research on the skulls\nthus acquired.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-086\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 177\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 2 NOVEMBER 1942, REQUESTING WITH\n HIMMLER\u2019S APPROVAL, 150 SKELETONS\n\nThe Ahnenerbe\nThe Reich Business Manager\n\n Berlin, 2 November 1942\n [Stamp]\n Personal Staff Reich Leader SS\n Registration of Files Secret 5/116\n\n Secret\n\nTo: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt\nBerlin\n\nDear Comrade Brandt!\n\nThe Reich Leader SS once ordered, as you know, that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer\nProf. Dr. Hirt should be provided with all necessary material for his\nresearch work. I have already reported to the Reich Leader SS that for\nsome anthropological studies 150 skeletons of inmates or Jews are needed\nand should be provided by the Auschwitz concentration camp. It is only\nnecessary for the Reich Security Main Office to be furnished now with an\nofficial directive by the Reich Leader SS; by order of the Reich Leader\nSS, however, you could issue it yourself.\n\n Sincerely yours,\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] SIEVERS\n\n1 enclosure:\nDraft of a letter to the Reich Security Main Office\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-087\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 181\n\n LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO EICHMANN (COPY TO RUDOLF BRANDT), 21 JUNE 1943,\n CONCERNING SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR A SKELETON COLLECTION\n\n [Handwritten] XI a 56\n\nAhnenerbe Office\nInstitute for Military Scientific Research\nG/H/6, S2/He.\n\n Berlin-Dahlem, Puecklerstrasse 16, 21 June 1943\n Top Secret\n\n G.R.Z.I. A.H. Sk. No. 10\n 5 copies\u20142d copy\n no enclosures\n\nTo\nReich Security Main Office\nOffice IV B 4\nAttention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann,\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8\nSubject: Assembling of a skeleton collection.\n\nWith reference to your letter of 25 September 1942, IV B 4 3576/42 g\n1488, and the personal talks which have taken place in the meantime on\nthe above matter, you are informed that the coworker in this office who\nwas charged with the execution of the above-mentioned special task, SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Bruno Beger, ended his work in the Auschwitz\nconcentration camp on 15 June 1943 because of the existing danger of\ninfectious diseases.\n\nA total of 115 persons were worked on, 79 of whom were Jews, 2 Poles, 4\nAsiatics, and 30 Jewesses. At present, these prisoners are separated\naccording to sex and each group is accommodated in a hospital building\nof the Auschwitz concentration camp and are in quarantine.\n\nFor further processing of the selected persons an _immediate transfer to\nthe Natzweiler concentration camp is now imperative_; this must be\naccelerated in view of the _danger of infectious diseases in Auschwitz_.\nEnclosed is a list containing the names of the selected persons.\n\nIt is requested that the necessary directives be issued.\n\nSince with the transfer of the prisoners to Natzweiler the danger of\nspreading diseases exists, it is requested that an immediate shipment of\n_disease-free and clean prisoners\u2019 clothing_ for 80 men and 30 women be\nordered sent from Natzweiler to Auschwitz.\n\nAt the same time one must provide for the accommodation of the _30\nwomen_ in the Natzweiler concentration camp for a short period.\n\n [Signature] SIEVERS\n SS Standartenfuehrer\n\nCarbon copies to\u2014\n_a._ SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Beger\n_b._ SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Hr. Hirt\n_c._ SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT SIEVERS 45\n SIEVERS DEFENSE EXHIBIT 46\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. GISELA SCHMITZ, 27 MARCH 1947, ON\n SIEVERS\u2019 POSITION IN THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY AND HIS CONNECTION WITH THE\n SKELETON COLLECTION\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn 1937 I was appointed Secretary in the Research and Instruction\nSociety, the Ahnenerbe, Registered Association, where I remained until\nthe end of the war in 1945. During all these years I worked for Wolfram\nSievers, who was Reich Business Manager, and I gained thereby a fairly\ncomprehensive insight into the organization of the Ahnenerbe and into\nSievers activity.\n\nThe organization of the Ahnenerbe during the time when I was attached to\nit was as follows:\n\nHimmler was the president; Professor Wuest, Rector of Munich University,\nwas his curator; Sievers was responsible to the latter as Reich Business\nManager.\n\nAn internal code of procedure laid down as a regulation for the Reich\nBusiness Manager stipulated that all decisive functions were the concern\nof the department chief and curator of the Ahnenerbe. According to this\nall decisions had to be obtained by the Reich Business Manager from the\ndepartment chief if they were not dealt with by the president. Professor\nWuest had the right to report direct to Himmler as president on all\nquestions; Sievers could only do so on administrative concerns, and then\nonly when Himmler consulted him on special matters and requested a\nreport of him.\n\nSievers\u2019 own sphere was financial and staff administration and the\nsupervision of the business dealings of the Ahnenerbe. In scientific\nmatters Sievers was denied the right to issue any orders. He was also\nforbidden personally to sign letters concerning scientific matters.\nHowever, as it was not always possible in practice to send all letters\nfrom Berlin to Munich, the domicile and permanent residence of the\ncurator, for signature, Sievers often signed; Wuest then countersigned\nthe copy.\n\nWhen in 1942 the Ahnenerbe became a department of the personal staff of\nthe Reich Leader SS, Professor Wuest became department chief. He was\nthus made responsible for all matters of administration and personnel,\nwhich had hitherto been the responsibility of the Reich Business\nManager. Himmler personally made it quite clear to Sievers that he was\nnot to interfere in scientific affairs.\n\nIn this connection I mention briefly the Ahnenerbe diary which it was\nSievers\u2019 duty, as Reich Business Manager, to write up. By express order\nof Himmler, all departments of the Reich Leader SS had to keep diaries.\nThey were a hobby-horse of Himmler\u2019s, and failure to comply with this\norder would have had very unpleasant consequences for the person\nresponsible. Sievers who was frequently away from Berlin used to dictate\nthe diary entries on his return. I know that the entries would not\nalways have been able to stand close examination\u2014they were inaccurate\nin parts and sometimes fabricated. Sievers insisted upon keeping the\ndiary ostensibly correct, so as not to offend Himmler. The reasons for\nthis will be explained by a later part of my statement. Sievers also\nmentioned to me the collection of Jewish-Bolshevik skulls, which was\nplanned by Professor Hirt of Strasbourg.\n\nDocument NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 175, regarding the collection of\nJewish skeletons has been submitted to me. With the exception of the\nlast paragraph which begins with the words \u201cFor the preservation * * *\u201d,\nthe report was\u2014as far as I remember\u2014drafted by Dr. Bruno Beger who had\ncome from the SS Race and Settlement Main Office (RuSHA).[86] I first\nsaw the report in the autumn of 1941. The report had already been\ncirculated in all possible offices and one copy had also been sent to\nthe Ahnenerbe. The reasons why the report had also been sent to the\nAhnenerbe are unknown to me; in any case, Sievers showed me this\nproposal with all signs of horror and defined it as a hybrid outgrowth\nof the propaganda which at that time used to describe the eastern\nnations as \u201csubhuman.\u201d The report itself was filed away, as it did not\nconcern us, or passed on to the chief of the Ahnenerbe, Professor Wuest,\nas it was really a \u201cscientific\u201d matter. One day Sievers told me that\nHimmler had mentioned this matter in a private conversation\u2014I believe\nit was in connection with Professor Hirt\u2014and ordered the document to be\nsubmitted after obtaining an opinion from Professor Hirt. Hirt then\nadded the last paragraph. With this addition the report was forwarded to\nthe personal staff of the Reich Leader SS and to Dr. Rudolf Brandt.\n\nWith regard to the Document NO-087, Prosecution Exhibit 181, as shown to\nme, I can state: the letter to the Reich Security Main Office bears the\ndictation reference S 2/Ha. According to this, the letter was not\ndictated by Sievers himself, but\u2014as I remember\u2014by Dr. Beger who\ndictated the letter in the office of subdepartment Chief Wolff, whose\nreference number was S 2.\n\nWith regard to Document NO-088, Prosecution Exhibit 182, I can say that\nProfessor Hirt had asked by telephone for a decision on the suggestions\nwhich appear at the end of this document. Sievers only passed this\nrequest of Hirt on to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS.\n\nSievers spoke to me repeatedly about the experiments on humans and also\nabout the collection of skeletons and always said that these things were\nvery much against his inner feelings. Repeatedly, I had an opportunity\nto see how much Sievers suffered in this connection. He sometimes had\npronounced periods of depression.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT SIEVERS 54\n SIEVERS DEFENSE EXHIBIT 50\n\n REGULATIONS FOR THE COMMANDOS (EINSATZKOMMANDOS)[87] OF THE SECURITY\n POLICE AND THE SECURITY SERVICE TO BE ACTIVATED IN STALAGS\n\n B 101\n Enclosures 2\nOffice IV Berlin, 17 July 1941\n\n Top Secret\n\nThe activation of commandos will take place in accordance with the\nagreement of the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service and\nthe Supreme Command of the Armed Forces as of 16 July 1941. The\ncommandos will work independently according to special authorization and\nin consequence of the general regulations given to them in the limits of\nthe camp organizations. Naturally, the commandos will keep close contact\nwith the camp commander and the defense officers assigned to him.\n\nThe mission of the commandos is the political investigating of all camp\ninmates, the elimination and further treatment\u2014\n\n_a._ of all political, criminal, or in some other way unbearable\nelements among them.\n\n_b._ of those persons who could be used for the reconstruction of the\noccupied territories.\n\nFor the execution of their mission, no additional means can be put at\nthe disposal of the commandos. The Deutsche Fahndungsbuch [German Wanted\nList] the Aufenthaltsermittlungsliste [Residence Locator List] and the\nSonderfahndungsbuch UdSSR [Special Wanted List, Union of the Soviet\nSocialist Republic] will prove to be useful in only a small number of\ncases; the Sonderfahndungsbuch UdSSR is not sufficient, because it\ncontains only a small part of Soviet Russians considered to be\ndangerous.\n\nTherefore, the commandos must use their special knowledge and ability\nand rely on their own findings and self-acquired knowledge. Therefore,\nthey will be able to start carrying out their mission only when they\nhave gathered together appropriate material.\n\nThe commandos must use for their work as far as possible, at present and\neven later, the experiences of the camp commanders which the latter have\ncollected meanwhile from observation of the prisoners and examinations\nof camp inmates.\n\nFurther, the commandos must make efforts from the beginning to seek out\namong the prisoners elements which appear reliable, regardless if there\nare Communists concerned or not, in order to use them for intelligence\npurposes inside of the camp and, if advisable, later in the occupied\nterritories also.\n\nBy use of such informers and by use of all other existing possibilities,\nthe discovery of all elements to be eliminated among the prisoners must\nsucceed step by step at once. The commandos must learn for themselves,\nin every case, by means of short questioning of the informers and\neventual questioning of other prisoners.\n\nThe information of one informer is not sufficient to designate a camp\ninmate to be a suspect without further proof; it must be confirmed in\nsome way if possible.\n\nAbove all, the following must be discovered; all important functionaries\nof state and party, especially\u2014\n\n Professional revolutionaries.\n\n Functionaries of the Comintern.\n\n All policy forming party functionaries of the Communist Party of\n the Soviet Union and its subsidiary organizations in the central\n committees, in the regional and district committees.\n\n All Peoples Commissars and their deputies.\n\n All former Political Commissars in the Red Army.\n\n Leading personalities of the Main and intermediate offices of\n the state authorities.\n\n Members of the Soviet Russian intelligentsia.\n\n All Jews.\n\n All persons who are found to be agitators or fanatical\n Communists.\n\nIt is not less important, as mentioned already, to discover all those\npersons who could be used for the reconstruction, administration, and\nmanagement of the conquered Russian territories.\n\nFinally, all such persons must be secured who are still needed for the\ncompletion of further investigation, regardless if they are police\ninvestigations or other investigations, and for settling questions of\ngeneral interest. Among them are all those especially who, because of\ntheir position and their knowledge, are able to give information about\nmeasures and working methods of the Soviet-Russian State, of the\nCommunist Party, or of the Comintern.\n\nIn the final analysis, consideration must be given to origin in all\ndecisions to be made. The leader of the Einsatzkommando will give a\nshort report every week by telephone or an express letter to the Reich\nSecurity Main Office, containing:\n\n1. Short description of their activities in the past week.\n\n2. Number of all definitely suspicious persons (report of number\nsufficient).\n\n3. Individual names of all persons found to be functionaries of the\nComintern, leading functionaries of the party, Peoples Commissars,\nleading personalities, and political commissars.\n\n4. Number of all persons found not to be suspicious informers, with a\nshort description of their position.\n\nA. Prisoners of war.\n\nB. Civilians.\n\nOn the basis of those activity reports the Reich Security Main Office\nwill issue immediately the further measures to be applied. For the\nmeasures to be applied on the basis of this successive directive, the\ncommandos are to demand the surrender of the prisoners involved from the\ncamp command.\n\nThe camp commandants have received orders from the Supreme Commander of\nthe Armed Forces to approve such requests.\n\nExecutions are not to be held in the camp or in the immediate vicinity\nof the camp. If the camps in the General Government are in the immediate\nvicinity of the border, then the prisoners are to be taken for special\ntreatment, if possible, into former Soviet-Russian territory.\n\nShould executions be necessary for reasons of camp discipline, then the\nleader of the Einsatzkommando must apply to the camp commander for it.\n\nThe commandos have to keep lists about the special treatments carried\nout and must contain\u2014\n\n Current number.\n\n Family name and first name.\n\n Date and place of birth.\n\n Military rank.\n\n Profession.\n\n Last residence.\n\n Reason for special treatment.\n\n Day and place of special treatment (card file).\n\nIn regard to executions to be carried out and to the possible removal of\nreliable civilians and the removal of informers for the Einsatz group in\nthe occupied territories, the leader of the Einsatzkommando must make an\nagreement with the nearest state police office, as well as with the\ncommandant of the security police unit and security service and beyond\nthese with the chief of the Einsatz group concerned in the occupied\nterritories.\n\nReports of that kind are to be transmitted for information to the Reich\nSecurity Main Office, IV A 1. Excellent behavior during and after duty,\nthe best cooperation with the camp commanders, and careful examinations\nare the duty of all leaders and members of the Einsatzkommando.\n\nThe members of the Einsatzkommando must be constantly aware of the\nspecial importance of the missions entrusted to them.\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[88]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. KAUFFMANN: Witness, I now put to you documents concerning, among\nother things, procuring skulls of Jewish-Bolshevist Commissars. Please\nlook at page 1 of Document NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 175. This is a\nletter from the Ahnenerbe, of 9 February 1942, addressed to you. It is a\nsecret communication, and it bears Sievers\u2019 signature. There are two\nannexes to this document. One of them concerns research into microscopy,\nand the other one concerns the suggestion for procuring the\nafore-mentioned skeletons for the purpose of scientific research. Now, I\nask you whether you received this document, whether you are familiar\nwith the contents of this letter, and whether you still remember it\ntoday?\n\nDEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT: I received the letter with the inclosures, but\nI recall as little about this as I recall about the other matters.\n\nQ. Do you wish to say then that you did not read the two inclosures to\nthis letter?\n\nA. That is what I really should like to say because, as I have already\nsaid, reports which were destined for the Reich Leader were put with the\nmail that he was to read personally, and it would have been the same in\nthe case of Professor Hirt\u2019s report, which is really incomprehensible to\na lay reader.\n\nQ. Perhaps I might point out to the Tribunal that the two inclosures are\nwrongly bound in the document. The first inclosure refers to the\nmicroscopic research and the second inclosure to the procuring of\nskeletons. Is that also your opinion, Herr Brandt?\n\nA. Yes. That is how the letter states it. First, comes the microscopic\nstudy and then the other.\n\nQ. Now, I ask you, with particular regard to the fact that you are\ntestifying under oath, did you know in detail that, as can be seen from\nthis report, human beings were to be killed and that the skulls or\nskeletons were then to be sent to the University of Strasbourg? Did you\nknow these details?\n\nA. No. I did not know these details.\n\nQ. Would you tell us just what you did know, in broad terms?\n\nA. I knew the contents of the letter which I sent on to Eichmann.\n\nQ. This is Document NO-116, Prosecution Exhibit 178. In this letter you\ninform Eichmann that everything necessary would be done for Professor\nHirt to build up this collection of skeletons, and you say further that\nSS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers will communicate with Eichmann as to the\ndetails of this. I now ask you, who is Eichmann?\n\nA. I do not think that I had any idea who Eichmann was at that time.\nSievers sent me the draft of this letter, which I certainly did not send\non in this form as it appears here. As was always the case, I showed it\nto Himmler, and only then did I send it on. I am quite sure that I heard\nEichmann\u2019s name then for the first time. I did not know him otherwise,\nnor did I know him later.\n\nQ. Can you not tell us whether you did not have some idea as to what was\ngoing on here in this whole business? When, for instance, one heard that\na collection of skeletons was to be made, then one would surely ask\noneself what was really going on?\n\nA. I certainly had no other ideas concerning this matter than those that\nwould normally arise in connection with a collection of skeletons for\nanatomical purposes; and it would never have occurred to me that any\nprisoners would be used for this except those who had died a normal\ndeath.\n\nQ. Did you work on this affair independently thereafter, or did you\nsubmit the matter to Himmler for him to decide and arrange?\n\nA. It was submitted to Himmler, like all other questions. To begin with\nI was not thoroughly versed in such matters, and secondly, owing to my\nlack of technical knowledge, I could not give orders or instructions for\nit to be carried out.\n\nQ. I draw your attention now to Document NO-087, Prosecution Exhibit\n181, again a letter to Eichmann marked \u201csecret\u201d, dated 21 June 1943. The\nletter was apparently sent by Sievers with copies for two other persons\nand also with a copy to be sent to you. This letter says that altogether\n115 persons would be affected and that the selected persons should be\nsent to the concentration camp at Natzweiler. How would such a letter be\nhandled by you in your registry office\u2014I refer now to the copy which\nwas sent to you? Did you again submit it to Himmler, and did you or\nsomeone else lay the letter aside?\n\nA. I do not remember ever having seen this letter. The file note on it\nbears an initial that is not mine, but that of my collaborator Berg. He\nalso initialed for filing several of the documents that are in the\ndocument book.\n\nQ. Now, please look at the file note of Berg. (_NO-091, Pros. Ex. 183._)\nWould you say that that is the same Berg who initialed the foregoing\ndocument?\n\nA. Yes. That is the same Berg.\n\nQ. Now, please look at Document NO-091. Here it says, \u201cNote\u2014for SS\nStandartenfuehrer Dr. Brandt\u201d, and it is signed by Berg. This reproduces\na talk that Berg had with Sievers; do you remember seeing this notation?\n\nA. I do not remember having seen it.\n\nQ. Let me point out the date, 26 October 1944.\n\nA. That was the last day of our stay at our East Prussian quarters. The\nRussians were only about 30 to 40 kilometers away. Berg would have made\nthe note so that I could get a final report to Himmler. As, however, we\nhad to clear out by that evening, there were more important things to do\nthan to submit such a memorandum, so that possibly he did not show it to\nme at all.\n\n-----\n\n[85] Trial before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[86] See Case 8, United States _vs._ Ulrich Greifelt, et al. in vols. IV\nand V.\n\n[87] See Case 9, United States _vs._ Otto Ohlendorf, et al. in vol. IV.\n\n[88] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25,\n26 March 1947, pp. 4869-4994.\n\n\n C. Project To Kill Tubercular Polish Nationals\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt were charged with participation\nin and responsibility for the murder and mistreatment of tens of\nthousands of Polish Nationals allegedly infected with incurable\ntuberculosis (par. 8 of the indictment). On this charge both defendants\nwere acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence and argumentation on this\ncharge is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Blome. An\nextract from this brief is set forth below on pages 760 to 763. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense has been selected\nfrom the final plea for the defendant Blome. It appears below on pages\n763 to 768. This argumentation is followed by selections from the\nevidence on pages 769 to 794.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT BLOME_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Personal Participation in Criminal Activities\u2014Murder and Mistreatment of\n Polish Nationals_\n\nBy 1941 it was the accepted policy of the Third Reich to exterminate the\nJewish population of Germany and the occupied countries. (IMT\njudgment.[89]) In pursuance of this policy the Reich Governor of the\nWarthegau, Greiser, obtained permission from Himmler to exterminate the\nJewish population in this province. In a letter of 1 May 1942, he\ninformed Himmler that the \u201cspecial treatment\u201d of about 100,000 Jews\nwould be completed within 2 to 3 months. He stated that as soon as this\ntask was completed, the \u201cexisting and efficient special commandos\u201d could\nbe used for the extermination of approximately 35,000 Polish Nationals\nwho suffered from open tuberculosis. These Poles allegedly were a danger\nto the German officials and their families because they were a possible\nsource of tubercular infection. Greiser went on to say:\n\n \u201cThe ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated\n by the deputy of the Reich Health Leader for Public Health\n [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer] Comrade Professor Dr. Blome as well\n as by the leader of your X-ray battalion, SS Standartenfuehrer\n Prof. Dr. Hohlfelder.\n\n \u201cThough in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate\n draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take\n responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open\n tuberculosis exterminated among the Polish race here in the\n Warthegau. Of course, only a Pole should be handed over to such\n an action who is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but\n whose incurability is proved and certified by a public health\n officer.\n\n \u201cConsidering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval\n in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make\n the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the\n action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under\n way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing\n stages.\u201d (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196._)\n\nIn a letter of 27 June 1942 Himmler gave consent in principle to this\nplan and instructed Greiser to discuss the individual measures in detail\nwith the security police first, in order to assure an inconspicuous\naccomplishment of the task. (_NO-244, Pros. Ex. 201._) On 21 November\n1942 Greiser informed Himmler that the examinations which were to be\ncarried out in order to separate the curable and incurable would be\nexecuted by Professor Hohlfelder and his X-ray battalion. He estimated\nthat the first utilization of the method would be in approximately six\nmonths. He further stated:\n\n \u201cIn this stage of the proceedings, Professor Dr. Blome, in his\n capacity as Deputy Chief of the Public Health Office [Hauptamt\n fuer Volksgesundheit] of the NSDAP is raising some objections as\n to its execution, as he states in a letter of 18 November. These\n objections are expressed only now, although Dr. Blome and Dr.\n Hohlfelder and myself have spent months of preliminary work on\n examination, clarification, and straightening out the whole\n procedure.\n\n \u201cI enclose a copy of Blome\u2019s letter of 18 November for your\n information * * *.\u201d (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. 202._)\n\nIn this letter, Blome stated that among the Polish population of the\nprovince, at least 35,000 persons were suffering from open tuberculosis,\nand besides this number, about 120,000 consumptives were in need of\ntreatment. This constituted an enormous danger to the German settlers in\nall parts of the province. In order to make further German immigration\npossible, counter measures were to be taken soon. Blome then outlined\nthe three ways for the practical elimination of the danger of infection:\n\n \u201c1. Special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of the seriously ill\n persons.\n\n \u201c2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons.\n\n \u201c3. Creation of a reservation for all tubercular patients.\u201d\n\nAs to the first proposal he stated:\n\n \u201cThe approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious\n will be \u2018specially treated\u2019. All other Polish consumptives will\n be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to save them for\n work and to avoid their causing contagion.\u201d (_NO-249, Pros. Ex.\n 202._)\n\nBlome pointed out that one of the practical difficulties of outright\nextermination of all tubercular Poles was that it might provide\nexcellent propaganda material for the enemies of Germany, especially\nwith regard to the strong Catholic feelings of the Italian nation and\n\u201call the physicians of the world.\u201d He therefore considered it necessary\nthat Hitler himself personally decide on this step. Should Hitler\nconsider this radical solution as unsuitable, preparations for the\nexecution of the plan as outlined in points 2 and 3 should be made. The\nexclusive settlement of all tubercular Poles, irrespective of whether\nthey were curable or incurable, would remove the danger of infection for\nthe German settlers. These Poles should be used for labor. Not only the\ntubercular Poles of the Warthegau, but also those in Danzig-West\nPrussia, those of the administrative district of Zichenau, and of the\nProvince of Upper Silesia should be isolated in the same settlement. He\nstated:\n\n \u201cAnother solution to be taken into consideration would be a\n strict isolation of all the infectious and incurable\n consumptives, without exception, in nursing establishments.\n _This solution would lead to the comparatively rapid death of\n the sick._ With the necessary addition of Polish doctors and\n nursing personnel, the character of a pure death camp would be\n somewhat mitigated.\u201d (_NO-249, Pros. Ex. 202._)\n\nFinally Blome advocated as the most practicable solution the creation of\na reservation similar to the reservation for lepers. Within the\nreservation, the strict isolation of the strongly contagious could\neasily be achieved. In this way the danger of infection would be removed\nand the problem of the German consumptives in the province would be\novercome. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) Blome admitted that the expression\n\u201cspecial treatment\u201d which he used in the letter meant the killing of the\ntubercular Poles. (_Tr. p. 4791._)\n\nHimmler approved Blome\u2019s plan to create a reservation for tubercular\nPoles, incurable and curable alike, in a letter to Greiser dated 3\nDecember 1942. It would be possible to exploit this action for\npropaganda purposes, whereas on the other hand, outright extermination\nof those inflicted with open tuberculosis would take too long, as the\nX-ray examinations of the Polish population would require at least six\nmonths. (_NO-251, Pros. Ex. 204._)\n\nThat at least some of the tubercular Poles were exterminated, while the\nothers were taken to death camps where they were left to die, is proved\nby the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt. (_NO-441, Pros. Ex.\n205._) Brandt tried to explain, not to say repudiate, this affidavit by\ntestifying that he made the statements on the basis of documents shown\nto him in pretrial interrogations. He stressed the point, however, that\nhe insisted the wording of one sentence be changed. This sentence\noriginally read: \u201cAs a result of the suggestions made by Blome and\nGreiser, 8-10,000 Poles were exterminated\u201d! He changed the expression\n\u201c8-10,000\u201d to \u201cnumerous.\u201d (_Tr. pp. 4890, 4953._) This proves in itself\nthat Brandt did not make his statement in exclusive reliance on the\ncontents of the documents shown to him in pretrial interrogations (_Tr.\np. 4891_) but also on the basis of the knowledge he obtained as\ncollaborator of Himmler. The documents do not show the execution of\n\u201cnumerous\u201d Poles. Moreover, Brandt states in these documents that Dr.\nBlome visited Himmler from time to time and supported Greiser\u2019s\nsuggestions. There is no document in evidence or in the possession of\nthe prosecution which would give the basis for this statement. It is,\ntherefore, clear that Brandt\u2019s statements are founded upon knowledge\nwhich he obtained from Himmler.\n\nWithout a doubt, Rudolf Brandt is as well advised on the crimes which\nare the subject of this trial as any man in Germany. There is no reason\nwhatever for refusing to give full weight to the pretrial statements of\nBrandt. There has been no proof that these statements were obtained by\nfraud or duress. Brandt\u2019s testimony before the Tribunal can be summed up\nin one sentence: \u201cI remember nothing.\u201d Aside from a description of\nHimmler\u2019s personality, he contented himself with giving answers to\nleading questions by his attorney which were calculated to reveal him as\na disembodied stenographic automaton\u2014something in the nature of a\nproficient half-wit. Surely his pretrial affidavits are entitled to more\nweight than the blatant nonsense which was his testimony.\n\nBlome denied that he ever planned or suggested that Poles suffering from\nopen tuberculosis should be exterminated and that the remainder should\nbe put in reservations and left there to die (_Tr. pp. 4578, 4790-1_)\nbut he is contradicted by the proof of his own making.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT\n BLOME_[90]\n\n * * * * *\n\nProbably the most serious accusation against Dr. Blome seemed to be the\nallegation that he had proposed the murder of 25,000-30,000 tubercular\nPoles and had taken part in carrying out this plan. The evidence clearly\nshows, however, that this accusation is quite unfounded. I maintain on\nthe contrary (_a_) it is not true that Dr. Blome approved or supported\nthis murderous plan, and (_b_) it is also untrue that this plan was ever\ncarried out. It is true, however, that it was Dr. Blome himself who\nprevented this devilish plan. It was Dr. Blome who, by his clever\nintervention saved the lives of the 25,000-30,000 tubercular Poles who\nwere to be \u201cliquidated.\u201d\n\nThe documents show that this plan originated with Gauleiter Greiser and\nReich Leader SS Himmler. Blome was then assigned to this matter because\nit was known that he had for many years made the fight against\ntuberculosis the aim of his life, and because he built his cancer\ninstitute in the same Gau which Gauleiter Greiser governed. Blome stated\nhis attitude to this plan clearly at the time in the well-known letter\nof 18 November 1942. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) He discussed the three\npossibilities which existed and explained the pro\u2019s and con\u2019s of each of\nthese three possibilities in detail. These three possibilities were\neither \u201cLiquidation,\u201d i. e., the murder of those Poles suffering from\nincurable tuberculosis, their internment in isolated institutions, or\nlastly, their settlement in a reservation. In his letter of 18 November\n1942 (Appendix 25) he definitely rejected the first possibility and\nadvocated the latter.\n\nIn this, Blome was completely successful. Greiser was so much impressed\nby Blome\u2019s arguments that he no longer dared to carry out the\nliquidation of the Poles which had been decided upon. In fact, he\nsubmitted Dr. Blome\u2019s memorandum to the Reich Leader SS Himmler, so that\nhe should obtain a decision from Hitler himself. (_NO-249, Pros. Ex.\n202._) This was already a remarkable success for Blome, because Himmler\nhad already ordered the liquidation of the Poles. Blome\u2019s arguments made\nsuch an impression even on the bloodhound Himmler that, contrary to\nGreiser\u2019s expectations, he cautiously put the matter before Hitler again\nand obtained his definite ruling. It should be remembered that this in\nitself would no longer have been necessary, because not only had Conti\nagreed to the murder, but from Greiser\u2019s covering note of 21 November\n1942 it is obvious that Hitler had also given his approval to the\nextermination of the Poles before.\n\nThereupon, after a subsequent examination of the matter, Hitler withdrew\nthe extermination order and thus Himmler had no alternative but to do\nthe same. This is clearly proved by Himmler\u2019s letter of 3 December 1942.\n(_NO-251, Pros. Ex. 204._)\n\nThe extermination of the Poles did not take place; _this is due to\nBlome_.\n\nAlthough these facts are incontestably proved by the documents\npresented, the prosecution nevertheless upheld the charge against Blome.\nThis evidently was due to the peculiar wording of Blome\u2019s letter to\nGreiser of 18 November 1942. The prosecution in their speech of 19\nDecember 1946 described this letter a \u201cdevilish masterpiece of murderous\nintent.\u201d In considering this case, the prevailing conditions should be\nborne in mind. Dr. Blome knew that the tuberculous Poles were lost, that\ntheir murder had been decided upon, unless it was possible on some\ngrounds to change Hitler\u2019s mind at the last moment. The statement of the\nwitness Dr. Gundermann (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8_) proved that Blome at\nthat time, as is confirmed by Blome\u2019s own testimony (_Tr. pp. 4574-78_),\nstrove for days for a successful wording of his letter; he repeatedly\ndrafted the letter, then rejected the wording again, and finally\nintroduced arguments in the letter which he hoped would be successful.\nFrom the very beginning he was aware, of course, that his intervention\nwas bound to fail and have no success if he described Hitler\u2019s planned\nextermination of the Poles as a crime and downright murder and solemnly\nprotested against it. In this way Blome would have achieved nothing for\nthe Poles, but would have had to expect to be brought before a court\nhimself and sentenced for sabotaging an order of the Fuehrer, or to have\ndisappeared in a concentration camp without any legal sentence. With\nsuch simple method as entering a solemn protest by calling on the laws\nof humanity or of justice nothing would have been achieved with Hitler,\nespecially when he had already made up his mind and had decided on a\ncertain matter and had already given the necessary orders for execution;\nin such cases Hitler was usually inaccessible and would not listen to\nany counterproposals. Dr. Blome knew this, of course, just as well as,\nfor instance, the Gauleiter of the Lower Danube, who in connection with\na similar problem (sterilization), in his letter of 24 August 1942\n(_NO-039, Pros. Ex. 153_) pointed out the importance of \u201cenemy\npropaganda,\u201d as he considered this most likely to be successful. Dr.\nBlome therefore looked for reasons which would perhaps have a decisive\ninfluence on Hitler and these were either the Church or other nations.\nIt is understandable that Hitler, in view of the tense situation at that\ntime, in the middle of the Second World War, did not want to break\ncompletely with the Church, and he also had to consider the opinion of\nforeign countries so as not to antagonize neutral states. Dr. Blome\nspeculated on these two points. In his letter of 18 November 1942 he\nemphasized in a skillful manner, and with full determination, these two\npoints of view, and with those two references he achieved full success.\n(_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._)\n\nIt may now be realized why Blome, in the early part of his letter, tried\nto give Hitler the impression that he (Blome) fully agreed with the plan\nas such for the extermination of the Poles, and why he even pretended\nthat everything was already prepared for the execution of this plan.\nHitler had, so to speak, only to press the button and 25,000-30,000\nPoles would be done away with. This was merely a trick which Blome used\nin order to ensure a favorable consideration of his second and third\nproposals (internment or reservation).\n\nIf Dr. Blome had written that he declined to approve such an order of\nthe Fuehrer, that, in consequence, no preparations for its execution had\nbeen made, and that he would rather resign than become a party to a mass\nmurder, then Hitler would have had his customary outburst, and Blome\nwould have been finished as far as he was concerned; he would, of\ncourse, have entirely disregarded the protest of such a \u201csaboteur,\u201d and\nin the interests of so-called \u201creasons of State,\u201d the Fuehrer\u2019s orders\nwould have been strictly carried out. To prevent this, Dr. Blome had to\npretend for the time being, that he was ready to acknowledge the\nFuehrer\u2019s orders as a matter of course and, where possible, to\nparticipate personally in their execution, if Hitler, as Head of the\nState, so desired. However, when weighing the pro\u2019s and con\u2019s, Dr. Blome\nwas able to bring to the foreground points of view against the plan of\nextermination which conceivably might greatly impress Hitler.\n\nBlome\u2019s letter of 18 November 1942 can only be explained thus, and was\nintended in this way. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) So Dr. Blome, on the\nstrength of this letter, cannot be convicted. For it is certain that\nHitler thereupon dropped his plan and completely rescinded his orders\nfor the murder.\n\nThis success, which could hardly have been anticipated because of\nHitler\u2019s obstinacy and vainglory, completely justifies the defendant\nBlome. It proves that Blome\u2019s conception was the right one and that his\nmanipulations saved the lives of the Poles.\n\nAnother matter helped Blome considerably, which must not be overlooked\nhere. Shortly before, Hitler had cancelled the continuation of the\nEuthanasia Program. Apparently he did this under the influence of\nnumerous protests which had been made by the two Christian Churches. The\nreaction abroad also played a considerable part in this because mass\ndestruction of the insane had been taken up repeatedly by the foreign\npress with particular reproaches against the Nazi regime. Dr. Blome made\nuse of these points of view which had proved effective in the case of\nthe Euthanasia Program, and they also produced telling effects in the\ncase of the tubercular Poles.\n\nWhy did the prosecuting authorities maintain the accusation against. Dr.\nBlome in spite of all this? Apparently this was solely on account of an\naffidavit by the codefendant Rudolf Brandt. In his affidavit of 24\nOctober 1946 Rudolf Brandt completely suppresses the letters which cause\nthe complete rescinding of the plan for murder. (_NO-441, Pros. Ex.\n205._) He is silent about these letters, although it can be proved that\nthey passed through his hands, were initialed, and handed down to lower\noffices by him.\n\nDuring his examination by the defense, Rudolf Brandt was charged with\nuntruthfulness. He was unable to offer an explanation, failed to answer,\nand was forced to submit to the charge of untruthfulness, of deliberate\nuntruthfulness. Altogether, Rudolf Brandt has made an amazing number of\naffidavits; he has, without scruples, supplied the prosecution with\npractically every affidavit desired for the incrimination of\ncodefendants, and with equal readiness, he has given affidavits for\nthese same codefendants which directly contradicted his former\nassertions. What he confirms under oath today, he denies under oath\ntomorrow, and vice versa. However, it must be stated that the affidavit\nwhich Rudolf Brandt made against Dr. Blome, dated 24 October 1946, was\nthe climax of his mendacity. After the experiences in this trial, and\nafter having become acquainted, as we have, with a man like Rudolf\nBrandt, it would be ridiculous even to consider attaching any weight to\nthe affidavit of a man such as we have got to know in Rudolf Brandt. His\naffidavit of 24 October 1946 has been entirely refuted by documents\nintroduced by the prosecution. It is unnecessary, therefore, to examine\nto what extent Rudolf Brandt\u2019s untruthfulness can be traced to his state\nof mental health.\n\nDuring the session of 9 December 1946 the prosecuting authorities\nannounced:\n\n \u201cThe prosecution will introduce evidence to show that the\n program was in fact carried out at the end of 1942 and the\n beginning of 1943, and that as a result of the suggestions made\n by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were ruthlessly exterminated\n and that others were taken to isolated camps, utterly lacking in\n medical facilities, where thousands of them died.\u201d\n\nThis evidence has not been produced so far by the prosecuting\nauthorities, although the defense, during the session of 17 March 1947,\nreferred in particular to this lack of evidence. The assertions of a\nRudolf Brandt in this respect cannot be evaluated as \u201cevidence,\u201d even if\nit had not been completely retracted and even if it had not already been\ncompletely refuted by additional documents submitted by the prosecution.\nIf the prosecuting authorities had succeeded in producing the witness\nPerwitschky, who had already been proposed in 1946, and who had been\napproved by the Tribunal, then his testimony would have produced\nadditional clear proof that Blome actually prevented the proposed mass\nmurder.\n\nWe know that later fate of these Poles who suffered from incurable open\ntuberculosis from the affidavit of Dr. Gundermann, the highest medical\nofficer of the Warthegau (the territory in which the tubercular Poles\nwere to be liquidated). (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) The fight against\ntuberculosis was a legal task of the Public Health Offices which were\nsubordinated in the Warthegau to the witness Dr. Gundermann. As a result\nof difficulties caused by the war, it was not possible to accommodate\nduring the war, either in restricted institutions or in a segregated\narea, those suffering from tuberculosis; these two possibilities, which\nhad been examined in a letter dated 18 November 1942 from Blome to\nGreiser were therefore out of the question for the time being. (_NO-250,\nPros. Ex. 203._) Therefore, the tubercular Poles were provided for\naccording to the same legal regulations which applied to tubercular\nGermans in Germany proper. Legal regulations notwithstanding, a separate\nTuberculosis Welfare Office, with Polish physicians and nurses, was\nestablished in the various health offices of the Warthegau. (_Blome 1,\nBlome Ex. 8._) Therefore, the contention of the prosecution \u201cthat the\naccommodation of sick Poles in restricted institutions resulted in the\ncomparatively rapid death of the sick\u201d or, that the transportation of\nthe sick into a reserved area meant that, \u201cthey were left to their fate,\nprovided with few physicians and with few or no nursing personnel,\u201d is\ndevoid of application. (_Tr. pp. 757-59._)\n\nIt should be observed, however, that these proposals by Blome (for\ninternment or reserved areas) did not originate from him, but had\nalready been discussed during the meeting of the German Tuberculosis\nSociety in 1937, and went back to proposals which had already been\nworked out years before by English research workers in tuberculosis on\ninstructions from the International Tuberculosis Commission, and which\nhad been generally approved. (_Blome 14, Blome Ex. 6._) Therefore, even\nif the existence of these proposals had been known, it cannot be said\nthat they contradicted in any way the laws of humanity. According to\nwidespread views held by the responsible circles, such measures are\nnecessary if tuberculosis, from which millions die yearly, is to be\nfought effectively, and if the healthy portion of the population is to\nbe protected effectively against the dangers of infection through\nincurable tubercular patients. In this case, the protection of the\nhealthy population against infection appears more important than\nconsideration for the unrestricted liberty of incurable patients.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-247 197 Letter from Koppe to Rudolf Brandt, 3 May 769\n 1942, concerning the killing of\n tubercular Poles.\nNO-244 201 Letter from Himmler (signed by Rudolf 770\n Brandt) to Greiser, 27 June 1942,\n concerning the extermination of\n tubercular Poles.\nNO-250 203 Letter from Blome to Greiser, 18 November 771\n 1942, concerning the mass extermination\n of tubercular Poles.\nNO-441 205 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf Brandt, 24 775\n October 1946, concerning the plan to\n exterminate tubercular Polish\n Nationals.\nNO-246 196 Letter from Greiser to Himmler, 1 May 776\n 1942, concerning the plan for mass\n extermination of tubercular Poles.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\nDoc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page\nBlome 14 Blome Ex. 6 Extracts from a report on the German 777\n Tuberculosis Conference of 18 to 20\n March 1937, at Wiesbaden.\nBlome 1 Blome Ex. 8 Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. Oskar 778\n Gundermann, 28 December 1946, stating\n that Blome opposed the plan to\n exterminate tubercular Poles and that\n the plan was never carried out.\n\n _Testimony_\n\nExtract from the testimony of defendant Blome. 780\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-247\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 197\n\nLETTER FROM KOPPE TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 MAY 1942, CONCERNINGTHE KILLING OF\n TUBERCULAR POLES\n\nThe Higher SS and Police Leader on the Staff of the Reich Governor in\nPoznan,\n\nIn Military District XXI [Wehrkreis XXI], Journal No. 132/42 g\n\n Poznan, 3 May 1942\n Fritz-Reuter Street, 2a\n Tel: 6501-05\n\n Secret\n\nTo the Reich Leader SS, Personal Staff,\nAttention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Brandt,\nBerlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Street 8.\nSubject: Poles afflicted with TB.\nDear Comrade Brandt,\n\nMay I ask that you submit the following matter to the Reich Leader SS:\n\nThe Gauleiter will shortly ask the Reich Leader SS for permission to\nhave Poles who have been shown to be afflicted with open TB admitted to\nthe detachment Lange for special treatment. This request is motivated by\nthe Gauleiter\u2019s serious and understandable concern for the physical\nwelfare of the German people here. For there are about 20-25,000 Poles\nin the Gau who, according to the doctors\u2019 opinion, are afflicted with\nincurable TB and who will not be fit for assignment to work again. In\nview of the fact that these Poles live very closely crowded together,\nparticularly in the cities, and that, on the other hand, they come in\nconstant contact with the German population, they constitute a\ntremendous source of infection which must be checked as quickly as\npossible. If this is not done, the infection of large numbers of Germans\nand most serious damage to the health of the German population must be\nexpected. Today already the number of cases of Germans, among them also\nmembers of the police force, becoming infected by Poles with TB is\nincreasing.\n\nUnder these circumstances, I consider the solution desired by the\nGauleiter as the only possible one and ask that you inform the Reich\nLeader SS accordingly.\n\n With comradely greetings,\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signature] W. KOPPE\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-244\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 201\n\nLETTER FROM HIMMLER (SIGNED BY RUDOLF BRANDT) TO GREISER, 27 JUNE 1942,\n CONCERNING THE EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES\n\n Top Secret\n\nReich Leader SS\nJournal No. 1247/42\nReference: Yours of 1 May 1942, P 802/42. Bra/V.\n\n [Handwritten] XI 2/97\n Fuehrer Headquarters, 27 June 1942\n\n Secret\n\nReichsstatthalter SS Obergruppenfuehrer Greiser, Poznan\n1. Dear Comrade Greiser!\n\nI am sorry that I was not able until today to give a definite answer to\nyour letter of 1 May 1942.\n\nI have no objection to having protectorate people and stateless persons\nof Polish origin, who live within the territory of the Warthegau and are\ninfected with tuberculosis, handed over for special treatment as you\nsuggest; as long as their disease is incurable according to the\ndiagnosis of an official physician. I would like to request, however, to\ndiscuss the individual measures in detail with the security police\nfirst, in order to assure inconspicuous accomplishment of the task.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] H. HIMMLER\n\n2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Koppe\n3. Reich Security Main Office\n Copies for information.\n By order:\n\n [Signature] BR.\n SS Obersturmbannfuehrer.\n [Initialed] M 25/6.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-250\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 203\n\n LETTER FROM BLOME TO GREISER, 18 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING THE MASS\n EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES\n\nDr. med. Kurt Blome\nDeputy Head\nNSDAP Main Office for Public Health\n\n 18 November 1942\n Berlin, SW 68, Lindenstrasse 42\n\nTo the Reichsstatthalter and Gauleiter, Party Member Greiser, Poznan\nReference: Tuberculosis action in the Warthegau.\n\nDear Party Member Greiser,\n\nToday I return to our various conversations concerning the fight against\ntuberculosis in your Gau, and I will give you\u2014as agreed on the 9th of\nthis month in Munich\u2014a detailed picture of the situation as it appears\nto me.\n\nConditions for quickly getting hold of all consumptives in your Gau\nexist. The total population of your Gau amounts to about 4.5 million\npeople, of which about 835,000 are Germans. According to previous\nobservations, the number of consumptives in the Warthegau is far greater\nthan the average number in the old Reich. It was calculated that in 1939\nthere were among the Poles about 35,000 persons suffering from open\ntuberculosis, and besides this number about 120,000 other consumptives\nin need of treatment. In this connection it must be mentioned that, in\nspite of the evacuation of part of the Poles further to the east, the\nnumber of sick persons is at least as great as in 1939. As, in\nconsequence of the war, living and food conditions have deteriorated\nsteadily, one must expect an even higher number.\n\nWith the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau an enormous\ndanger has arisen for them. A number of cases of infection of children\nand adults occur daily.\n\nWhat goes for the Warthegau must to a certain degree also hold true for\nthe other annexed territories, such as Danzig-West Prussia, the\nadministrative districts of Zichenau and Katowice. There are cases of\nGermans settled in the Warthegau who refuse to have their families\nfollow because of the danger of infection. If such behavior is imitated,\nand if our compatriots see that necessary measures for combating\ntuberculosis among the Poles are not carried out, it is to be expected\nthat the necessary further immigration will come to a halt. In such a\nway the settlement program for the East might reach an undesired state.\n\nTherefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide the most\nefficient way in which this can be done. There are three ways to be\ntaken into consideration:\n\n1. Special treatment of the seriously ill persons.\n\n2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons.\n\n3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients.\n\nFor the planning, attention must be paid to different points of view of\na practical, political, and psychological nature. Considering it most\nsoberly, the simplest way would be the following: Aided by the X-ray\nbattalion we could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of\nthe Gau during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment\nand isolation are to be prepared and carried out according to the\nregulations of tuberculosis relief. The approximately 35,000 Poles who\nare incurable and infectious will be \u201cspecially treated.\u201d All other\nPolish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to\nsave them for work and to avoid their causing contagion.\n\nAccording to your request I made arrangements with the offices in\nquestion, in order to start and carry out this radical procedure within\nhalf a year. You told me that the competent office agreed with you as to\nthis \u201cspecial treatment\u201d and promised support. Before we definitely\nstart the program, I think it would be correct if you would make sure\nonce more that the Fuehrer will really agree to such a solution.\n\nI could imagine that the Fuehrer, having some time ago stopped the\nprogram in the insane asylums, might at this moment consider a \u201cspecial\ntreatment\u201d of the incurably sick as unsuitable, and irresponsible from a\npolitical point of view. As regards the Euthanasia Program it was a\nquestion of people of German nationality afflicted with hereditary\ndiseases. Now it is a question of infected sick people of a subjugated\nnation.\n\nThere can be no doubt that the intended program is the most simple and\nmost radical solution. If absolute secrecy could be guaranteed, all\nscruples\u2014regardless of what nature\u2014could be overcome. But I consider\nmaintaining secrecy impossible. Experience has taught that this\nassumption is true. Should these sick persons, having been brought, as\nplanned, to the old Reich supposedly to be treated or healed, actually\nnever return, the relatives of these sick persons in spite of the\ngreatest secrecy would some day notice \u201cthat something was not quite\nright\u201d. One must take into consideration that there are many Polish\nworkers in the old Reich who will inquire as to the whereabouts of their\nrelatives; that there are a certain number of Germans related to or\nallied by marriage with Poles who could in this way learn of the\ntransports of the sick. Very soon more definite news of this program\nwould leak out which would be taken up by enemy propaganda. The\nEuthanasia Program taught in which manner this was done and which\nmethods were used. This new program could be used better politically, as\nit concerns persons of a subjugated nation. The Church will not remain\nsilent either. Nor will people stop at discussing this program. Certain\ninterested circles will spread the rumor among the people that similar\nmethods are also to be used in the future for German consumptives\u2014even,\nthat one can count on more or less all incurably ill being done away\nwith in the future. In connection with this I recall the recurring\nrecent foreign broadcast in connection with the appointment of Professor\nBrandt as commissioner general spreading the news that he was ordered to\nattend as little as possible to the healing of the seriously sick, but\nall the more to healing the less sick. And there are more than enough\npeople who listen to illegal broadcasts.\n\nFurthermore, it is to be taken into consideration that the planned\nproceeding will provide excellent propaganda material for our enemies,\nnot only as regards the Italian physicians and scientists, but also as\nregards all the Italian people in consequence of their strong Catholic\nties. It is also beyond all doubt that the enemy will mobilize all the\nphysicians of the world. And this will be all the more easy as the\ngeneral age-old conception of medical duty practice is \u201cto keep alive\nthe poor and guiltless patient as long as possible and to allay his\nsuffering.\u201d\n\nTherefore, I think it necessary to explain all these points of view to\nthe Fuehrer before undertaking the program, as, in my opinion, he is the\nonly one able to view the entire complex and to come to a decision.\n\nShould the Fuehrer decline the radical solution, preparations for\nanother way must be made. An exclusive settlement of all Polish\nconsumptives, both incurable and curable, would be one possibility of\nassuring an isolation of the infected. One could settle with them their\nimmediate relatives, if they so desire, so that nursing and livelihood\nwould be assured. As regards labor commitment, besides agriculture and\nforestry certain branches of industry could be developed in such\nterritories. I cannot judge whether you can conceive such a possibility\nwithin your Gau. I also could imagine the creation of a common area for\nthe settlement of the consumptives not only of your Gau, but also of the\ndistricts of Danzig-West Prussia, of the administrative district of\nZichenau and of the province of Upper Silesia. In order to avoid\nunnecessary overtaxing of public means of transport, the transfer could\nbe accomplished by walking. This would be a solution that world\npropaganda could hardly use against us, and one, on the other hand, that\nwould not arouse any of those stupid rumors in our own country.\n\nAnother solution to be taken into consideration would be a strict\nisolation of all the infectious and incurable consumptives, without\nexception, in nursing establishments. This solution would lead to the\ncomparatively rapid death of the sick. With the necessary addition of\nPolish doctors and nursing personnel, the character of a pure death camp\nwould be somewhat mitigated.\n\nThe following Polish accommodation possibilities are at present\navailable in your Gau:\n\n Nursing Home Walrode 400 beds\n Nursing Home \u201cGrote Wiese\u201d 300 beds\n Smaller establishments 200 beds\n Liebstadt barracks, district of Leslau as of 1 Jan 1943 1,000 beds\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\nTotal 1,900 beds\n\nShould the radical solution, i. e., proposal No. 1, be out of question,\nthe necessary conditions for proposals 2 or 3 must be created.\n\nWe must keep in mind the conditions of the war deprive us of the\npossibility of arranging for a fairly adequate treatment of the curable\nconsumptives. To do so would require procuring at least 10,000 more\nbeds. This figure, under the condition that the program is to be carried\nout within half a year, could not be met.\n\nAfter a proper examination of all these considerations and\ncircumstances, the creation of a reservation, such as the reservations\nfor lepers, seems to be the most practicable solution. Such a\nreservation should be able to be created in the shortest time by means\nof the necessary settlement. Within the reservation one could easily set\nup conditions for the strict isolation of the strongly contagious.\n\nEven the case of the German consumptives represents an extremely\ndifficult problem for the Gau. But this cannot be overcome, unless the\nproblem of the Polish consumptives is solved at the same time.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Yours,\n [Signed] DR. BLOME\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-441\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 205\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT, 24 OCTOBER 1946, CONCERNING THE\n PLAN TO EXTERMINATE TUBERCULAR POLISH NATIONALS\n\nI, Rudolf Emil Hermann Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n1. I am the same Rudolf Brandt who on 30 August 1946 swore an affidavit\nconcerning certain low-pressure experiments which were also conducted\nwith test subjects of the Dachau concentration camp without their\nconsent.\n\n2. I am entitled by the same reasons as already stated in paragraphs 1,\n2, and 3 of my affidavit of 30 August 1946 to state as follows:\n\n3. In the middle of 1942 the Reich Governor of the Warthegau, Herbert\n[Arthur(?)] Greiser, suggested to Himmler to annihilate Poles infected\nwith incurable tuberculosis. In submitting this suggestion, Greiser gave\nas a reason that the Germans in Poland would be exposed to this\nepidemic. Dr. Kurt Blome, Deputy Chief of the Main Office for Public\nHealth of the NSDAP, and radiologist Dr. Hohlfelder conferred with\nGreiser about this matter. Dr. Blome was from time to time with Himmler\nand supported Greiser\u2019s suggestion.\n\n4. The Higher SS and Police Leader, and Chief of the Warthegau, Koppe,\nfurther, Mueller of Office IV of the Reich Security Main Office (RSHA),\nand the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, Heydrich, were involved\nin this operation. At the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 Greiser\ncarried out the annihilation of the Jews in the Warthegau, and the\nrounding up of the tubercular Poles was finished at the same time as the\nrounding up of the Jews. As a result of the suggestions made by Blome\nand Greiser numerous Poles were exterminated. Many thousands of\ntubercular Poles were taken to isolation camps where they had to take\ncare of themselves.\n\nI have read the above affidavit in the German language, consisting of\none page, and it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and\nbelief. I was given the opportunity to make changes and corrections in\nthe above affidavit. This affidavit was given by me freely and\nvoluntarily without promise of reward, and I was subjected to no threat\nor duress of any kind.\n\nNuernberg, 24 October 1946\n [Signature] R. BRANDT\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-246\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 196\n\nLETTER FROM GREISER TO HIMMLER, 1 MAY 1942, CONCERNING THE PLAN FOR MASS\n EXTERMINATION OF TUBERCULAR POLES\n\nReich Governor of the Reichsgau Wartheland.\n\n Poznan, Schlossfreiheit 13, 1 May 1942\n Telephone No. 1823 24\n\n[Handwritten note]\nP 802/42\n\n Top Secret\n\nPersonal.\nTo the Reich Leader SS Heinrich Himmler,\nFuehrer Headquarters.\n\nReich Leader,\n\nThe special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews in the\nterritory of my district [Gau], approved by you in agreement with the\nChief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich,\ncan be completed within the next 2-3 months. I ask you for permission to\nrescue the district immediately after the measures taken against the\nJews, from a menace which is increasing week by week, and use the\nexisting and efficient special commandos for that purpose.\n\nThere are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my district, who\nwere diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The number of persons\ninfected with open tuberculosis is estimated at about 35,000. This fact\nhas led in an increasingly frightening measure to the infection of\nGermans who came to the Warthegau perfectly healthy. In particular,\nreports are received with ever-increasing effect of German children in\ndanger of infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men,\nespecially of the police, have been infected lately and are not\navailable for the war effort because of the necessary medical treatment.\nThe ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the\ndeputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer],\nComrade Professor Dr. Blome, as well as by the leader of your X-ray\nbattalion, SS Standartenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hohlfelder.\n\nThough in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate draconic\nsteps against this public plague, I think I could take responsibility\nfor my suggestion to have cases of open tuberculosis exterminated among\nthe Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of course only a Pole should be\nhanded over to such an action who is not only suffering from open\ntuberculosis, but whose incurability is proved and certified by a public\nhealth officer.\n\nConsidering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval in\nprinciple as soon as possible. This would enable us to make the\npreparations with all necessary precautions now to get the action\nagainst the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under way, while the\naction against the Jews is in its closing stages.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signature] GREISER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BLOME 14\n BLOME DEFENSE EXHIBIT 6\n\nEXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE GERMAN TUBERCULOSIS CONFERENCE OF 18 TO 20\n MARCH 1937, AT WIESBADEN\n\n (Published in Berlin, Publishers: Julius Springer, 1937)\n\nExtract from the report by Dr. Erwin Dorn, chief physician of the\nCharlottenhoehe Sanatorium, chief physician of the Tuberculosis Welfare\nCenter of the Oberamt Neuenbuerg, Calmbach (Wuerttemberg) concerning\nTask and Aims of the Method of Treatment and its Application in\nConsideration of the Awaited Special Laws for the Tubercular Patients\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 770]\n\nIn former years, particularly at the beginning of this century, every\nattempt at a labor treatment of tubercular patients was condemned as\nuseless, as only a limited treatment was known. On the other hand, in\ncountries such as Holland, England, and Switzerland, where treatment\nlasting many months is possible, labor treatment was firmly established.\nWe all know that several months are frequently needed in order to effect\na change by the conservative or radical treatment. Our surgical patients\n(plastics, plugging, bilateral pneumothorax, premicectory) also require\na long time until the severe stage of tuberculosis has been alleviated,\nand until they themselves again reach full working capacity. In a\nsimilar manner to those treated conservatively, these patients\nfrequently remain contagious for the rest of their lives. In the\nsanatorium they are superfluous, in every day life, useless. But they\nshould not be regarded as wholly incapacitated for years.\n\nThe aim of the labor treatment for active tubercular people is to fill\nthis gap between the remedial treatment and full working capacity. It\nshould be carried out in a work-sanatorium or a settlement.\n\nVarious conditions are necessary to enable tubercular persons with only\na limited working capacity to derive satisfaction from their work. The\nright type of work must be provided for them; the work periods must be\ngraduated according to the amount of work they can handle, and it must\nbe suited to their capabilities and to what they did in their former\nlife.\n\nThe place of work and the tools should be satisfactory. _At a\nwork-sanatorium, in favorable climatic surroundings, these requirements\nare best met if the patients are assigned to factory work._ * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Page 772]\n\nIn my last year\u2019s report on the forced treatment of tuberculosis\npatients, I showed that a patient suffering from open tuberculosis\nshould remain in a work-sanatorium or settlement until the disease no\nlonger presents a peril to himself and to his fellow men.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT BLOME 1\n BLOME DEFENSE EXHIBIT 8\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. OSKAR GUNDERMANN, 28 DECEMBER 1946,\nSTATING THAT BLOME OPPOSED THE PLAN TO EXTERMINATE TUBERCULAR POLES AND\n THAT THE PLAN WAS NEVER CARRIED OUT\n\n * * * * *\n\nFrom the summer of 1940 on I was chief medical officer in the department\nof the Reich Governor in Poznan.\n\nThe frequency of tuberculosis in the region of the Wartheland, at one\ntime incorporated into the Reich, was, according to statistics recorded\nbefore 1939\u2014at the time of the Polish Health\nAdministration\u2014considerably higher than in the German Reich. When the\nadministration was taken over, no modern welfare service for\ntuberculosis for the whole region existed. Among other things, there\nwere insufficient beds to effect a successful treatment and the\nisolation of tuberculosis patients. The estimates made from the\nstatistical material of infectious tuberculosis cases amounted to a\nround figure of 20,000 to 25,000 people of the Polish population. To\ncheck this tuberculosis epidemic, the authorities immediately began\nbuilding 40 health offices with modern welfare centers, as well as\nsanatoria and isolation homes with approximately 2,500 beds for Germans\nand Poles (the latter under Polish medical direction with Polish doctors\nand Polish nursing staff), and these were speedily finished. These\nmeasures by the office of the Reich Governor were supported by the\nsuperior Reich authority (Health Section of the Reich Ministry of the\nInterior).\n\nSince the above institutions were able to check the spreading of the\ntuberculosis epidemic to a certain degree, but particularly owing to the\nincreasing difficulties arising from the war, they were not able to get\nthe urgently needed sanitary measures running effectively, all the\nmedical officers of the Wartheland untiringly continued to warn their\nsuperiors and heads of departments urgently of the danger.\n\nThe whole affair took an unexpected turn in the autumn of 1942, because\nthe Gauleiter and Reich Governor Greiser supposedly said that in case of\nnecessity he would stop at nothing to check the tuberculosis epidemic\neffectively in the Wartheland in the interest of the entire population.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI thought it my duty to talk personally to the head of the Department of\nHealth in the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Reich Health\nLeader, Dr. Conti, in Berlin, about this matter and the entire\ntuberculosis problem.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs I was unable to get a clear answer from Dr. Conti and could not be\nsatisfied with such information as I received, I immediately called on\nthe Deputy Reich Health Leader, Dr. Blome. I knew that he dealt with\nspecial questions concerning tuberculosis in the Reich Health Leader\u2019s\noffice. From the beginning Blome showed a clearly negative attitude\ntoward any possible solution contrary to humanity or medical ethics. He\nshowed me the draft of a letter addressed to Greiser; I asked him to\nmake a few additions and alterations.\n\nWe discussed the formulation of the letter in detail from the point of\nview of convincing Greiser that an intensive continuation of the health\nand welfare measures so far taken, and a further extension of the health\nprogram set up for the fight against tuberculosis could effectively\navert the acute dangers. The suggestion for a large tuberculosis\nsettlement was particularly discussed. This plan was based on smaller\nexamples, and its final aim was the establishment of a widely spread,\nbut nevertheless closed settlement for tuberculosis patients and their\nfamilies. In this settlement, all modern examination, treatment,\nisolation, and welfare facilities should be provided for the patients\nand members of their families who might be in danger.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDr. Blome and I having agreed on the tactics to be taken toward Greiser\nand on the contents of the said letter, Dr. Blome began, in my presence,\nto dictate the draft of a new letter.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI concluded that the letter from Dr. Blome to Gauleiter Greiser was\nsuccessful, mainly from the development in the fight against\ntuberculosis in the Wartheland. The regulation about tuberculosis relief\nhaving become effective for the whole Reich territory on 1 April 1943, a\nsimilar regulation for protection against tuberculosis could be decreed\nin the Wartheland in favor of the Polish population. A central office\nfor the fight against tuberculosis was established under the management\nof a specialist. This office gave the same treatment to German and to\nPolish cases.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDuring my period in office as chief medical officer in Poznan, until\nJanuary 1945, no tuberculosis patients were \u201cliquidated\u201d in the\nWartheland as far as I know. I never received an order for such a\nmeasure, much less brought one about either directly or indirectly. On\nthe contrary, the office always tried to give all tuberculosis patients\nproper treatment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BLOME[91]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SAUTER: Now, Witness, I come to a different problem. It is the\nsuggestion made at that time that Poles suffering from incurable\ncontagious tuberculosis should be liquidated. You were interrogated in\nJanuary 1946 at Oberursel concerning your participation in the plan for\nthe extermination of tubercular Poles, and also on 9 and 22 October 1946\nhere in the prison. Were the statements you made at that time true?\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: Yes. But I must add that concerning this matter of the\ntubercular Poles, as far as I recall, I said it was in 1943, while in\nreality, as the files now show, it took place in 1942. I must also say\nthat my letter to Greiser in November 1942 has been shown to me here. I\nwas asked whether this was my letter, whether I had written this letter.\nI said \u201cNo.\u201d I said that because it was not a photostatic copy of the\noriginal, but a photostatic copy of a copy. I objected to several things\nin the letter and did not acknowledge it at that time. They were\nexternal matters which occasioned me to make that statement. Later,\nhowever, in December, when you took over my case, you gave me this\nphotostatic copy, and I had an opportunity to study it carefully and\nreconstruct the conditions which existed at the time and, therefore, I\nnow acknowledge this letter as authentic.\n\nQ. It is true, Dr. Blome, that the prosecution learned for the first\ntime of this plan to exterminate the Poles through you? Dr. Blome, what\ncan you say about that?\n\nA. Yes. The prosecution learned from me for the first time of this plan.\nIn 1942 I told my interrogator Captain Urbach at Oberursel about it,\nafter he had described the details of the atrocities which I had not\nknown up to that time.\n\nQ. You just said 1942.\n\nA. I meant 1945. I meant December 1945. I beg your pardon. I do not\nbelieve that the prosecution had any knowledge of this, at least not at\nOberursel.\n\nQ. Dr. Blome, this whole matter begins with a letter from the Reich\nGovernor Greiser dated 1 May 1942. (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196._) Tell us\nbriefly who Greiser was.\n\nA. This was Arthur Greiser, Gauleiter of the Warthegau, the Reich\nGovernor of the Wartheland, and the Reich Defense Commissioner of the\nWartheland.\n\nQ. This Gauleiter Greiser, who was a Gauleiter in a district which now\nbelongs to Poland, sent a letter on May 1st to the Reich Leader SS\nsuggesting that Poles suffering from tuberculosis in the Wartheland\nshould be liquidated if the existence of open tuberculosis and the\nincurability of the patients were established by official doctors. In\nthis connection Greiser writes and (this is what I want to ask you\nabout) I quote, \u201cThe increasing dangers were also recognized and\nappreciated by Deputy Reich Leader of Public Health, Dr. Blome, as well\nas by the Leader of your X-ray unit, SS Standartenfuehrer, Dr.\nHohlfelder.\u201d That is the quotation. What can you tell us today about\nthese apparently early discussions between you and Gauleiter Greiser?\n\nA. I talked to Gauleiter Greiser about three times, concerning the\ncombating of tuberculosis in Wartheland, certainly once in the presence\nof Professor Hohlfelder. These discussions go back to the year 1941. I\ncan recall Greiser once saying that the simplest thing would be to treat\nthe incurable tubercular Poles exactly like the insane by means of\neuthanasia. I pointed out that the comparison was not valid. The Poles,\nI also said, were not German citizens. The plan which Greiser was\nconsidering was a radical solution but I could not agree to it. When\nsometime later I learned of the so-called Fuehrer order, according to\nwhich the euthanasia action was stopped and prohibited, I considered\nthis matter and Greiser\u2019s statement as settled. Then the year 1942 was\nfilled with purely organizational preparation for the tuberculosis\naction. For example, all the population had to be registered in card\nindex files, Germans as well as Poles; preparations had to be made for a\nseries of X-ray examinations. Then these examinations had to be\nevaluated, and so on. The latter was a matter for the state health\noffices, that is the National Socialist welfare organization, and the\nX-ray unit which was to carry out the technical side of these\nexaminations. From time to time I had a report from Professor Hohlfelder\nabout the preparations. Only when all prerequisites were fulfilled, did\nI give my approval for such large scale action. The execution of this\naction was dependent upon my personal approval. I only took action in\nthis tuberculosis question in the Warthegau when I received alarming\nreports about an alleged liquidation order from Himmler. I learned of it\nbecause at the beginning of November Sturmbannfuehrer Perwitschky came\nto my office in Berlin and reported to me that Greiser had an order from\nHimmler to the effect that incurably sick cases of tuberculosis found\nduring the planned examinations in the Wartheland were to be liquidated.\nPerwitschky belonged to the X-ray unit and was business manager for the\nsociety combating tuberculosis. Then I immediately reached an agreement\nwith Perwitschky that I would meet Professor Hohlfelder at Poznan to\ndiscuss the matter and to prevent Himmler\u2019s and Greiser\u2019s plans from\nbeing carried out. I went to Poznan and discussed the matter with\nHohlfelder. We were both greatly astonished at this order from Himmler.\nWe agreed that this order must not be carried out, and that we as German\ndoctors could not lend our aid to such an action. We discussed the\nmanner in which this Himmler-Greiser plan could be prevented. We decided\nthat I should go to Greiser first of all. I telephoned Greiser from this\nconference and said that it was very important that I should speak to\nhim. Then I talked to him on the same day, or on the next day. When I\nasked Greiser whether Himmler\u2019s orders for liquidating were correct, he\nsaid \u201cYes.\u201d He said he had the order in his hands. I said that I was\nwilling to prevent this plan in any case and explained why. I said that\nin the first place as a doctor I could not participate in this and, in\nthe second place, I pointed out the political danger connected with such\na crime.\n\nThen Greiser agreed that I should write a letter for him which he would\npass on to Himmler for a decision. As for Greiser\u2019s letter to Himmler of\nMay 1942 (_NO-246, Pros. Ex. 196_) which you just mentioned, Dr. Sauter,\nI learned of it for the first time from files here, and Himmler\u2019s\nopinion concerning my letter of November 1942 I learned of here for the\nfirst time too. Up to that time I did not know about Himmler\u2019s letter to\nGreiser. In the letter of May 1942, from Greiser to Himmler, Greiser\nwrites, I quote, \u201cthat Hohlfelder and Blome recognized the\never-increasing risks and appreciated them.\u201d But he does not say that\nHohlfelder and I approved liquidation. The letter does not say that. My\nbasic opinion on the problem is the following: Let us suppose that we in\nGermany had a valid law for the liquidation of incurably sick persons.\nAssuming that such a law did exist, it would, of course, be out of the\nquestion to apply it to non-Germans. Application in this case would be a\ncrime, especially during war. Germany had occupied foreign territory\nand, as an occupying power, had to observe international law in the\ntreatment given to the occupied territories. As for the problem of\ntuberculosis, I had dealt with it for some time, especially since 1935\nwhen I had incorporated the tuberculosis question into the post-graduate\nmedical training. In 1937 Professor Janker, Bonn, a well-known X-ray\nspecialist, called upon me for aid in developing a new procedure which,\nwith a minimum of cost, would make it possible to examine large groups\nof the population. This was the so-called X-ray screen photography which\nwas developed. I shall give you a brief explanation of this. Previously\nfor an X-ray picture of the lungs, a film had been needed of 24 by 30\ncentimeters. This new procedure required a film of about only 4 by 4\ncentimeters. That is, the so-called Leica size. The pictures were taken\nwith a Leica. The X-ray screen was photographed. The successful\ndevelopment of this procedure meant that for an X-ray photograph, in\nplace of the price of from twelve to thirteen marks, which the social\ninsurance had paid, it now could be produced for about ten pfennigs:\nthat is, less than one percent.\n\nThe further value of the development of this process was that one would\nno longer need several minutes for an X-ray photograph, but this\nprocedure was developed to such an extent that we could take two hundred\nto three hundred pictures per minute. I developed this screen picture\nprocess together with Janker until we reached the results which I have\njust described. At the X-ray Congress in May 1938 in Munich I made this\nprocess public and I stated that with its aid one could begin a\nlarge-scale fight against tuberculosis. Only a few people believed my\nwords at the time, and some smiled pityingly. After this congress,\nProfessor Hohlfelder, who was later commander of the X-ray unit, came to\nme, and working with X-ray science, the optical industry, the film\nindustry, X-ray industry, screen industry, etc., we developed the\nprocess during the course of that same year to such an extent that in a\nshort time we were able to X-ray practically every inhabitant in the\nwhole province of Mecklenburg. The procedure was then gradually\ndeveloped until we could easily have X-rayed ten million or more in\nGermany per year. Then, during the war, at my instigation, in 1939 and\n1940, we X-rayed the population of the whole province of Westphalia;\nthen in 1941, the whole province of Wuerttemberg, including\nHohenzollern. Now there was the plan to X-ray the people of Wartheland.\nGauleiter Greiser had approached me, because approval had to be obtained\nfrom me, and I gave such approval only if all prerequisites were given,\nso that the cases which were discovered could be given some medical and\nclinical attention. It had been our experience in these examinations\nthat one percent new tuberculosis cases were discovered which had\nhitherto been completely undetected. For the Warthegau alone, with a\nPolish population of four and one-half millions, that would have meant\nforty-five thousand new cases of tuberculosis, not counting the ten\nthousand from among the one million German population. I had withheld my\napproval for such actions because at that time, with the development of\nthis invention, a plan of irresponsible X-raying was being carried out\nby various Gauleiters and by large industries. Everyone wanted to take\nup the battle against tuberculosis but that would have been a disaster\nunless there had been some check. When whole groups of population were\nX-rayed, there had to be the necessary preparation of medical supplies\nfrom the beginning, otherwise there would have been a catastrophe.\nThrough this action and through these many new cases of tuberculosis\nwhich were discovered, I consciously put the state in a difficult\nsituation. I forced the state to issue a new law for the fight against\ntuberculosis. This law which was issued was the Tuberculosis Aid Law.\nThis law formed the basis for the lung examination of the population of\nthe Wartheland which was actually carried out in 1943-1944. This law, it\ncan be proved, was not only of benefit to the German population in the\nWarthegau, but also to the Polish population, as is clearly seen from\nthe affidavit of Regierungsdirektor Dr. Gundermann. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex.\n8._) Dr. Gundermann was the chief medical officer of the Wartheland;\nthat is, he had the main responsibility for the fight against\ntuberculosis in this Gau.\n\nQ. Dr. Blome, before we go into the letter of 18 November 1942, I should\nlike to return to the spring of 1942. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) We just\nheard of a letter from Gauleiter Greiser dated May 1942, in which he\nsuggests that Poles suffering from tuberculosis should be liquidated. He\nwrites \u201cthat the ever-increasing risks were also recognized and\nappreciated by the Deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health,\nProfessor Dr. Blome.\u201d\n\nYou said that Greiser does not mention that you approved the plan for\nthe liquidation of the Poles. I would be interested to know what your\nattitude was at that time, in the spring of 1942, towards this plan. Did\nyou approve of the plan to liquidate tubercular Poles? Did you reject\nit? What did you say about it?\n\nA. In the spring of 1942 I expressed no opinion at all in respect to\nthis plan. The discussions with Greiser, as I said, were in the year\n1941, at the time when the euthanasia action was still in operation. In\n1942 I did not talk to Greiser about such a plan at all. I did not know\nthat Greiser intended to write this letter in May 1942 to Himmler, or\nthat he did actually write it. I heard about it only here and after\nGreiser had made his statements in connection with the euthanasia\naction. But the euthanasia action had been stopped by Hitler\u2019s order,\nand of course I assumed that such ideas on the part of Greiser were\nsettled too. I did not approve of his ideas, as I said before.\n\nQ. Then, if I understand you correctly, you did not deal with this\nmatter in the fall of 1942 when this Perwitschky brought you alarming\nnews?\n\nA. Yes. That is right.\n\nQ. Can you tell us why Gauleiter Greiser discussed this tuberculosis\nproblem with you particularly?\n\nA. The reason was, as I have already said, that the execution of such an\naction depended on my approval. If I had said the Warthegau was not to\nbe X-rayed, then it would not have been X-rayed, no matter what the\nGauleiter did.\n\nQ. Dr. Blome, Gauleiter Greiser was not thinking apparently of X-raying\nbut of liquidating. The letter of 1 May 1942, where he makes the\nsuggestion, speaks only of liquidation. It says nothing about X-raying.\nI would like to find out how you became involved in this matter, and\nwhen you heard of Greiser\u2019s plan for the first time, the plan to\neliminate the tubercular Poles?\n\nA. Of course Gauleiter Greiser was thinking of X-raying; that is\nessential for detecting incurable cases of tuberculosis.\n\nQ. Then, Witness, on the 18th of November you wrote a letter. (_NO-250,\nPros. Ex. 203._) This is the letter which the prosecution has described\nas a \u201cmasterpiece of murderous intention.\u201d Did you discuss this letter\nbeforehand with the Reich Physician Leader, Dr. Conti?\n\nA. No. After I had talked to Greiser I saw Conti for a short time in\nBerlin, or I went to see Conti to report to him about the plan and about\nmy talk with Greiser. Dr. Conti said, \u201cWhat do you want? That\u2019s an order\nfrom the Reich Leader, that is, Himmler!\u201d Then I told Conti what I had\nagreed upon with Greiser, and that I would write a letter to that effect\nto be sent on to Himmler. This he agreed to and also to my writing this\nletter. But I did not discuss the contents with Dr. Conti. I did not see\nany point in doing so. This statement of Conti\u2019s showed that he knew\nabout this plan of liquidation.\n\nQ. Witness, this letter which you wrote to Gauleiter Greiser, in which\nyou opposed liquidation of the Poles, did you write it by yourself or\ndid you discuss the draft of this letter with anyone?\n\nA. First of all I wrote the letter by myself. After I had returned to\nBerlin from Poznan I had to go to Munich. When I came back from Munich I\nwrote this letter. I made various rough drafts. It was not easy. I had\ndiscussed the general tactics with Hohlfelder according to which we\nwould start right at the beginning of the letter by appearing to agree\nto the ideas, but then in the second part of the letter we would list\nall the political factors which might induce Himmler and the others to\ngive up such an action. It was not easy to write such a letter. I\nworried about this letter a great deal until I thought I finally had a\nright draft.\n\nIn my preliminary interrogation an interrogator asked me something to\nthis effect: \u201cWhy did you not simply give up your office and resign when\nyou heard about this plan?\u201d My answer is as follows: It would, of\ncourse, have been the simplest thing for me to take advantage of this\nopportunity to give up my position. Then I would have had nothing more\nto do with the whole matter; at least 40,000 Poles would have been\nmurdered, and I would not be under indictment today on this charge.\nPlease excuse me for saying this, but I must say it, when such a charge\nis made against me. I will try to speak as dispassionately as possible.\nDr. Sauter had just said that the prosecution considers my letter a\n\u201cmasterpiece of murderous intention\u201d. I now state the following: Apart\nfrom this questionable affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, the prosecution has\nnot produced a single document to prove the murder of tubercular Poles\nby me. On the contrary, the prosecution has submitted Himmler\u2019s reply\ndated the end of November 1942, according to which Himmler, in answer to\nmy letter, prohibited the liquidation of the tubercular Poles, and this\nletter expressly says that my suggestion was to be carried out and that\nthis matter was to be used as propaganda. In spite of that, the\nprosecution makes such charges as these against me. I am accused of\nbeing a murderer 10,000 times for a crime which I did not commit but\nwhich I prevented, as I can prove. I should like to say something else.\nThe press, of course, has taken up this charge. I cannot hold that\nagainst the press. The consequence of this news, however, was that my\nfamily, my wife and my little children, are subjected to unpleasantness\nand even threats. Through this assertion of the prosecution, the name of\nBlome has been defamed in a way which it does not deserve, especially if\nit can be proved that I prevented the crime with which I am charged.\n\nMR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, I object to any further comment of\nthis type from the witness.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Objection overruled. Witness may continue.\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: I beg your pardon if I got rather excited. I should\nlike to conclude my statement by saying that I hope that this case will\nbe soon cleared up, and that then the press will be chivalrous enough to\nstate that I not only did not commit this crime, but that I actually\nprevented it.\n\nDR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I should like to discuss with the witness the\nletter of 18 November 1942 in which the defendant prevented the murder\nof the Poles. It will take some time. I believe this would be a good\ntime to take a recess.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SAUTER: Witness, during the morning session you explained to us\namong other things the new method of X-ray photography, the so-called\nscreen photography; you stated that using this new method one could take\n200 to 300 photographs per minute. Were you not wrong, didn\u2019t you mean\nperhaps per hour and not per minute?\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, per hour.\n\nQ. I just wanted to correct that so that it does not appear erroneously\nin the record. We shall continue, Witness, with the letter which we have\nrepeatedly discussed, the letter of 18 November 1942, regarding the\nextermination of Poles. (_NO-250, Pros. Ex. 203._) It is a letter in\nwhich you define your attitude towards the proposal made by Greiser,\nnamely to liquidate the tubercular Poles. Do you know the contents of\nthis letter?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. In this letter you made certain proposals. May I ask you to tell us\nwhat suggestions you actually made in that letter? Do you need the\nletter for that purpose?\n\nA. Thank you, I have it. The most suitable suggestion I considered to be\nmy suggestion to create an area in which one could put the tubercular\nPoles, and I recalled the leper colonies well known throughout the\nworld. I must emphasize that there is a considerable difference between\ntuberculosis and leprosy.\n\nAs I made the last draft of my letter, the leading medical officer of\nWarthegau was suddenly announced. It was Dr. Gundermann, the highest\nstate medical officer of Warthegau. He reported that he had just come\nfrom Dr. Conti, and that he had heard rumors from Warthegau that\ntubercular Poles were to be liquidated. Dr. Conti had maintained a very\nevasive attitude toward him, so he had left Dr. Conti without having\nachieved any results and thereupon he had decided to come to me. I told\nhim that he had come at the most suitable moment, and I explained to him\nthe position as it had developed in the meantime. I told him of my\nconversation with Hohlfelder and with Greiser, and of the letter which\nhad been decided upon. He was very pleased about it and was also pleased\nthat I shared his attitude of rejection. I showed him my draft letter\nand he made a few suggestions. The number of geographical details in the\nletter actually originated from Gundermann. In particular, he emphasized\nthe importance of a special settlement for tubercular Poles and\nrecognized this as the most suitable solution. I had already heard of\nsuch suggestions, especially those arising from the tuberculosis meeting\nin 1937. During that meeting two well-known German tuberculosis experts,\nDr. Dorn and Dr. Hein, had lectured on tuberculosis settlements. Very\nuseful experience had been obtained from such tuberculosis settlements,\nnot only in Germany but also in England. When making my suggestion to\nHimmler I explained in detail how such a suggestion could be realized.\nIn my letter I explained the tactics that were to be used, taking into\nconsideration the mentality of people like Greiser and Himmler, and made\nit appear as though I wanted to agree with their liquidation program.\nAfterwards I cited all the political misgivings I had, naming individual\nexamples. Then I said that in one experiment the people who were\nseriously ill and those who were contagious would be segregated, and\nthat Polish physicians and Polish nursing personnel would be attached to\nthese seriously ill patients in order to avoid the appearance of a death\ncamp. Every physician knows, and it is also known in lay circles, that\nif one isolates seriously ill people, such an isolation soon comes to be\nconsidered as an isolation for death. That is why I said that the\nnecessary Polish physicians and nursing personnel must be attached to\nthese camps. My best suggestion I considered to be the creation of a\ncolony for all tubercular Poles.\n\nIn particular I wished to point out the following in my letter, I said,\nand I quote: \u201cI could imagine that as the Fuehrer stopped the program in\nthe insane asylums sometime ago, he might at this moment consider\n\u2019special treatment\u2019 of the incurably sick as unsuitable, and unwise from\na political point of view.\u201d I mentioned that because Greiser\u2019s\nsuggestion in the year 1941 pointed to a comparison with the euthanasia\naction. In order, however, to be quite sure that these political\nmisgivings also reached Hitler and that the decision did not rest mainly\nin Himmler\u2019s hands, I sent a copy of my letter direct to Martin\nBormann.[92] I furthermore want to point out the following matter. I\nsaid: \u201cI consider any secrecy completely impossible.\u201d In this\nconnection, I should like to refer to a letter concerning a different\naction, namely the letter from the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube,\ndated 1942, which suggests experiments on the sterilization of national\ngroups such as gypsies. In this letter, contrary to my letter,\ncompletely different tactics are used. The Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower\nDanube stated that one must keep such an action very secret, because\notherwise it would have serious consequences from the point of view of\nthe state.\n\nMR. HARDY: Is it the intention of the defendant to put the letter he is\nreferring to in as evidence, or is he merely quoting from his own\nletter?\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Can counsel for the defendant Blome advise the\nTribunal on that point?\n\nDR. SAUTER: This is a letter which has already been used by the\nprosecution and thus came to the knowledge of the defendant. Therefore\nhe can quote it. It is certainly not necessary to submit this letter\nonce more.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Would counsel please identify the letter, the\nexhibit number, and where it may be found?\n\nDR. SAUTER: One moment, please. Mr. President, this letter was submitted\nby the prosecution concerning sterilization experiments. It was\nsubmitted as Document NO-039\u2014I repeat NO-039\u2014Prosecution Exhibit 153.\nIt is a letter from the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube district\naddressed to Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 24 August 1942. This letter\nwas already submitted by the prosecution.\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SAUTER: Doctor, will you please finish your answer?\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: In this letter the Deputy Gauleiter of the Lower Danube\ndistrict writes to Himmler, and I quote:\n\n \u201cWe are quite clear about the fact that such examination must be\n considered as an absolute state secret.\u201d\n\nThat is exactly contrary to the tactics which I used. I say \u201cI think\nthat any secrecy is quite impossible,\u201d and I give detailed reasons for\nthis. I will merely give you a short excerpt from my letter. I point out\nhow many Polish workers there are in the German Reich, and that there\nwould be questions from their relatives about their whereabouts. Then I\nindicate the number of Germans who are related to these Poles. I also\nmention that, in the case of the Poles, we are concerned with members of\na conquered nation. I further point out that certain circles would\nspread rumors among the population to the effect that similar methods\nwould be used in the case of German tubercular patients in the future. I\nfurther show that in connection with the appointment of Professor Brandt\nas Commissioner General, foreign broadcasts spread reports that Brandt\nwas no longer concerned with the rehabilitation of seriously wounded\npeople, but only with those people who had been slightly wounded. I\nrefer to the reaction which would result in the case of such a crime on\nthe part of the Italian physicians and scientists as well as the entire\nItalian population. I furthermore refer to the Church, and I then say\nand quote: \u201cTherefore, I think it is necessary to explain all these\npoints of view to the Fuehrer before undertaking the program.\u201d\n\nWith reference to my suggestion for a kind of reservation, I say in the\nlast paragraph of my letter, and I quote: \u201cAfter a proper examination of\nall these considerations and circumstances, the creation of a\nreservation such as the lepers colonies seems to be the most practical\nsolution.\u201d\n\nBefore that I had suggested that these tubercular settlements should be\narranged in such a manner that relations who were willing could also be\nsettled there. In this way in addition to the necessary nursing\npersonnel and the necessary Polish physicians, the necessary medical\ncare would be safeguarded.\n\nQ. Witness, you previously referred to your suggestions, and you spoke\nabout a congress on tuberculosis questions in which you participated.\n\nDR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I have an excerpt from the record of this\ntuberculosis congress. It is a report on the Third International\nCongress. It is a report on the proceedings of the German Tuberculosis\nConference dated 18 to 20 March 1937, which took place at Wiesbaden. Two\nspeeches are reproduced here in excerpt form.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, this document is found in supplemental\ndocuments?\n\nDR. SAUTER: Yes, in the supplemental volume. In this report a paper by\ntwo well-known German tuberculosis experts is mentioned, a Dr. Erwin\nDorn, who was the chief physician of a sanatorium for chest diseases at\nCharlottenhoehe, and a certain Dr. Joachim Hein, who was the director of\na sanatorium for chest diseases in Holstein. I am not going to read\nthese papers in detail, but I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice\nof them. I submitted these reports of the conference in order to show\nthat the same suggestions which this defendant, Dr. Blome, made in 1942\nwhen writing to Gauleiter Greiser, are also contained here in the year\n1937, and were made during the German Tuberculosis Conference. These\nproposals did not concern foreign tubercular persons, but German\ntubercular persons.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel offer this document into evidence?\n\nDR. SAUTER: It will become exhibit 6, Blome Exhibit 6. Witness, in this\nletter of 18 December 1942, about which we are speaking now, you really\ndealt with three proposals: (1) special treatment for the seriously ill\npersons; (2) most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons\u2014that\nis to say, separation from the outside world; and (3) the creation of a\nreservation area for all tubercular patients in Poland. Now when reading\nyour letter, one gains the impression\u2014at least one might gain the\nimpression\u2014that you were speaking in favor of your first suggestion in\nthe first part of your letter, namely, the \u201cspecial treatment\u201d of the\nseriously ill, which is to say their liquidation as was suggested and\ndesired by Himmler and Greiser.\n\nMy question is: Why did you not simply state very frankly in your letter\nof 18 November 1942 that this liquidation of the incurably ill\ntubercular Poles, as suggested by Greiser and Himmler, was a crime; that\nit could under no circumstances be permitted, and that you, Dr. Blome,\nwould have nothing to do with any such proposal? Why did you not write\nto Greiser on those lines at that time?\n\nDEFENDANT BLOME: I think that I already defined my attitude towards that\nquestion very briefly this morning, and I state again, I would have\npreferred merely to have pointed out the criminal aspects of this\nproposal in my letter, but I knew the mentality of these men, and it was\nquite clear to me that the expression of any such point of view could\nonly have had a negative result. In doing that I would not have saved\nmyself, and much less 30,000 tubercular Poles\u2014they would actually have\nthen been liquidated. If I had not wanted to present my true point of\nview frankly, I would not have had to think for days about the letter;\nit would only have been a matter of five or ten minutes. I would just\nhave had to dictate the letter and mail it. I had, however, realized,\nand it was also the opinion of Professor Hohlfelder, that I would have\nto make it appear as if I agreed to the plan if I wanted to have any\nsuccess with my counterproposals. I was convinced that the mention of\nall the political aspects which might involve danger would be the only\neffective weapon. The success of my procedure quite clearly speaks for\nthe correctness of my tactics. Yes, Himmler really wanted to carry out\nthis proposal I had made and he wanted to exploit it as propaganda; that\nis clearly stated in Himmler\u2019s letter to Greiser, dated the end of\nNovember 1942. The documentary value of my letter can be seen only in\nthe following: It shows, firstly, that during that period of brutal\nthinking, men like Himmler had no time for any considerations of a\nhumane nature; secondly, only by a clear and definite statement on my\npart could the crime of the murder of 10,000 Poles be prevented, and I\nwas only concerned with that result.\n\nQ. Witness, the suggestion which you made in your letter was that under\nNo. 2: the most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. With\nreference to this suggestion, the prosecution considers that during the\nmeeting of 19 December you had the idea of sending these tubercular\npatients to institutions and I quote: \u201cThat opinion was voiced because\nthen the comparatively quick death of these patients would ensue in\nthese institutions.\u201d\n\nWas that really your intention, and did you think of any such\npossibility at that time, that is, when you made the suggestion?\n\nA. On the contrary I cannot recognize the evidence of the prosecution\nregarding that point as being logical. Had it been my intention to let\nthe patients die, I would not have demanded that they be given the\nnecessary physicians and nursing personnel. In addition, I want to refer\nto my former testimony on this point.\n\nQ. The other suggestion you made at that time and which is listed under\nNo. 3 of your letter is the creation of a reservation for all tubercular\npatients. During the same meeting of 19 December the prosecution said\nwith reference to that proposal, and I quote:\n\n \u201cWith this plan, that is, to send all patients into a\n reservation and thereby isolate them from the rest of the\n population, you, Dr. Blome, wanted to cause these sick Poles to\n be left to their fate with very few doctors and scanty nursing\n personnel. The aim of liquidating these Poles was to be realized\n in this way.\u201d\n\nWhat do you have to say, Dr. Blome, to this motive which the prosecution\nimputes to you?\n\nA. This motive is not correct. The contrary can clearly be seen from my\nletter. In that connection I may refer to my previous explanation\nregarding my letter. Furthermore, I refer to the affidavit of Dr.\nGundermann. (_Blome 1, Blome Ex. 8._) My interest was exactly the\ncontrary to what the prosecution tries to impute to me, for I was\nplanning the very same thing for Germany after the war. If I had been\nable to carry through such an action, and had been able to show success\nin that action, it would have been easier for me later on to refer to\nthe plans mentioned during the Tuberculosis Congress of 1937 by pointing\nout the success I had achieved in the Warthegau. Even today I realize\nthat until we are able to bring about really effective medical\ntreatment, or vaccination against the spread of tuberculosis, the only\nreally practicable and effective solution is the creation of such\nsettlement areas or reservations.\n\nQ. Dr. Blome, from your book, entitled \u201cPhysician in Combat\u201d, which has\nbeen submitted in evidence in its entirety as Blome Exhibit 1, it can be\nseen that for quite a long time you had waged war against tuberculosis.\nCan you tell us on the basis of your experiences whether these proposals\nwhich you made in your letter of 18 December 1942\u2014that is, either\nhousing the sick in tuberculosis institutions, or placing the\nconsumptives in a reservation area\u2014whether these suggestions were\ncompletely different from the manner of combating tuberculosis as\npracticed in various foreign countries up to that time, or, if not\ntuberculosis, other infectious diseases of the same importance as\ntuberculosis?\n\nA. Naturally the plan to set up a tuberculosis settlement on a large\nscale does not represent anything absolutely new, because, as can be\nseen from the documents submitted regarding the Tuberculosis Congress,\nsuch tuberculosis settlements had existed in England and Holland in\naddition to Germany, with good results; but, on the other hand, the\nrealization of this settlement idea would make an enormous difference to\nfight against tuberculosis generally. The war difficulties that existed\nin 1942 and 1943 did not permit this plan to be realized as suggested by\nme for the Warthegau. The fight against tuberculosis continued, however,\nin the usual way, as far as it was possible during the war, and as it\nwas dealt with throughout the Reich for Germans as well.\n\nIn other countries, other experiments were made. For instance in the\nyear 1935 certain well-known people in the city of Detroit, in America,\nmade a large-scale experiment for the combat of tuberculosis. After\npreparations were made the entire population of Detroit was asked, by\nmeans of enormous propaganda by press and radio, to submit to an\nexamination for tuberculosis, in order to find out the source of the\ninfection. The city of Detroit had made the necessary facilities\navailable for carrying out the examination and a certain success was\nobtained. In particular, nearly the whole of the colored population of\nDetroit reported for these examinations, whereas the American press, on\nthe other hand, complained that this was not fully the case with the\nwhite population.\n\nThis action started in 1936 and was continued in 1937. I could not hear\nanything about the ultimate results because the war had started. All\nactions such as that action in Detroit, and small settlements in the\nform of little villages for consumptives, will not solve the entire\nproblem unless done on a large scale. There is no doubt that the problem\nof tuberculosis has not been tackled on a large scale in the world\ntoday. The sole reason for that is that tuberculosis cannot be compared\nwith any other contagious disease such as diphtheria, cholera, typhoid.\nThese epidemics have a shorter course and quickly claim their victims.\nIf that had been the case with tuberculosis the fight against it would\nhave progressed much farther throughout the world. The tragic thing in\nthat problem is the manner of the disease itself, the slow tricky\ncourse. That is why, in my opinion, there are nowhere in the world laws\nwhich definitely secure the isolation of infectious tubercular subjects,\nalthough such plans are being considered at all congresses dealing with\ntuberculosis all over the world. As far as I know nobody has made a\ndecisive step, and I think the sole reason lies in the slow tricky\ncourse of tuberculosis, in spite of the fact that tuberculosis is\nregarded as having the second highest mortality of all diseases.\n\nQ. In addition to that letter of 18 December 1942 about which we are\nspeaking now, did you take any more steps to frustrate the plan of\nGreiser, namely, to liquidate all tubercular Poles, and in particular\ndid you turn to Hitler or Himmler personally in that matter?\n\nA. No. I did not speak to Hitler at all throughout the entire war.\n\nQ. How about Himmler?\n\nA. I spoke to Himmler on various occasions, but that was about one year\nlater. At that time I had as yet no official relations with Himmler, and\nI did not know him. Had this happened one year later, when I already had\nofficial contact with Himmler, and had I known him better, I would not\nhave written a letter; I would have approached Himmler personally and\nwould have been able to frustrate the action without having to write a\nletter. Having written this letter I received a report through Greiser\nvery shortly afterwards to the effect that Himmler had withdrawn his\norder, and that settled the affair as far as I was concerned. I was only\ninformed that everything was handled in an orderly and legal manner in\nthe Warthegau as regards the examination and the registration of\ntubercular persons.\n\nQ. Who told you that this plan had been withdrawn on the basis of your\nsuggestion?\n\nA. I heard it from Hohlfelder as well as from Perwitschky.\n\nQ. These were the two men\u2014\n\nA. Hohlfelder was the commanding officer of the X-ray unit, and\nPerwitschky was the business manager of the association for combating\ntuberculosis.\n\nQ. Did you find out how the rejection of this plan really came about,\nand, in particular, do you know that when Greiser\u2019s letter was shown to\nhim Himmler said that Hitler himself had to decide, and that Hitler\nhimself actually did decide that this plan was to be rejected for the\nreasons which you, Dr. Blome, stated in your letter to Greiser? Did you\nhear about that later?\n\nA. At that time I only learned from Professor Hohlfelder and Perwitschky\nthat the reasons stated in my letter had moved Hitler to withdraw his\norder. I only heard of Himmler\u2019s letter here in this courtroom, through\nthe documents, and I am, therefore, very grateful to the prosecution for\nnot having withheld this letter from me.\n\nQ. Witness, when you say that this plan of Greiser\u2019s was frustrated\nbecause of you, I must remind you of what the prosecution said here on 9\nDecember in this courtroom. The prosecution said at that time, \u201cWe shall\nintroduce evidence to show that the program was in fact carried out at\nthe end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943 * * *.\u201d And by that, the\nprogram for the liquidation of the tubercular Poles was meant. Further,\n\u201cthat as a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many\nPoles were ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to\nisolated camps, utterly lacking in medical facilities where thousands of\nthem died.\u201d These were statements made by prosecution. I must again ask\nyou very definitely, did you at any time later hear that on the basis of\nthese proposals tubercular Poles were, in effect, exterminated?\n\nA. No. The assertions of the prosecution are not true. Nothing happened\nto one Pole within the framework of this tubercular action in the\nWarthegau. On the contrary they received decent medical treatment.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[89] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 247-253, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n[90] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp.\n10972-10994.\n\n[91] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13, 14,\n17, 18, 19, 20, 21 March 1947, pp. 4450-4812.\n\n[92] Defendant (in absentia) before International Military Tribunal. See\nTrial of the Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n\n D. Euthanasia\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven were charged with\nparticipation in and responsibility for the execution of the so-called\n\u201cEuthanasia Program\u201d in the course of which hundreds of thousands of\nhuman beings, including nationals of German occupied countries, were\nmurdered (pars. 9 and 14 of the indictment). On this charge the\ndefendants Karl Brandt, Brack, and Hoven were convicted, and the\ndefendant Blome was acquitted.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of the evidence on euthanasia is contained\nin its closing briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Brack.\nExtracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 795 to 813. A\ncorresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on this program\nhas been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt\nand from the final plea for the defendant Brack. It appears below on\npages 813 to 839. This argumentation is followed by selections from the\nevidence on pages 842 to 896.\n\n b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST THE\n DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Euthanasia Program_\n\nA. _Procedure_\n\nOn 1 September 1939 Hitler charged the defendant Karl Brandt and\nReichsleiter Bouhler with the execution of the Euthanasia Program. The\nletter of appointment stated:\n\n \u201cReichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with\n the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain\n physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that\n persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can,\n upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be\n accorded a mercy death.\u201d (_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._)\n\nThis document in no way limited the application of euthanasia to insane\npersons but included anyone who might be designated as \u201cincurable.\u201d\n\nThe witness Mennecke testified that the program was carried out in the\nfollowing way:\n\nEvery German mental institution received questionnaires from the Reich\nMinistry of the Interior which were to be completed for each inmate of\nthe institution and to be sent back to the Reich Ministry of the\nInterior. Experts then had to examine the questionnaires after they had\nbeen photostated; they had to express their medical opinion on them, and\nhad to return them, with their opinion, to the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft\n(Reich Labor Association). (_Tr. pp. 1872, 1873._)\n\nThis Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft cooperated with the \u201cStiftung\u201d\n(Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care), and the Patients\nTransport Corporation. The \u201cStiftung\u201d was in charge of the financial\nside of the program, while the Patients Transport Corporation was used\nwhen patients were moved from one institution to another in order to\nbring them closer to the euthanasia institutions and finally into the\neuthanasia institutions themselves. These three organizations,\nReichsarbeitsgemeinschaft, \u201cStiftung,\u201d and Patients Transport\nCorporation, were in fact camouflaged names for the operation of the\nEuthanasia Program and were under the supervision of one management.\nThey did not work independently but together. (_Tr. p. 1874._)\n\nAs to the questionnaires, three experts received photostated copies,\nand, independently of each other, they expressed their opinion on\nindividual cases. Then so-called top experts expressed their opinion. A\nlist was made up of the patients who were judged subject to euthanasia,\nand the patients were removed from the institution to so-called\ncollecting points, and from there were transferred to euthanasia\ninstitutes. (_Tr. pp. 1877, 1878._) Non-German nationals and Jews were\nsubjected to euthanasia as well as Germans. (_Tr. p. 1881._)\n\nThe activities of the experts were extended in the early summer of 1940\nto inmates of concentration camps. A doctors commission, which consisted\nof doctors and officials from the Euthanasia Program, filled out the\nquestionnaires on inmates from among those who had been preliminarily\nselected by the camp doctors. Numerous concentration camps were visited,\nsome of them twice, in the period between 1940 and the end of 1941.\n(_Tr. pp. 1882, 1883._) Dr. Mennecke, who visited a number of\nconcentration camps to select inmates, received the orders for these\nactivities from the top experts in the Euthanasia Program and from the\ndefendant Brack. (_Tr. p. 1882._) Announcements about these trips were\nmade from the Berlin agency of the program to the individual\nconcentration camps. (_Tr. p. 1885._) Non-German Nationals and Jews who\nwere inmates of concentration camps were subjected to the Euthanasia\nProgram in extensive numbers. (_Tr. p. 1887._)\n\nAnother function of the Euthanasia Program was the killing of mentally\nand bodily deficient children. The witness Walter Schmidt testified that\nthe agency which handled this part of the program was called the Reich\nCommittee for Research on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases\n[Reichsausschuss zur wissenschaftlichen Erfassung von erb- und\nanlagebedingten schweren Leiden]. The questionnaires were filled out by\nthe health departments, the chief of children\u2019s clinics, physicians,\ndoctors, midwives, hospitals, etc., and reports were made to Dr.\nLinden\u2019s office in Berlin. Linden was a member of the Ministry of the\nInterior. There a committee of chief experts, on the strength of these\nreports, decreed euthanasia through so-called authorizing orders in the\nform of a photostatic copy of the report, which had been approved in\nwriting. These activities continued until 1944. (_Tr. pp. 1833, 1834._)\nSchmidt himself was in charge of a special department for the killing of\nsuch deformed children. (_Tr. p. 1833._)\n\nWorkers from the occupied eastern territories who had become unfit for\nlabor were executed pursuant to the Euthanasia Program. Busses belonging\nto the Patients Transport Corporation, which were operated by the\npersonnel of the Patients Transport Corporation, took these victims to\nthe extermination center of Hadamar, where they were killed. (_Tr. pp.\n1842-1845_; _NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415_.)\n\nThis evidence on the method of carrying out the program is corroborated\nby the affidavit of the defendant Brack (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160_), the\naffidavit of Pauline Kneissler (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332_), the chart\ndrawn by Brack (_NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331_), as well as numerous other\ndocuments in the record.\n\nThe evidence concerning the activities of the top experts and experts of\nthe Euthanasia Program in the various concentration camps is\ncorroborated by the affidavit of the camp doctor of the Dachau\nconcentration camp, Dr. Muthig (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497_), who states\nthat in the fall of 1941, Professor Heyde, as leader of a commission of\nfour psychiatrists, came to the Dachau concentration camp. This doctors\ncommission selected inmates, unable to work, for extermination by gas.\nHeyde was the first top expert of the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p.\n2495._) The affidavit of Dr. Gorgass reveals that he and Dr. Schumann,\nboth of whom were active in the Euthanasia Program, visited the\nBuchenwald concentration camp in June 1941. Gorgass states explicitly\nthat the purpose of this trip was to acquaint himself with the\nassignment of concentration camp inmates to euthanasia institutions.\nThis visit was made on the order of Brandt, and was transmitted by the\ndefendant Brack. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._)\n\nB. _Non-German Nationals and Jews_\n\nNon-German nationals and Jews, who were inmates of the concentration\ncamps, were victims of the Euthanasia Program which operated in these\ncamps under the code name \u201c14 f 13.\u201d (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._)\n\nA few documents submitted by the prosecution on one \u201c14 f 13\u201d action in\nGross-Rosen show how the Euthanasia Program operated in concentration\ncamps. The list of concentration camp inmates of the Gross-Rosen\nconcentration camp, who were sent to the Bernburg euthanasia station for\nextermination, contains many names of non-German nationals and\nnon-German Jews. (_NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410._) Jews in protective custody,\nPoles in protective custody, Jews who were habitual criminals, Jews who\nwere \u201cshirkers,\u201d Jews who \u201cdefiled the race,\u201d Czech \u201cshirkers,\u201d and\nCzechs in protective custody were among the inmates selected by the camp\nphysicians for \u201cexamination\u201d by the experts. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)\n\nBy comparing the names on the lists contained on Documents NO-158 and\n1151-PS, it is proved that, of the 240 names listed for extermination in\nthe Bernburg euthanasia station, at least 51 were of Polish or Czech\nnationality. How many of the Jews listed were of non-German nationality\ncannot be ascertained from these documents, but a substantial number of\nthem were born in countries other than Germany, as the list contained in\nDocument NO-158 shows, and it is therefore apparent that a further\nsubstantial number of the inmates selected for extermination were of\nnon-German nationality. (_NO-158, Pros. Ex. 410_; _1151-PS, Pros. Ex.\n411_.)\n\nOn 17 March 1942, 70 inmates were transferred to Bernburg for\nextermination. (_NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556._) Of these, 27 of the\nnon-Jewish prisoners on the transport list were of Czech or Polish\nnationality. Compare transport list with list of inmates originally\nselected in Gross-Rosen. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) On 19 March 1942 an\nadditional 57 inmates arrived at Bernburg from Gross-Rosen. (_NO-158,\nPros. Ex. 410._) Of these, 15 of the non-Jewish prisoners of the\ntransport list were of Czech or Polish nationality. Thus, of the total\nof 127 inmates proved to have been sent to Bernburg in March 1942, at\nleast 42, or one-third of the total, were non-German citizens forcibly\ndetained in an enemy country. That all of these inmates were\nexterminated in Bernburg is conclusively proved by the laconic report\nfrom Gross-Rosen to the Economic and Administrative Main Office that\n\u201cspecial treatment of 127 prisoners was concluded on 2 April 1942.\u201d\n(_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555._)\n\nThis evidence as to Action 14 f 13 is amplified by the testimony of the\nwitnesses Neff (_Tr. pp. 600-605_), Kogon (_Tr. pp. 1210-13_), Roemhild\n(_Tr. pp. 1634-37, 1641_), and Holl (_Tr. p. 1060_).\n\nNon-German nationals and Jews other than those in concentration camps\nwere not exempt from the program, and many of them were killed. Besides\nthe evidence cited under A above, there is ample proof that non-German\nnationals were subjected to extermination from the beginning of 1940\nthrough the war. (_NO-1135, Pros. Ex. 334_; _NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373_.)\nJews of German and Polish nationality and stateless Jews were also\nsubjected to the program. (_NO-1310, Pros. Ex. 337._) Polish and Russian\nnationals and other non-German nationals were subjected to the program.\n(_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._)\n\nThe questionnaires had a space provided for \u201crace\u201d, being defined:\nGerman or similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed breed\nGrades 1 or 2, Negro (mixed breed). (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) This\nquestion would have been completely unnecessary if non-Germans were\nexempted from the program. Questionnaires had to be filled out about all\npatients who were not of German nationality or German related blood,\nindicating their race and nationality. (_NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358._) These\nquestionnaires had to be processed by the experts. (_Tr. p. 1881._)\nThose who were active in euthanasia never received an order that\nnon-German nationals were to be excluded from the program. (_NO-817,\nPros. Ex. 368._) The witnesses Mennecke (_Tr. pp. 1877, 1922_) and\nSchmidt (_Tr. pp. 1860-1_) also testified to this effect. Hugo Suchomel,\nLL. D., the highest official after the Minister in the Austrian Federal\nMinistry of Justice, says in his affidavit that when Brack, as\nrepresentative of the defendant Brandt, gave a lecture on euthanasia in\nthe Ministry of Justice in 1942, he enumerated, as the classes of\npersons who were exempted from the program, the war-wounded and persons\nwho had become insane as a result of air attacks. Foreigners and Jews\nwere not mentioned among the groups of persons who were excluded.\n(_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) Brack admits having held the lecture. (_Tr.\np. 7589._)\n\nAs early as 1939 inmates of insane asylums in occupied Poland were\nkilled. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370._) In the autumn of 1940, funds for the\nevacuation of 1,558 inmates of mental institutions of East Prussia and\napproximately 250 to 300 insane Poles were made available by the\ndefendant Brack, who was the administrative executive of the Euthanasia\nProgram. As these transfers were carried out by a special detachment\n(Sonderkommando) of the infamous SD, which was used for special tasks,\nthere is no doubt that these insane Poles were killed. (_NO-2909, Pros.\nEx. 500_; _NO-2911, Pros. Ex. 501_.) In September 1941, an order was\nissued that the inmates of the insane asylums in Russia, in the\noccupation zone of the German Army Group \u201cNord,\u201d were to be killed.\n(_NO-1758, Pros. Ex. 444._)\n\nEastern workers were also dealt with. (_NO-1430, Pros. Ex. 429_;\n_NO-1436, Pros. Ex. 430_.) Eastern workers, who had been forcibly\nbrought into Germany, who were no longer able to work, and who were\nconsidered a burden on the mental institutions of Germany, were brought\ntogether in a collecting institution and, unless they could be\ndischarged in a matter of six weeks, they were exterminated under the\nEuthanasia Program. (_NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414_; _NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415_.)\nHalf-Jewish healthy children (_NO-1427, Pros. Ex. 431_) and adult\ngypsies (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371_) were also killed.\n\nC. _Inadequate Examination and Lack of Supervision_\n\nThe selection and examination of the persons who were subjected to\neuthanasia were criminally negligent and inadequate.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt testified that the doctors in the Euthanasia\nProgram were given enormous responsibility. (_Tr. p. 2425._) He,\ntogether with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were\nparticipating in the program. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He admitted, however,\nthat he did not make observation in, or visits to, insane asylums. He\nwas only once in the Bethel insane asylum and visited a special clinic\nin Kassel. He admitted having no expert knowledge in the field of\npsychiatry. (_Tr. p. 2470._) He, the doctor of the two persons who were\ncharged by Hitler with the execution of euthanasia (Bouhler was not a\ndoctor), authorized the doctors to administer euthanasia. He did not\nmake investigations as to the medical abilities of these men. (_Tr. p.\n2476._) He does not know one single name of the total of ten to fifteen\ndoctors who, according to his testimony, were charged with the execution\nof euthanasia. (_Tr. pp. 2478-9._) Brandt testified that he only visited\none of the extermination stations, Grafeneck, in 1940, one time (_Tr. p.\n2480_), and never went to an observation station. (_Tr. p. 2481._) In\nwinter 1939-1940, however, he visited, together with the defendant\nBrack, Bouhler, and Conti, the euthanasia station of Brandenburg, where\nthe first gas chamber was set up. The purpose of this visit was to\nobserve a test experiment in which four insane persons were gassed.\n(_Tr. pp. 7645-6._)\n\nVictims of euthanasia were condemned to death by so-called top experts\nwho had never so much as seen the patient. The victims were only\nsuperficially examined on the basis of questionnaires. (_NO-470, Pros.\nEx. 332._) Pfannmueller, an expert, received no less than 159 shipments\nof questionnaires, averaging between 200 and 300 questionnaires each,\nprior to 15 April 1941, for judgment as to life and death. (_NO-1129,\nPros. Ex. 354_; _NO-1130, Pros. Ex. 355_.) Since his main occupation was\nthat of manager of an insane asylum, his judgment of the questionnaires\nwas only a secondary activity. In a period of 18 days, this same expert\npassed judgment on no less than 2,058 questionnaires. (_NO-1129, Pros.\nEx. 354_; _Tr. p. 7384_.)\n\nQuestionnaires on patients who were in an asylum for as short a time as\none month were filled out and formed the basis for judgment as to\nwhether the particular inmate should be killed. (_NO-825, Pros. Ex.\n358._) Many of these questionnaires were inadequately completed so that\nit was impossible in any event to form a clear medical opinion. Experts\nwere also exposed to pressure to induce them to give positive opinions.\n(_Tr. p. 1881._) Unanimous opinion of the experts was not necessary to\nbring about a positive judgment which would condemn the patient to be\nkilled. The dissenting opinion of one expert did not suffice to save the\nlife of the patient. (_Tr. pp. 1907-8._)\n\nIn a concentration camp 105 Aryans were \u201cexamined\u201d by the expert\nMennecke in an afternoon. The \u201cexamination\u201d of 1,200 Jews, which\nconsisted in the transcription of the reason for their arrest from the\nfiles to the reports, took only a few days. In a letter to his wife,\nMennecke himself put the word \u201cexamination\u201d in quotation marks. It is\nimpossible that any kind of mental examination of the patients was\ncarried out. (_Tr. p. 1892_; _NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412_.) In fact, these\nJews were mentally and physically healthy. (_Tr. p. 1893._) It was\nimpossible for Dr. Heyde and his doctors commission, which was active in\nthe Dachau concentration camp, to examine the great number of inmates\nselected in the short time they spent there. The examination consisted\nsolely in the cursory study of personal records in the presence of the\ninmate. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Doctors Schumann and Gorgass\nscreened approximately 100 concentration camp inmates during a one day\u2019s\nvisit in the Buchenwald concentration camp. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._)\n\nIt was not the degree of insanity which was the decisive factor in the\ndecision as to whether or not the inmates should be killed, but rather\ntheir usefulness for work. The manner of employment, the value of work,\nif possible compared with the average performance of healthy persons,\nhad to be carefully filled out in the questionnaires. (_1696-PS, Pros.\nEx. 357._) Valuable workers were not sent to euthanasia stations.\n(_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)\n\nPatients who had arteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other\ndisabling illnesses were included in the program. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex.\n372._) \u201cUseless eaters\u201d were starved to death. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex.\n370_; _NO-823, Pros. Ex. 399_.) Persons who no longer had any value to\nthe state were considered \u201cuseless eaters.\u201d It was pointed out that\nduring the war healthy people had to give up their lives while these\nseverely ill people continued to live, and would continue to live unless\neuthanasia was carried out. In addition, it was stated the lack of food\nand nursing personnel justified the elimination of these people. (_Tr.\np. 1906._) Concentration camp inmates were examined as to their capacity\nfor work and their political reliability and were selected accordingly\nfor euthanasia. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._) Questionnaires were\ncompleted on concentration camp inmates who were not insane. (_NO-3010,\nPros. Ex. 503._) Prior to 27 April 1943, Action 14 f 13 encompassed the\nexecution not only of insane persons, but persons suffering from\ntuberculosis, bedridden individuals, and others unfit for manual work.\n(_NO-1007, Pros. Ex. 413._) Only inmates who were no longer fit for work\nwere to be brought before the examining commission. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex.\n411._)\n\nIn the case of killing of children, a previous consultation with the\nparents or relatives did not take place. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) The\ndefense witness Pfannmueller testified that, after having received\nauthorization to kill the individual child, he invited the relatives to\nvisit the child because it was sick. However, he never notified the\nparents or guardians that he was going to kill the child, as this was a\ntop secret matter. (_Tr. p. 7394._) From the documents submitted by the\ndefendant Brack, it is clear that the parents were deceived about the\npurpose of the transfer of the children to institutions where they were\nto be killed. It was the business of the medical officers to induce the\nparents to send their children to such institutions. To accomplish this,\nthe parents were told that in the case of individual diseases there was\na possibility of achieving certain successes with treatment. (_Brack 52,\nBrack Ex. 43_; _Tr. p. 7717_.) The parents were told that the best care\nwould be taken of the child in such institutions and everything possible\nin the way of modern therapy would be carried out. (_Brack 51, Brack Ex.\n42._) From these documents it is clear that the parents and relatives\nwere not only not asked for their consent in the case of killing of\nchildren, but were deceived in order to make the transfer to a\neuthanasia institution possible. A letter from the Reich Committee for\nResearch on Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases to the\nEichberg Sanatorium shows on its face that, in the case of euthanasia of\nchildren, the consent of the parents was not sought. (_NO-890, Pros. Ex.\n443._) This evidence is corroborated by the affidavit of Dr. Suchomel.\n(_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._) The defendant Brack testified that the\nconsent of the parents to the killing of children was an absolute\nprerequisite. The medical officers who made the arrangements for the\ntransfer of the children to the killing stations were allegedly charged\nwith the task of informing the parents and requesting their consent.\nThis statement is in contradiction to Brack\u2019s own documents, which\nclearly show what the parents really were told, as well as the top\nsecret character of the program. The proof has further shown that\nPfannmueller himself was one of the doctors who had, according to the\ndecree of the Minister of the Interior of 18 August 1939, to report\ndeformed and deficient children. (_NO-3355, Pros. Ex. 553._) He himself\ntestified that he never informed the parents about the fate their\nchildren had to expect. Brandt admitted that in the case of the killing\nof insane adults, the consent of the relatives was not requested and\ntheir opinion not heard. (_Tr. pp. 2427-8._)\n\nThere is abundant proof that the German public was horrified by\neuthanasia and the manner of its execution. A police report stated:\n\n \u201cThe wildest scenes imaginable are reported to have taken place,\n as some of these people did not board the bus voluntarily and\n were therefore forced to do so by the accompanying personnel.\n There were people who were imbeciles and feeble-minded, and were\n said to have other epileptic illnesses as well, and whose upkeep\n the state and other public bodies up till now had to provide for\n completely, or at least for the greater part. People went so far\n as to formulate and disseminate more or less the following\n assertion: \u2018The state must be in a bad way now or it could not\n happen that these poor people should simply be sent to their\n death solely in order that the means, which until now have been\n used for the upkeep of these people, are made available for the\n prosecution of the war.\u2019\u201d (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)\n\nD. _General Extermination of the Jews_\n\nPersonnel active in the Euthanasia Program also took part in the\nextermination of the Jews in the East from about 1941 until the\nliberation of the eastern territories. Some time in the second half of\n1941 part of the personnel, who were until then executing the Euthanasia\nProgram in Germany, was sent to Lublin and put at the disposal of SS\nBrigadefuehrer Globocnik in order to assist in the mass extermination of\nthe Jews, which was then common knowledge in the higher circles of the\nNSDAP. Among the doctors who assisted in the extermination of the Jews\nwere Drs. Eberle and Schumann, both of whom had been previously active\nin the Euthanasia Program in Germany. All of this Brack admitted in his\npretrial affidavit:\n\n \u201cThe order to send these men to the East could only have been\n given by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.\u201d (_NO-426,\n Pros. Ex. 160._)\n\nThe connection between the \u201cStiftung\u201d (Charitable Foundation for\nInstitutional Care) and the extermination camps in Lublin was also known\nto the lower employees of the euthanasia stations. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex.\n332._) The witness Gorgass stated in his affidavit that Police Captain\nWirth told him, late in the summer of 1941, that he had been transferred\nby the Foundation for Institutional Care (which was one of the code\nnames under which the Euthanasia Program operated) to a euthanasia\ninstitute in the Lublin area. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._) The SS judge,\nDr. Morgen, who investigated the Jewish extermination program in Lublin,\ntestified before the International Military Tribunal that Wirth, having\npreviously carried out the task of removing the incurably insane, was a\nspecialist in mass destruction of human beings. The office from which\nWirth obtained his orders was Berlin, Tiergartenstrasse, and among the\npeople who were connected with this operation was Blankenburg.\n(_NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504._) Brack admitted that Wirth was an official of\nthe Brandenburg euthanasia station. (_Tr. p. 7733._) Brandt visited\nBrandenburg in the winter of 1939-40. (_Tr. pp. 7645-6._) The central\noffice for the Euthanasia Program was set up in Tiergartenstrasse 4, and\nBlankenburg was Brack\u2019s deputy in the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. pp. 7563\nand 7707._)\n\nThe defendant Brack reported to Himmler about these activities on 23\nJune 1942, as follows:\n\n \u201cOn the instructions of Reich Leader Bouhler I placed some of my\n men\u2014already some time ago\u2014at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer\n Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request\n I have now transferred additional personnel. On this occasion\n Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jew\n action should be completed as quickly as possible, so that one\n would not get caught in the middle of it one day if some\n difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You\n yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed your view that\n work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone * *\n *.\u201d (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._)\n\nThe affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid\ndescription of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the\nthousands by order of Globocnik. (_1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428._)\n\nIn October 1941, Brack, the administrative head of the Euthanasia\nProgram, forwarded plans whereby Jews who were unable to work should be\nexterminated by gas. He declared his readiness to send some of his\nassistants and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, to the East, where the\nnecessary gassing apparatus could be easily manufactured. Eichmann, whom\nHitler had charged with the extermination of the Jews, was in agreement\nwith these plans. Consequently, there were \u201cno objections to doing away\nwith those Jews who are unable to work, by means of the Brack remedy\u201d.\n(_NO-365, Pros. Ex. 507._)\n\nKallmeyer, who was charged with the manufacture of the gassing apparatus\nand equipment, had been trained for this task in the Euthanasia Program.\nPreviously he had been responsible for the proper operation of the gas\nchambers of the different euthanasia institutions. (_Tr. p. 7743._)\nAccording to Eichmann\u2019s own estimate, four million Jews were killed in\nextermination institutions. (_NO-2737, Pros. Ex. 505._)\n\nE. _Legality_\n\nThe evidence outlined above makes it clear that the Euthanasia Program\ncan only be described as mass murder. This Tribunal is not called upon\nto define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate with\nrespect to euthanasia. The prosecution asks only that this Tribunal\nfind, as other tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law\nin the Third Reich permitting euthanasia, and that the execution of\npersons under the guise of euthanasia, with the connivance and\nassistance of certain defendants in this dock, constituted the crime of\nmurder\u2014a war crime and a crime against humanity.\n\nThe first and foremost authority on the legality of euthanasia as\npracticed under the Nazis is in the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal.[93]\n\nThese findings draw no distinction between German nationals executed\nunder the program and non-German nationals. These executions are\ndescribed with the word \u201cmurders\u201d and constitute war crimes and crimes\nagainst humanity under the Charter and Control Council Law No. 10. This\nwas one of the principal crimes which led to the judgment of guilty and\nthe sentence of death against Frick.[94]\n\nThe Review of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate in the case of the U. S.\n_vs._ Klein, Wahlman, et al., held at Weisbaden, Germany, from 8 October\nthrough 15 October 1945 is a clear precedent that the execution of\nnon-German nationals pursuant to the Euthanasia Program was a crime.\n(_NO-1116, Pros. Ex. 415._)\n\nThe defendants were there charged with the execution of some 400 persons\nof Polish and Russian nationality, alleged to be suffering from\nincurable tuberculosis, at the Hadamar euthanasia station between July\n1944 and April 1945. They were not charged with murdering German\nnationals and that issue was not considered. After taking judicial\nnotice of the fact that foreign laborers were pressed for service in\nGermany, the reviewing authority held that the killings in issue were a\nviolation of the international laws of war and of Article 46 of The\nHague Convention. Three of the seven defendants were sentenced to death.\n\nAccording to German law, euthanasia was nothing other than murder.\nParagraph 211 of the German Criminal Code, in its old form reads:\n\n \u201cWhoever kills a person willfully will be punished by death for\n murder if the killing was premeditated.\u201d\n\nIn the new form, which was in effect from 4 September 1941 on, the\nsection stated:\n\n \u201cThe murderer will be punished by death.\n\n \u201cA murderer is one who kills a person out of sheer desire to\n murder, for the satisfaction of the sexual instincts, for\n covetousness or other vile motives; one who kills another\n maliciously or cruelly, or by publicly dangerous means, or to\n create the preconditions for another punishable action, or to\n conceal such an action.\n\n \u201cCertain exceptional cases where capital punishment is not\n appropriate will be punished by life sentence.\u201d (_NO-705._[95])\n\nFor expert commentaries on the legality of euthanasia, see NO-708 and\nNO-706.[96]\n\nThe defense witness Hans Lammers, a German legal expert, testified that\nthe Hitler letter to Bouhler and Brandt was not a law, and that official\nlegislation was necessary to legalize euthanasia. (_Tr. pp. 2672-2679._)\nThe Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, on 24 July 1940, wrote a letter\nto Lammers informing him that, as the Fuehrer had refused to issue a law\nit was necessary to discontinue immediately the secret extermination of\ninsane persons. (_NO-832, Pros. Ex. 393._) A copy of this letter was\nsent to Bouhler on 27 July 1940. (_NO-833, Pros. Ex. 394._)\n\nDuring Brack\u2019s lecture in the Ministry of Justice, referred to in B\nabove, the legal authorities present were completely misinformed about\nthe extent of the program. From the remarks of the speaker, the\nimpression was obtained that only a very limited circle of persons, at\nthe utmost several hundred, throughout Germany, Austria, and the\nProtectorate Bohemia and Moravia, would be affected. The opinion created\nwas that only very dangerous patients and delirious maniacs who might\ninjure themselves would be subjected to the program. (_NO-2253, Pros.\nEx. 557._) This obviously was done to quiet the misgivings of the\npersons present. Brack, when questioned as to whether, during the\nlecture, he gave an approximate number of persons who would be subjected\nto euthanasia, could or would not give any answer. Contrary to the\nimpression created during the conference in the Ministry of Justice, the\ndefendants Brandt and Brack now admit that about 50,000 to 60,000 people\nwere killed in the Euthanasia Program in Germany and Austria alone.\n(_Tr. p. 2465_; _Tr. p. 7610_.)\n\nSince the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have repeatedly\nheld that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of\neuthanasia was in violation of the German Criminal Code and punishable\nas murder. The witnesses Schmidt and Mennecke who testified before this\nTribunal had themselves been convicted by a German court for\nparticipation in the Euthanasia Program and sentenced to life\nimprisonment and death, respectively.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Court of Assizes in Berlin, at the session on 25 March 1946, found\nthe defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and\nsentenced them to death.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe Court of Appeals in the same case rejected the appeals of both,\ndefendants. The following quotation from the findings may be of\ninterest:\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c_It cannot be mistaken that the defendants Wernicke and\n Wieczorek are only the last links of a long chain, and that they\n are preceded by persons whose guilt is still greater._\u201d\n [Emphasis added.] (_NO. 447_[97]).\n\nThus it is established that euthanasia was murder according to German\nlaw.\n\nIn connection with this question, it is again pointed out that the whole\nprogram was kept completely secret. Hitler\u2019s letter of 1 September 1939\n(_Tr. p. 1516_) marked \u201cTop Secret\u201d was never published, and the\nMinister of Justice received a copy of it only one year after its\nissuance. (_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) Transfers of inmates of insane\nasylums to euthanasia stations were allegedly carried out by the order\nof the Reich Defense Commissioner. (_NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335._) The\nofficials active in the program had to sign a written oath of secrecy.\n(_NO-1312, Pros. Ex. 338_; _NO-1311, Pros. Ex. 339_.) The doctors who\nperformed euthanasia were warned that they would be severely punished if\nthey sabotaged the work. (_Tr. p. 1894._) The whole program of\neuthanasia was to be kept secret, as they were told from the beginning\nthat it was a top secret matter. The reason given was to avoid unrest\namong the population. Breach of secrecy was considered sabotage. (_Tr.\np. 1923._) Others had to sign a written oath binding them to secrecy. It\nwas known that the result of breach of this oath was confinement in a\nconcentration camp. (_Tr. p. 1826._)\n\nF. _Personal Responsibility of Karl Brandt_\n\nBrandt was put in charge of the program, together with Bouhler, by the\nabove-quoted letter of Hitler of 1 September 1939. His position as\nhighest authority in the Euthanasia Program is outlined in the affidavit\nof Dr. Boehm, one of the oldest members of the NSDAP. When, in November\n1940, Boehm approached Martin Bormann[98] with the request to obtain an\naudience with Hitler to complain about the execution of the Euthanasia\nProgram, Bormann referred him to Brandt as the responsible authority for\nthe execution of euthanasia. As a result, Boehm had a discussion with\nBrandt and when he complained, among other things, that the Euthanasia\nProgram was not regulated by law and should not be carried out in a\nsecret manner, Brandt admitted that the Minister of Justice, Guertner,\nhad also urged legislation. From his conversation with Bormann and\nBrandt, Boehm was sure that Brandt was the leading personality in the\nprogram. (_NO-3059, Pros. Ex. 558._) Brandt admitted that it was\nnecessary to set up a special organization to carry out euthanasia.\n(_Tr. p. 2407._)\n\nHe, together with Bouhler, had authority over the physicians who were\nparticipating in this program, and furthermore he had to keep Hitler\ninformed from the medical point of view (_English translation is\ngarbled, therefore reference is made to German Tr. p. 2420_) and had to\nmaintain contact with Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 2408._) He further admitted that\nauthorizations for the killing of children were submitted to him and\nBouhler. (_Tr. p. 2544._)\n\nHe stated that he resigned his job some time in 1942. (_Tr. p. 2433._)\nWhile this is of no material significance, it is established that he\nheld his position as the leading figure in the program until 1944. Dr.\nLudwig Sprauer, in his affidavit, stated:\n\n \u201cI heard the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt for the first\n time at a conference in Berlin in the middle of 1941. At this\n conference I learned that Karl Brandt and Philipp Bouhler were\n the leading figures in the Euthanasia Program. The conference\n was called by Dr. Linden on behalf of the Department of the\n Interior, and problems of institutions and asylums were\n submitted. Dr. Linden directed the proceedings.\n\n \u201cTo the best of my knowledge and belief, Philipp Bouhler as well\n as Professor Dr. Karl Brandt were the leading figures in this\n so-called Euthanasia Program from 1941 to the collapse of\n Germany.\n\n \u201cThe connection between the Department of the Interior and\n Professor Karl Brandt, in the framework of the Euthanasia\n Program, was that Karl Brandt gave orders to Conti and Linden,\n which were passed on by these persons on behalf of the\n Department of the Interior. Brandt was the dominating figure\n without doubt.\u201d (_NO-818, Pros. Ex. 373._)\n\nThe witness Wesse said in his affidavit that Brandt was in charge of the\nEuthanasia Program at least until March 1944. (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex.\n432._)\n\nThe witness Mennecke testified that he learned in the beginning of 1941\nthat the defendant Brandt was active in the Euthanasia Program. (_Tr. p.\n1874._) He further testified:\n\n \u201cWhen, in 1944, I was treated as a patient in the army hospital\n at St. Blasien, I found out through conversations with officers\n that Professor Brandt had an essential part in the collection of\n insane persons in the area of Lublin, Poland.\u201d (_Tr. p. 1903._)\n\nHe further testified, in connection with this Lublin action, that it\nmust have continued up to 1944 and that it was said that insane persons\nand Jews were collected in Lublin in large numbers. (_Tr. p. 1904._)\n\nThe witness Schmidt testified that Professor Brandt had the medical\ndirection of the program, and only in 1944 was he told that Brandt had\nleft the program. (_Tr. p. 1825._) He also knew that Brandt played the\nleading part in the task which had to be accomplished (Euthanasia\nProgram), that he (Brandt) was to accomplish this task. (_Tr. p. 1847._)\n\nBoth witnesses, Schmidt and Mennecke, also testified that the chart\n(_NO-253, Pros. Ex. 331_), which shows Brandt in the center of the\nprogram, is correct. (_Tr. pp. 1833, 1876._)\n\nThe evidence shows further that Brandt gave orders in the Euthanasia\nProgram as late as July 1943. In a letter from the Patients Transport\nCorporation, dated 20 July 1943, to the Mental Institution\nHadamar\u2014which was, as documents and testimony show, an extermination\nstation\u2014the following sentences are found:\n\n \u201cI order transfer of insane persons to your institution also, by\n order of Professor Brandt, the Commissioner General of the\n Fuehrer for Medical and Health Service. You will get, on 26 July\n 1943, 150 insane women from the Mental Institution Warstein if\n the Reichsbahn will furnish the necessary cars as requested.\u201d\n (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._)\n\nBrandt was the person who had to be approached if one were to save a\nchild from euthanasia. In a letter from the Reich Committee for Research\non Hereditary and Constitutional Severe Diseases, dated 16 November\n1943, to Dr. Schmidt\u2019s sanatorium, Eichberg (as the evidence shows, a\nkilling station for deficient children), we find the sentence:\n\n \u201cOn the basis of a letter directed to Professor Dr. Brandt\n concerning the above mentioned, I request an elaborated\n diagnosis about the mentioned Anna Gasse who is reported to be\n in your institution at present.\u201d\n\nAnd further:\n\n \u201cIf from a medical point of view such a release is warranted,\n one could take into consideration whether one should not perhaps\n comply with such a request in the interest of the good\n reputation of the institution.\u201d (_NO-890, Pros. Ex. 443._)\n\nThat the defendant Karl Brandt was in a position to issue instructions\nand assign tasks to insane asylums in Germany is further corroborated by\nthe affidavit of the defendant Rose, who said that in 1943 Brandt put an\ninsane asylum in Thuringia at his disposal and made arrangements that\nthis institution would not be converted into a general hospital; and\nfurther, that in 1944 Brandt made arrangements for the better feeding of\ninmates of this asylum in order to enable Rose to proceed with his\nmalaria therapy. (_Tr. p. 1717._) If this statement in itself has\nnothing to do with euthanasia, it shows the scope of influence and power\nBrandt still commanded over insane asylums in 1943 and 1944. (_NO-872,\nPros. Ex. 408._)\n\nAccording to his own testimony, Brandt was in charge of euthanasia until\n1942. (_Tr. p. 2433_; _Tr. p. 2532_.) There is no proof, other than his\nown statement, that he resigned his commission at that time. On the\ncontrary, the proof has shown that he was active in this field until\nsome time in 1944. In any event, the program was criminal in its\ninception. The murder of concentration camp inmates pursuant to\neuthanasia began as early as 1940. Non-German nationals were included in\nsubstantial numbers. Healthy Jews were exterminated without examination.\nTrained killers from euthanasia stations were sent to the East as early\nas 1941 to aid in the mass murder of Jews. Persons whose only crime was\nphysical inability to work were subjected to euthanasia from the very\nbeginning. Indeed, the elimination of \u201cuseless eaters\u201d was the principal\nrationale of the whole program.\n\nBrandt stated that an order existed which exempted non-German nationals,\nbut he was unable to give any explanation as to how this order operated,\nwho received it, and why, if such an order existed, questionnaires for\nforeign nationals were filled out at all. (_Tr. pp. 2499-2503._) The\nevidence has shown that non-German nationals were never exempted and\nwere killed in large numbers. There is nothing to be said in mitigation\nfor Brandt.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST\n DEFENDANT BRACK_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Moral and Humanitarian Justification_\n\nIn the brief against Karl Brandt the prosecution has summarized the\noverwhelming proof that euthanasia, far from being \u201can act of grace\u201d,\nwas a measure to eliminate \u201cuseless eaters\u201d and other \u201cundesirable\u201d\npersons. Brack himself, when questioned by the Tribunal, was unable to\nexplain why war veterans of the First World War (1914-18) were exempted\nfrom this \u201cact of grace.\u201d (_Tr. pp. 7650, 7664._) Contrariwise, he could\nnot explain why this grace was extended to insane criminals,\nirrespective of the length of time they had spent in an insane asylum.\n(_NO-825, Pros. Ex. 358._)\n\nBrack personally reprimanded Mennecke, who was an expert in the\nEuthanasia Program, on the ground that his expert opinions were far too\nsoft and did not recommend euthanasia as often as he desired. (_Tr. pp.\n1881, 1907._) The so-called \u201cobservation stations\u201d where the patients,\naccording to Brack\u2019s statement, were examined for several weeks by\nexpert doctors were nothing but collecting points for the victims. (_Tr.\npp. 1822, 1878, 1879._)\n\nBrack admitted that the work of Binding and Hoche is considered the\nstandard work on euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 7633._) This work leaves no doubt\nthat the will to live, of even those who are most seriously ill, suffer\nmost gravely, and are of least use, should be fully respected, and that\nany authority for the annihilation of life is excluded in cases where\nthe will to live must be broken. (_NO-2893, Pros. Ex. 496._) Brack\nhimself admitted that euthanasia is inadmissible in cases where the\npatient has the will to live. (_Tr. p. 7701._) The witness Schmidt\ntestified that the victims, who obviously knew or suspected their fate,\nhad to be _forced_ to enter the busses which took them to the\nextermination stations. (_Tr. pp. 1856, 1861._) This evidence is\ncorroborated by documentary proof. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._) While many\nof those victims may have been insane, they certainly did not lack the\nwill to live. Moreover, Brack himself admitted, when questioned by the\nTribunal, that Bouhler ordered that the arrangements for the killing had\nto be made in such a way that the patients would not realize what was\nbeing done to them. (_Tr. p. 7660._) The gas chambers where the victims\nwere annihilated resembled shower rooms. (_Tr. p. 7659._) The patients\nwere deceived into thinking that they were to take a shower bath and,\ntherefore, had to undress. (_Tr. pp. 7644, 7660._) Such precautions\nwould certainly not have been necessary if the victims had desired the\n\u201cprivilege of a mercy death.\u201d\n\n_Action 14 f 13_[99]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf the testimony of Brack and Brandt as to the number of doctors who\nwere active in the Euthanasia Program is correct, it is clear from the\nrecord that all doctors active in this program collaborated in Action 14\nf 13. Brandt estimated the number of doctors who were charged with the\nexecution of the Euthanasia Program as 10 to 15 (_Tr. p. 2478_), Brack,\nas 12 to 15. (_Tr. p. 7573._) Mennecke testified that about 15 doctors\nfrom the Euthanasia Program were commissioned to carry out the\n\u201cexaminations\u201d in the concentration camps. (_Tr. p. 1891._)\n\nBrack was unable to explain how it came about that concentration camps\ninmates selected in Action 14 f 13 were killed in euthanasia stations.\n(_Tr. p. 7541._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Legality_\n\n * * * * *\n\nEven Brack\u2019s own documents reveal that he misinformed the legal\nauthorities about the legal situation in respect to the Euthanasia\nProgram. The ministerial director in the Reich Ministry of Justice, Karl\nEngert, states in his affidavit (which, according to the defense counsel\nof Brack, is \u201cof great interest because it shows the opinion of the\ninfluential jurists on this question\u201d): \u201cBrack\u2019s statements reassured me\nbecause, according to them, it was to be definitely assumed that a Reich\nlaw would then be enacted in the customary form, i. e., by publication\nin the Reich Law Gazette. I saw no reason why any difficulties should\narise.\u201d (_Brack 37, Brack Ex. 37._) Needless to say, Brack did not\nmention that Hitler had refused to issue such a law until after the war.\n\nThat Brack was well aware of the fact that the Euthanasia Program was a\ncriminal one is proved by his attempt to destroy evidence prior to the\noccupation of Germany by the Allies. The affidavit of Claussen proves\nthat he sent the following teletype to the commandant of the\nconcentration camp at Mauthausen (_NO-2429, Pros. Ex. 498_):\n\n \u201cTo the Concentration Camp Mauthausen, SS Standartenfuehrer\n Ziereiss.\n\n \u201cHartheim must be destroyed immediately. Execution must be\n reported by order of the Fuehrer.\n\n [Signed] OBERFUEHRER BRACK\u201d\n\nBrack admitted that Hartheim was a euthanasia station where the victims\nof the Euthanasia Program were killed. (_Tr. p. 7714._)\n\n_General Extermination of the Jews_\n\n * * * * *\n\nThat the defense of Brack is fabricated is proved by other evidence in\nthe record. SS judge, Dr. Morgen, who investigated the criminal case of\nWirth, testified before the International Military Tribunal that when\nWirth took over the mass extermination of the Jews, he was already a\nspecialist in the extermination of human beings. He had previously\ncarried out the task of annihilating the insane. He had received this\nassignment from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, Bouhler\u2019s office. A\nsystem which Wirth had devised in his activities in the Euthanasia\nProgram made it possible to exterminate large numbers of people with the\nhelp of only a few assistants. The same system, with a few improvements,\nwas employed for the extermination of the Jews. Wirth\u2019s assignment for\nthe extermination of the Jews came from Bouhler\u2019s office, from the very\noffice where Brack was active. Morgen investigated Wirth\u2019s mail and\nfound out that the courier who brought this mail came from the Fuehrer\u2019s\nChancellery, Tiergartenstrasse, the place where the office of the\nEuthanasia Program was located. Among the people connected with this\nextermination program, Morgen remembers Blankenburg, Brack\u2019s deputy.\n(_NO-2614, Pros. Ex. 504._) Brack admitted that Wirth was active in the\nEuthanasia Program. (_Tr. p. 7733._) It may well be that Morgen started\nhis investigations in July 1943[100] but by the affidavit of Gorgass, it\nis proved that Wirth received his assignment from the \u201cFoundation\u201d, one\nof the camouflaged societies of the Euthanasia Program, as early as the\nsummer of 1941. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex. 503._)\n\nThis evidence is fully corroborated by the affidavit of Gerstein.\nGlobocnik was in charge of the extermination camps near Lublin, and\nWirth collaborated with him in the extermination of the Jews. The gas\nchambers were camouflaged as \u201cbath and inhalation\u201d rooms and called\n\u201cFoundation\u201d Heckenholt. Doctors\u2019 commissions toured the towns and\nvillages of Poland and Czechoslovakia in order to select persons for\nextermination. (_1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428._) Brack when questioned by the\nTribunal, admitted that the gas chambers of the euthanasia stations\nwhere the victims of the Euthanasia Program were killed were camouflaged\nas \u201cshower rooms\u201d. (_Tr. p. 7659._) \u201cFoundation\u201d was one of the code\nnames under which the Euthanasia Program operated. (_NO-3010, Pros. Ex.\n503._) The similarity between the extermination arrangement in the\neuthanasia stations and that used by Globocnik and Wirth is not\ncoincidental.\n\nThe proof has shown that Brack himself advanced plans for the mass\nextermination of the Jews. In the beginning of October 1941 Brack had a\nconference with Eichmann from the Reich Security Main Office of the SS\nand Wetzel of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Territories on the\n\u201csolution of the Jewish question\u201d. (_NO-997, Pros. Ex. 506._) Brack\ndeclared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the\nnecessary gas chambers and gassing apparatus for the extermination of\nall Jews who were unfit to work. Since the manufacture of this apparatus\nwas easier to accomplish in the East, Brack agreed to send some of his\ncollaborators, and especially his chemist, Kallmeyer, there for this\npurpose. Brack proposed outright extermination of all Jews who were\nunable to work. Since Eichmann, whom Hitler had charged with the\nsolution of the Jewish question, was in agreement with Brack\u2019s\nproposals, no objection was voiced against the extermination of those\nJews who were unable to work with the \u201cBrack remedy\u201d. (_NO-365, Pros.\nEx. 507._) Kallmeyer was the technical expert on operation of the gas\nchambers in the euthanasia station. (_Tr. p. 7743._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n KARL BRANDT_\n\n _Euthanasia_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\nThe aim of euthanasia was to solve an old medical problem.\n\n Statement of Karl Brandt according to which the subject of\n \u201cuseless eaters\u201d was never mentioned in the presence of Karl\n Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 2397, 2434._)\n\n Statement of Schmidt according to which the ethical points of\n view were stressed during the conference of the experts in\n Berlin, 1941. (_Tr. p. 1852._)\n\n Statement of Mennecke according to which medical motives were\n given at the informative conference. (_Tr. p. 1906._)\n\n Statement of Brack regarding what was involved was the solution\n of the old medical problem. (_Tr. p. 7544._)\n\nThe ethical aims of the euthanasia planned can also be seen from the\ndrafts of a final bill of law.\n\n Statement of Lammers in which the witness compiled a draft\n according to medical and ethical points of view. (_Tr. p.\n 2683._)\n\n Statement of Brack stating that Bouhler worked out a draft in\n cooperation with Brack based on scientific contributions. The\n heading \u201cLaw relating to the granting of ultimate medical\n assistance to incurable persons\u201d shows the characteristic\n features of the law. (_Tr. p. 7581._)\n\nThe peculiar individual attitude of Karl Brandt is of an ethical nature.\n\n Affidavit of Schwerin-Krosigk, according to which Pastor\n Bodelschwingh, chief of the mental institutions of Bethel,\n declared that Karl Brandt had stated his point of view as\n regards euthanasia in a respectful way, making every allowance\n for the contrary opinion of Bodelschwingh. (_Karl Brandt 26,\n Karl Brandt Ex. 83._)\n\n Affidavits of Pastor Woermann. The witness, successor of Pastor\n Bodelschwingh, said that Bodelschwingh had told him about the\n idealistic attitude of Karl Brandt and said that Karl Brandt had\n supported euthanasia for the fully extinct spirit. (_Karl Brandt\n 23, Karl Brandt Ex. 19._)\n\n Affidavit of Rueggeberg. The witness reported on a radio\n interview of the London radio commentator Robert Graham with\n Pastor Bodelschwingh in the summer of 1945. Bodelschwingh\n himself declared there that one should not consider Karl Brandt\n as a criminal but as an idealist. (_Karl Brandt 19, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 16._)\n\n Affidavit of Rach. According to the statement of this witness,\n Bodelschwingh visited Karl Brandt at his house in Berlin as late\n as the summer of 1943 and spent an afternoon there in a friendly\n discussion. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._)\n\nSuspension of euthanasia in August 1941.\n\n Affidavit of Kirchert. According to this statement euthanasia\n was stopped in the summer of 1941 although at that time economic\n reasons had become rather more important than before. The\n statement of the prosecution admits with certain limitations\n that euthanasia had been stopped in August 1941. (_Karl Brandt\n 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15_; _Tr. p. 1752_.)\n\nSpecial responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt.\n\n The authorization of 1 September 1939 was founded on a purely\n medical point of view, namely euthanasia for incurable persons\n \u201cunder _most_ careful scrutiny of their state of illness.\u201d An\n economic or political motive as the basis is therewith rejected.\n The drafts for a law for further implementation of the\n euthanasia idea also show medical and ethical motives.\n\n The report sheets and memorandum slips were sent to mental\n institutions _only_, which proves that euthanasia was\n practically restricted to insane persons. Had the elimination of\n \u201cuseless eaters\u201d been the aim, this restriction would have been\n meaningless for there were \u201cuseless eaters\u201d in other places too\n (nursery homes for cripples, hospitals, etc.). Undesirable\n foreigners were rarely to be found in mental institutions at the\n start of the Euthanasia Program since aliens entered the area of\n the Reich only with the beginning of the allocation of foreign\n labor.\n\n The suspension of euthanasia in August 1941 argues against the\n intention to eliminate \u201cuseless eaters\u201d, for only from that time\n on economic reasons of that kind acquired a certain importance.\n\n The transfer of sick persons by order of the Reich Defense\n Commissioner did not point to a special war interest but was an\n administrative and local measure in order to evade difficulties\n as regards competence. The Reich Defense Commissioner was a new\n regional administrative office which made it possible to combine\n the various offices without regard to their competencies for the\n different tasks. It seems possible that it was only a\n camouflage. The blank draft contains contradictions, for\n according to that draft the director of a mental institution\n gives directives to the general public prosecutor and refers to\n a decree of the Reich Defense Commissioner. (_NO-841, Pros. Ex.\n 360._)\n\n The motive of elimination of \u201cuseless eaters\u201d appears only in\n the subsequent statements of the ideological opponents as a\n propaganda measure of the resistance movement where a symptom is\n passed off as a motive. At the conferences, no economic reason\n was given for the euthanasia measures; but this was mentioned\n only as a secondary phenomenon.\n\n The attitude of Karl Brandt himself was proved by the statements\n of Bodelschwingh as the authoritative leader in matters of\n medical and nursery treatment among convinced Christians.\n Bodelschwingh\u2019s attitude towards Karl Brandt would be\n inconceivable if he had enforced the liquidation of all\n undesirable sick persons. (_Karl Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex.\n 91._)\n\nThe statement in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal is\nsubject to revision on the grounds of the evidence material of this\ntrial.\n\n _Legal Foundation of Medical Euthanasia_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\nThe authorization of 1 September 1939 was a sufficient legal basis.\n(_630-PS, Pros. Ex. 330._) The form of the authorization was sufficient.\n\nThe sheet with the golden eagle chosen for that purpose shows the\nspecial importance of the authorization.\n\nNo recipient was mentioned to whom the authorization in the form of a\nletter may have been addressed. (_Tr. p. 2396._)\n\n Karl Brandt took part in working out the text by inserting the\n words \u201cunder the most careful scrutiny of their state of\n illness.\u201d\n\n Statement of Lammers, expert in constitutional law. (_Tr. p.\n 2678-9._) According to that document the form chosen was not\n usual, but such violation did occur and flaws were adjusted.\n Hitler did not care about the form.\n\n Statement of Lammers, stating that Hitler as the Fuehrer was\n authorized to alter the form: \u201cI thought him authorized to do\n such things.\u201d Apart from the form of the authorization which is\n on hand here, there existed still another version. (_Tr. p.\n 2686._)\n\n Statement of Pfannmueller. According to this document, the\n authorization contained the passage: \u201cTo the Reich Minister of\n the Interior.\u201d The document was of a different form from the\n authorization in question. (_Tr. p. 7362._)\n\n Affidavit of Kirchert. Grawitz told the witness that there\n existed an authorization with the additional signature of\n Goering as the Chairman of the Reich Defense Council. (_Karl\n Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)\n\n Statement of Mennecke. At the conference in 1940 the law was\n read _word by word_. (_Tr. p. 1921._)\n\n File note of the Gauleitung of Franconia dated 1 April 1940,\n \u201cThe Fuehrer gave the order, the law is made.\u201d (_D-906, Pros.\n Ex. 376._)\n\n Publication of the authorization was not necessary for its\n coming into force.\n\n Statement of Lammers says that there existed legal provisions\n which had not been published. (_Tr. p. 2689._)\n\n Affidavit of the Regional Bishop Wurm. Conti told the witness\n that there existed a law that had not been published for\n political reasons. (_Karl Brandt 25, Karl Brandt Ex. 82._)\n\n The _obligation of secrecy_ does not prove the illegality of\n euthanasia.\n\n Statement of Brack. The offices were informed. The decree of 1\n September 1939 was transmitted to the Reich Minister of Justice\n on 27 August 1940, according to his special wish, but he had\n been informed of it earlier. (_Tr. p. 7689._)\n\n Statement of Pfannmueller. The witness states that the\n obligation of secrecy was usual. \u201cI was bound to keep Reich\n matters secret. I was bound with regard to the Reich Penal\n Code.\u201d (_Tr. pp. 7343, 7397._)\n\n Statement of Schmidt. The witness says that an ordinary\n obligation of secrecy form was signed without a special threat\n of punishment.\n\n_Camouflage._\n\n Files of the Gauleitung of Franconia concerning correspondence\n with Marie Kehr. According to this, instructions were given\n after they were convinced of her good sense. (_D-906, Pros. Ex.\n 376._)\n\n Book of Meltzer: \u201cThe Problem of Abbreviation of Worthless\n Lives.\u201d According to a statistical summary, on the whole,\n relatives of the mentally diseased do not wish to be informed.\n (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._)\n\n_Recognition of the Decree._ The point of view of German literature and\nthe administration of justice does not consider the present state of\nconstitutional law. After taking cognizance of the decree, all\nauthorities acknowledged it as the legal basis.\n\n Testimony of Lammers. \u201cThe Reich Minister of Justice Guertner\n considered this regulation legal and stopped the pending\n actions.\u201d (_Tr. p. 2686._)\n\n Testimony of Brack. Guertner, the Reich Minister of Justice,\n declared that the decree was not to be doubted. (_Tr. p. 7590._)\n\n Extract from the periodical \u201cGerman Law\u201d [Deutsche Justiz] 1941.\n Transfer of the supreme officials of the Justice Department in\n Berlin on 23 and 24 April 1941. According to this, photostatic\n copies of the decree of 1 September 1939 were delivered to all\n participators and its legality acknowledged by them. (_Brack 36,\n Brack Ex. 36._)\n\n Affidavit of Suchomel. This witness erroneously places the date\n of the conference in the 2d half of the year 1942. That means\n some time after the stoppage. (_NO-2253, Pros. Ex. 557._)\n\n Letter of 15 July 1940 of the General Prosecutor of Stuttgart to\n the Reich Ministry of Justice containing a report concerning\n illegal euthanasia. The following remark is made on the letter\n by the department chief of the Reich Ministry of Justice: \u201cThere\n is nothing to be ordered.\u201d (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4._)\n\n Schlaich to the Reich Ministry of Justice on 6 September\n 1940\u2014Nothing has been attempted. (_NO-520, Pros. Ex. 374._)\n\n Testimony of Schmidt. The witness states that during a\n conference of jurists in Berlin 1941 the action was declared\n legal. This refers to the conference mentioned above, as it was\n mentioned in Document Brack 36, Brack Exhibit 36. (_Tr. p.\n 1852._)\n\n _Preliminary Conference._ Karl Brandt did not take part in the\n preliminary conference.\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt. According to this, Karl Brandt was\n invited unexpectedly, because he was available as an\n attendant-physician, when the conference with Bouhler took\n place. He was uninformed before this. Preliminary conferences\n concerning euthanasia took place between Hitler and Bouhler,\n Hitler and Conti.\n\n Testimony of Lammers. According to this, during a conference in\n the autumn of 1939 in the presence of Lammers, a commission was\n given to Conti to start euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2668._)\n\n Testimony of Lammers. According to this, Bouhler declared that\n Hitler wanted to give him the commission to carry out\n euthanasia. (_Tr. p. 2669._)\n\n Testimony of Brack. According to this a rivalry existed between\n Bouhler and Frick, Conti and Bormann, concerning the commission.\n Bouhler went to Hitler and said he would consent to accept the\n commission. Bouhler received the commission. (_Tr. p. 7556._)\n\n_Particular responsibility and participation of Karl Brandt._ According\nto the existing conditions of constitutional law, the decree of 1\nSeptember 1939 was to be looked upon as a legal order, and Karl Brandt,\nin his capacity as a physician, could rely on the organizations of the\nstate and the opinions of the jurists.\n\nThe belated objection to the decree today is not made because of its\nexternal form, but in reality because of its contents. The circumstance\nthat no _publication_ of the decree took place was explained with\npolitically intelligible reasons, corresponding to similar regulations\nissued for other measures.\n\nThe _obligation of secrecy_ corresponds with the general regulations of\nthe administration; a warning with reference to the regulations of penal\nlaw was usual. The so-called \u201cdeath threat\u201d is an exaggeration without\nany sense; according to practice, a reference to penal regulations\nconcerning the revelation of secret matters had to be made where capital\npunishment was provided as the severest punishment in the Reich Penal\nCode. The opposition of all the persons interested in the procedure was\ndirected against the camouflage of measures, with its inevitable\nconsequences, the establishment of sham offices, the drawing-up of false\ndeath certificates, false information for the relations.\n\nKarl Brandt accepted these regulations because they were the necessary\nconsequence of the consideration not to disturb the part of the\npopulation involved. Neither the patient nor his relatives were to be\nalarmed, and the relatives had to be released from their feeling of\nresponsibility. This motive is expressed in the correspondence\nconcerning Marie Kehr, where the proper information was given and served\nas reassurance and warranted an expectation of understanding.\n\nKarl Brandt did not partake in the organization of the Euthanasia\nProgram. His connection with it, as an expert adviser for Hitler, is due\nonly to the accident that he was in the headquarters of the Fuehrer. He\nreceived only a limited commission compared with Reichsleiter Bouhler,\nwho, according to his own offer, was charged with the execution of this\ntask.\n\n _Organization_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\n_Karl Brandt was not the leading person, Bouhler was the head of the\norganization._ In the decree of 1 September 1939 Karl Brandt is listed\nin second place, after Bouhler who had the rank of a Reich Minister.\n\nThe indictment denotes Bouhler as the chief of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p.\n1531._)\n\n Bouhler\u2019s letter to the Reich Minister of Justice of 5 September\n 1940. \u201cOn the authority of the Fuehrer and as the _only_\n responsible person for all measures to be carried into effect,\n _I_ have given the orders which seemed necessary to _me_ to _my_\n collaborators.\u201d (_NO-156, Karl Brandt Ex. 4a and 4b._)\n\n Affidavit of Lammers (supplement). The witness certifies as\n Bouhler\u2019s the signature on the documents mentioned above. (_Karl\n Brandt 92, Karl Brandt Ex. 86._)\n\n Letter from Bormann sent to the Gauleitung of Franconia. Here,\n too, Bouhler is quoted as the Chief of the Committee of\n Physicians. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)\n\n Testimony of Lammers, according to which Karl Brandt never\n appeared before Lammers; in the Reich Ministry of Justice also;\n Bouhler was the only person who made an appearance. (_Tr. p.\n 2672-3._)\n\n Affidavit of Kirchert. The witness had a conference with\n Grawitz, who wanted to interest him in the use of euthanasia.\n Grawitz declared to the witness that _Bouhler_ was charged with\n euthanasia. To him Karl Brandt had never been mentioned. (_Karl\n Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)\n\n Affidavit of Prince of Hesse (supplement). The witness declares\n that he protested to Hitler and Bouhler because of the\n euthanasia project. Karl Brandt had not been called in at that\n time, though he could have been reached at once in the Fuehrer\n Headquarters. The witness is convinced that Karl Brandt was\n _not_ connected with the matter _in a decisive way_. (_Karl\n Brandt 115, Karl Brandt Ex. 91._)\n\n Statement of Mennecke. The witness has never seen Karl Brandt,\n nor did he receive any order from him; he only knows the\n position of Karl Brandt within the framework of the euthanasia\n project from hearsay. (_Tr. pp. 1903-5._)\n\n Statement of Schmidt. The witness did not know Karl Brandt and\n did not see any order signed by him. He only knows by hearsay\n from Hegener that Karl Brandt \u201cwas supposed to be the medical\n chief\u201d in 1941. In 1944 the witness learned that Karl Brandt was\n no longer involved, but could not state if he had still any\n influence in 1942 and 1943. (_Tr. pp. 1857-8._)\n\n_Karl Brandt had no administrative organization of his own._\n\n_General items_\n\n New plan of organization by Brack. (_Karl Brandt 8, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 3_; _Karl Brandt 15, Karl Brandt Ex. 3_.) Testimony of Karl\n Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2403._)\n\n Affidavit of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7550._)\n\nJudgment of the International Military Tribunal[101] according to which\nFrick, as Reich Minister of the Interior, is made responsible for the\ncarrying out of the euthanasia project.\n\n Direct correspondence of the Bouhler office with the competent\n authorities prove that Karl Brandt was not involved: Letter from\n Brack to Schlegelberger. (_NO-842, Pros. Ex. 405._) Letter from\n Brack to Freisler. (_NO-843, Pros. Ex. 406._) Letter from\n Himmler to Brack. (_NO-018, Pros. Ex. 404._)\n\n Complaints of the national and ecclesiastical authorities and of\n civilians did _not_ reach Karl Brandt.\n\n Complaint by Schlaich, Chief of the Mental Institution\n of Stetten. This director who worked in this specialized\n field does not know anything of Karl Brandt. (_NO-520,\n Pros. Ex. 374._)\n\n Affidavit of Sprauer of 23 April 1946. The witness does\n not mention Karl Brandt in this affidavit. (_3896-PS,\n Pros. Ex. 372._) (Only in a later affidavit of 19\n November 1946, does he add a pertinent, general\n statement.)\n\n Actual complaints are transferred by the ministries to\n the Bouhler office, not to Karl Brandt. (_616-PS, Pros,\n Ex. 403._)\n\n_Specific examples._\n\n Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the invitation for\n the experts\u2019 conference was made by Bouhler. (_Tr. p. 7316._)\n\n Statement of Pfannmueller. Bouhler took the chair in the second\n conference in Berlin; Karl Brandt was not present. (_Tr. p.\n 7359._)\n\n Statement of Brack, according to which Karl Brandt made no\n speeches on problems of euthanasia, and he was not expected to\n do so. (_Tr. p. 7588._) This is confirmed by the testimony of\n Blome.\n\n Statement of Mennecke, according to which Brack was chairman of\n the conference in February 1940. (_Tr. p. 1869._)\n\n Statement of Schmidt. Karl Brandt also was not present at the\n conference in February 1941, but there were present\n representatives of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and of the\n Reich Ministry of Justice. (_Tr. p. 1819._)\n\n Statement of Pfannmueller, according to which the experts were\n appointed by the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p.\n 7377._)\n\n Statement of Brack, according to which the physicians were\n chosen by Linden and Grawitz. (_Tr. pp. 7703, 7705._)\n\n Affidavit of Kneissler, according to which the persons in charge\n of euthanasia were instructed by Blankenburg of the Bouhler\n office. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._) Karl Brandt was not\n mentioned.\n\n Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the mental institutions\n were under the control of the Reich Ministry of the Interior.\n (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._) Answering a complaint of Sprauer,\n Conti stated: \u201cThat is the business of the Reich Ministry of the\n Interior.\u201d\n\n Affidavit of Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Also confirms\n that the mental institutions were under the control of the Reich\n Ministry of the Interior.\n\n The order for evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar was not given\n at the suggestion of the Reich Defense Commissioner or for\n \u201csystematic registration\u201d, but with regard to the air raid\n danger. (_NO-892, Pros. Ex. 442._) Karl Brandt was a member of\n the committee for air raid damage, and it was his special task\n within this committee to allot the space available in hospitals\n fairly. The order was given in 1942, after the great air raids\n in the area of Cologne and the industrial areas. It refers to an\n institution in the interior of Westphalia which was considered\n as a reception district at that time; the euthanasia facilities\n at Hadamar were removed and the institution was returned to the\n former owner. (See indictment in the Hadamar Trial.[102])\n\n Affidavit of Steinbrecher. (_Karl Brandt 84, Karl Brandt Ex.\n 87._) The activity of Karl Brandt on occasion of the removal of\n the mental institution from Dueren shows that Karl Brandt was\n not engaged as chief of the mental institutions, but in advisory\n capacity beside the competent authority, because he had\n influence and was charged with a special task in the field of\n air raid protection, in view of his general allocation tasks.\n Here Karl Brandt was able to help directly on account of his\n special tasks connected with the Committee for Air Raid Damage.\n\n Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6362._) Opinion of the witness as to\n affidavit, NO-872, Prosecution Exhibit 408. From this it is seen\n that Karl Brandt here did not have charge of the patients, but\n was to endeavor with the other authorities to have the\n institution placed at his disposal.\n\n_Real Position of Karl Brandt._ The position of Karl Brandt within the\nframework of the Euthanasia Program was limited.\n\n Statement of Karl Brandt, according to which it was his task to\n inform Hitler and to license physicians of the euthanasia\n institutions according to the decree on the basis of personal\n responsibility of the physicians. (_Tr. p. 2408._)\n\n Statement of Brack. The witness says that Karl Brandt had\n nothing to do with the carrying out of the Euthanasia Program,\n \u201cfor he was the delegate of Hitler\u201d. (_Tr. p. 7571._) He had no\n office at Tiergartenstrasse 4, and to the knowledge of Brack, he\n was never in the office \u201cT 4\u201d.\n\n Affidavit of Reinhardt. (_Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6._)\n The witness was occupied as an auditor in the office of Karl\n Brandt, and he states that in this capacity he did not find in\n the office of Karl Brandt any accounts or items with entries\n referring to euthanasia.\n\n Affidavit of Schaub, according to which Karl Brandt was bound to\n the Fuehrer Headquarters and to Hitler and thus was not able to\n make any inspections. (_Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98._)\n\n Affidavit of Rach. (_Karl Brandt 6, Karl Brandt Ex. 7._) The\n witness confirms the connection of Karl Brandt with the Fuehrer\n Headquarters and with the clinic in Berlin.\n\n _Execution_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\n_Time._ The practice (of euthanasia) by virtue of the authorization\nstarted at the beginning of 1940 and lasted until August 1941, when it\nwas stopped. Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2431._) Statement of\nBrack. (_Tr. p. 7543._) According to both statements, the practice was\nsuspended because of an oral order by Hitler to Karl Brandt. (Oral order\nof suspension was sufficient, since the legal ordinance itself was not\nrevoked, because in principle euthanasia was supposed to be continued\nafter the war. Continuation of the Reich Committee for Children.)\n\nSuspension of euthanasia is confirmed through the following depositions:\nStatement by Blome. (_Tr. p. 4653._) Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p.\n7348._) Statement by Dr. Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1823._) Statement by Dr.\nMennecke. (_Tr. p. 1879._) According to these testimonies, euthanasia\nwas discontinued in Hadamar in August 1941 and the gas chambers removed.\n(See record of Hadamar Trial, especially indictment[103].)\n\nThe witnesses say further that euthanasia was no longer practiced at\nEichberg either.\n\n Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. The witness confirms\n suspension in Ansbach; she places this in the year 1942.\n (_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)\n\n Affidavit of Jordans. According to this, the witness learned in\n March 1942 that there had been a euthanasia program in other\n institutions, too, which now had been discontinued. (_3882-PS,\n Pros. Ex. 371._)\n\n Kirchert affidavit. According to this, suspension occurred in\n the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15._)\n\n Mennecke correspondence. The witness writes on 15 June 1942 of\n \u201cre-commencement\u201d of euthanasia. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)\n\n_Number of dead._\n\n Statement by Karl Brandt on the number of insane falling under\n the authorization of 1 September 1939. (_Tr. p. 2465._) Brack\n estimates them at 50,000 to 60,000. (_Tr. p. 7610._)\n\n Pfannmueller statement. The number of report forms which were\n made out does not equal the number of persons marked for\n euthanasia. This number contains only a fairly small percentage\n of persons, who were judged eligible for euthanasia. (_Tr. p.\n 7384._)\n\n_Registration by report forms._\n\n_In general._\n\n Statement by Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2401._) According to this,\n Karl Brandt did not assist in drawing up the report forms. They\n were drafted by the Reich Ministry of the Interior (Linden).\n\n Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7322._) According to this, the\n directives were worked out as a result of the conference of\n experts at which Karl Brandt was not present.\n\n_In detail._\n\n Pfannmueller statement. (_Tr. p. 7324._) According to this, no\n persons incapable of work were supposed to be registered, but\n only the insane, with whom the inability to work was a special\n characteristic of their diseased state.\n\n Wesse Affidavit (in lieu of cross-examination). (_NO-129, Pros.\n Ex. 105._)\n\n Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2465._) According to Karl\n Brandt, the registration of Jews, foreigners, and war wounded\n was presumably carried out for statistical reasons.\n\n Statement of Brack. (_Tr. pp. 7596-8._) According to Brack the\n opinion of Karl Brandt about the reasons for the inclusion of\n the above-mentioned question is false and is based on \u201clack of\n professional knowledge\u201d by Karl Brandt. Brack says that the\n questions were included only for the purpose of concealing the\n practice of euthanasia in the sanatoriums and nursing homes,\n from their personnel and their patients, and to veil the true\n purpose of the questionnaire. (For the same reason the purpose\n of the transfer was given out as \u201cplanned economic\n registration.\u201d)\n\n Rosenau affidavit about camouflaging purpose of the report\n forms. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._) Letter\n concerning the registration of workhouses. (_NO-781, Pros. Ex.\n 379._) Not the old and disabled are registered, but only those\n cases of insanity that can no longer be treated.\n\n Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7599._) Foreigners were sorted out in\n T 4.\n\n Brack statement. (_Tr. p. 7593._) According to this, foreigners\n were exempt from euthanasia. They were screened in the central\n office T 4. If single sheets for appraisal possibly went\n further, then this was because of incorrect transmission.\n Wounded veterans of World War I, just like Jews, were screened\n at the central office T 4. Report forms were made out for Jews,\n but they were not registered for the euthanasia procedure.\n\n _Classification procedure._ The accomplishment of the\n classification procedure was guaranteed by the choice of the\n appraisers.\n\n Statement by Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7377._) According to this,\n professional persons of proven ability were designated by the\n Reich Minister of the Interior.\n\n Statement by Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1294._) According to this,\n university professors lecturing on psychiatry at colleges were\n appointed as appraisers. The appraisal was preceded by an\n examination of the patient. After the appraisal a re-examination\n was made in observation institutions and in the euthanasia\n institutions.\n\n According to the scheduled procedure special commissions were\n appointed to examine the insane in nursing homes.\n\n Affidavit of Irene Asam-Bruckmueller. Then came a commission\n which studied the case histories; among them were two\n physicians; the commission was in the institution for three\n days; after three months the transfer was effected. (_3865-PS,\n Pros. Ex. 365._)\n\n Granzer affidavit. In the autumn of 1940 there was a commission\n of 40 persons; all case histories were asked for and a\n conference with the local staff physicians followed. An\n inspection of the patients was held. (_3867-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._)\n\n Sellmer report of 6 December 1940, Gauleiter\u2019s office,\n Franconia. According to this a commission came and examined the\n files and inspected the patients. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)\n\n Decision of the commission was based on the documents of the\n institution. (_NO-660, Pros. Ex. 377._)\n\n Pfannmueller statement. He recalls that a commission came in\n 1940. (_Tr. p. 7325._)\n\nFurther re-examination took place in the observation and euthanasia\ninstitutions. The physicians were authorized and obliged to judge the\npatients on their own responsibility. On an average 4 percent to 6\npercent were rejected.\n\n Kneissler affidavit. Witness says that individual persons were\n rejected. (_NO-470, Pros. Ex. 332._)\n\n It appears from the reports that individual patients were sent\n back. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)\n\n _Transfer of patients. Order of transfer._\n\n Statement by Karl Brandt. \u201cOperation Brandt\u201d has nothing to do\n with the transfer. Through inquiries at sanatoriums and nursing\n homes, special Karl Brandt project concerning euthanasia order.\n According to this inquiry the hospitals of the special Brandt\n project accepted patients from areas endangered by air raids as\n evacuation hospitals. The transfer which became necessary had no\n connection with euthanasia. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex.\n 88._)\n\n Schnelle affidavit. According to this \u201cOperation Brandt\u201d meant\n the removal of patients and chronic sufferers to medicinal\n baths. (_Karl Brandt 21, Karl Brandt Ex. 17._)\n\n Miesen affidavit. According to this Karl Brandt charged them\n with the manufacture of ambulances which were then lacking.\n (From this it appears that up to that time other means of\n transportation had to be used, among others the Red Cross, etc.,\n and also the General Sick Transport Company, which had likewise\n been used for transport purposes in the battle zones of the\n East.) Compare also the widely popular expression \u201cOperation\n Brandt\u201d in purely economic fields. (_Karl Brandt 28._[104])\n\n Schieber affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt Ex. 18._)\n\n Grabe affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 86, Karl Brandt Ex. 88._)\n\n Kehrl affidavit. (_Karl Brandt 90, Karl Brandt Ex. 89._)\n\n _Order of transfer through other agencies._ Collective transport\n of Jews takes place under the reference of \u201cInitial Decree of\n the State [Bavarian] Ministry [of Interior] in Munich.\u201d\n (_NO-1141, Pros. Ex. 348._)\n\n Collective transport of Eastern workers ordered by the\n Oberpraesident through Bernotat. (_NO-891, Pros. Ex. 414._)\n\n Transfer through Munich [Bavarian] State Ministry [of Interior].\n (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)\n\n Transfer through the Province Governor of Military District III.\n (_NO-1133, Pros. Ex. 335._)\n\n Transfer through Military District III. (_NO-826, Pros. Ex.\n 356._)\n\n Transfer through Munich Ministry. (_D-906, Pros. Ex. 376._)\n\n Motives for the transfer. The transfer from institutions was\n effected for various reasons as a result of wartime conditions,\n such as evacuation of districts endangered by air raids,\n evacuation on account of proximity to the front and evacuation\n under consideration of inner displacements.\n\n Ganzer affidavit. (_3827-PS, Pros. Ex. 369._) According to this,\n the evacuations became frequent on account of wartime conditions\n and it was not easily apparent to the outsider why they were\n effected. The evacuation from Warstein to Hadamar, where\n reference is made to an order by Karl Brandt, could not have\n taken place on account of euthanasia, as Hadamar at this time\n had discontinued euthanasia. The change was made for reasons of\n air raid precaution.\n\n _Carrying out of the evacuation._\n\n Statement of Karl Brandt. The evacuation was carried out by the\n Cooperative Ambulance Company through Office T 4, which was\n _not_ subordinate to Karl Brandt. The Cooperative Ambulance\n Company was not employed for euthanasia transports alone.\n Whenever it was used, the account was rendered through the\n clearing office which settled the matter centrally.\n\n Affidavit by Schieber on procurement of lacking ambulance space\n through the defendant Karl Brandt. (_Karl Brandt 22, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 18._)\n\n Affidavit by Miesen. (_Karl Brandt 28._[105])\n\n Statement of Mennecke on the assignment of the Cooperative\n Ambulance Company, 1941-42, in the East.\n\n Deportation of Jews. Here a separation of the Jews according to\n nationality is carried out. Poles and Jews from Bohemia and\n Moravia shall not be transferred because they do not belong to\n the area of the transport. This shows that the aim of the\n deportation was not euthanasia, because separation according to\n nationality would have been senseless. (_NO-1310, Pros. Ex.\n 337._)\n\n Affidavit by Schnidtmann. He expresses his opinion on the\n transfer of workers from the East on 18 September 1944; they are\n to be returned to their home institutions. This would have been\n superfluous in the case of intended euthanasia. (_NO-720, Pros.\n Ex. 366._)\n\n Affidavit by Rosenau. (_Karl Brandt 130, Karl Brandt Ex. 106._)\n\n_Reasons for euthanasia._ Euthanasia was brought about on the basis of\nan authorization given to the directors of the euthanasia institutions\non 1 September 1939. This authorization was no order to carry out\neuthanasia but merely gave permission to arrange for euthanasia after\nexamination based on a critical judgment of the condition of the\nillness. Consequently, doctors acted on their own responsibility.\n\n_The means for the execution of euthanasia._\n\n Statement of Brack. According to this statement, carbon monoxide\n (CO) was used as a means. This is scientifically proved to be\n the least painful manner of death. The use of other methods\n proves that such an execution of euthanasia does not conform\n with the intended procedure, but is carried out on personal\n initiative. (_Tr. p. 7743._)\n\n Statement of Rose. (_Tr. p. 6363._) Opinion on the reduction of\n food in medical institutions. (_NO-872, Pros. Ex. 403._) Rose\n declares that this did not result in any particular reduction or\n neglect of the patients.\n\n_Experimental killing of insane persons._\n\n The handing-over of patients from the institution of\n Eglfing-Haar is under consideration. (_No_ euthanasia).\n (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._)\n\n_Issue of false death certificates and notices._\n\n Meltzer opinion. (_Karl Brandt 85, Karl Brandt Ex. 94._) This\n document contains an inquiry sent to 200 relatives regarding\n their attitude towards euthanasia. Most of the relatives agree\n to it; it is characteristic that many disagree but declare that\n they do not wish to be asked and that the matter had best be\n kept secret and covered up (death should come unexpectedly not\n influenced by the wishes and interests of others and should not\n burden the relatives). Professor Meltzer, an opponent of\n euthanasia, arranged for the examination as the director of an\n insane asylum in order to obtain an argument against the main\n advocates of euthanasia in Germany, Binding and Hoche, and he\n declared that he was surprised at the result shown by the\n questionnaire.\n\n _Euthanasia compared with Medical Euthanasia_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\nIn addition to the prescribed euthanasia based on authorization a\nso-called \u201cwild euthanasia\u201d took place, upon which the defendant Karl\nBrandt had no influence, and of which he had no knowledge.\n\n_Euthanasia on Polish Nationals._ The authorization by Karl Brandt was\nlimited to the occupied territories, which were subordinate to special\nadministration, like the administration for the Government of Poland and\nthe Protectorate as well as the Communication Zone. Karl Brandt\ntherefore cannot be held responsible for the events which took place in\nthe insane asylums in Poland. The removal of Eglfing-Haar to the\noccupied territories was carried out by the Cooperative Ambulance\nCompany, but the fact of the transport shows obviously that death was\nnot intended, as such a deportation would have been senseless. The\nseizure of Poles in the Polish district Zichenau by the Reich Security\nMain Office proves that quite another organization is at work than the\norganization for euthanasia in Germany, which was Appointed by the\nMinistry of the Interior as supervisory authority.\n\n_Euthanasia in the Communication Zone._\n\n Affidavit by Halder. (_Karl Brandt 116, Karl Brandt Ex. 92._)\n Rumors that inmates of the insane asylum of Novgorod and others\n had been killed reached Halder. He knows that Karl Brandt was\n not mentioned in this connection as he held no authority in this\n field and that his appearance would be particularly noticeable.\n\n_Extermination in Auschwitz._\n\n Letter from Brack to Himmler. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) The\n letter shows that the defendant Karl Brandt had nothing to do\n with the deportation of persons to Auschwitz. Brack designates\n the \u201cmen\u201d as his \u201cpersonnel\u201d and on his own initiative offers\n further personnel in his direct correspondence with Himmler.\n\n Statement of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7530._) He points out that he had\n not accused Brandt himself of having any knowledge of or part in\n this, but merely that the possibility was presented to him\n during the interrogation by the prosecution. He had attempted to\n maintain his opinion through changes in the text of the\n affidavit composed for him. The text presented to him definitely\n mentioned Brandt as a confidant. It was stated there:\n\n \u201cIt _was impossible_ for these people to participate\n without the knowledge of Karl Brandt\u201d further \u201cthat this\n order _could_ have been issued by _Karl Brandt only_.\u201d\n Brack has changed the text in the best possible way and\n has rearranged the sentence as follows: \u201cIt _would have\n been_ impossible for these people to participate.\u201d To\n the phrase \u201conly by order of Karl Brandt\u201d was added\n \u201cpossibly Bouhler.\u201d\n\n Statement of Hielscher. (_Tr. p. 5982 ff._) On\n cross-examination, the witness testified to the trustworthiness\n of the witness Gerstein, who since submitting the affidavit can\n no longer be traced and is presumed to be hiding.\n\n Statement of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1912._) The witness has not\n learned any more in regard to the rumors of euthanasia in Lublin\n and the participation of Karl Brandt in these matters in spite\n of his particular interest.\n\n_The Workers from the East._\n\n Statement of Schnidtmann. (_NO-720, Pros. Ex. 366._)\n Subsequently the transfer of the insane Eastern workers to a\n home institution took place. No euthanasia was therefore carried\n out; a transfer for this purpose would have been senseless.\n\n _Euthanasia after Cessation in 1941_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\nWith the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, a new procedure\nappeared in which Karl Brandt no longer participated. Karl Brandt\npersonally was fully occupied with special commissions in other fields\n(building of hospitals; since 1942 Commissioner General; since 1944\nReich Commissioner for Health and Medical Care). The cessation was\nordered during August 1941. Subsequently euthanasia was discontinued.\n\n Statement of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1879._) Hadamar in August 1941.\n (Compare also the documents of the Hadamar Trial,[106]\n particularly indictment.)\n\n The same applies to Eichberg in August 1941. (_Tr. p. 1879._)\n\n Affidavit by Kirchert. According to this there was general\n cessation in the summer of 1941. (_Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 15._)\n\n Affidavit by Asam-Bruckmueller. (_3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365._)\n According to this euthanasia was also discontinued in Ansbach.\n\n Affidavit by Jordans. (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371._) Hereby\n euthanasia was also discontinued in other institutions in 1942.\n\n(The statements regarding date of cessation may be erroneous inasmuch as\nthey were made long after the end of 1941. It is also possible that in\nspite of the order to cease, some places still carried on upon the\ninstruction of the local authorities.)\n\nA new purpose for euthanasia is presented, which begins after the\ncessation. The motive is no longer medical and also has no more\nconnection with the authorization.\n\n Letter from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp of\n Gross-Rosen of 12 December 1941 on the discharge of prisoners.\n (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)\n\n Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._) Therein a\n report is made about the cooperation of a new group, concerned\n with extermination. Under the date of 15 June 1942 Mennecke\n speaks about the \u201cre-commencement\u201d of euthanasia.\n\n Statement of Brack. The witness reports of Bouhler\u2019s worry that\n before requesting the euthanasia commission on 1 September 1939,\n Bormann and other powers might wish to use the opportunity and\n he feared they might abuse it (wild euthanasia).\n\n_Legal foundations._ Karl Brandt is not acquainted with the legal\nfoundation for such proceedings after expiration of the authorization of\n1 September 1939. After the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, the\npowers held on the basis of the authorization of 1 September 1939 could\nno longer be exercised.\n\n Statement of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2421._) According to this,\n Karl Brandt, in 1944 learned of two cases in Saxony and of one\n in Pomerania where euthanasia was carried out. He forwarded this\n report to Hitler, Bormann, and Bouhler because he felt that\n within Bormann\u2019s sphere extremists were at work.\n\n_Organization._ The old organization was abandoned or considerably\nreduced. (Compare the indictment of the Hadamar Case[107] regarding the\nliquidation office.)\n\nThe physicians were dismissed in August 1941 from the Office,\nTiergartenstrasse 4.\n\n Letter from Brack to Himmler of 23 June 1942. (_NO-205, Pros.\n Ex. 163._) Here he refers to the former transfer of personnel\n and once more offers people from the remaining personnel.\n\nIt seems that the organization was now under the influence of Himmler.\nKarl Brandt was eliminated by the cessation in 1941.\n\n Affidavit of Beringer. (_NO-808, Pros. Ex. 425._) The witness\n says, \u201cit was an open secret in the Gau that Mennecke was\n charged by _Himmler_ to search the mental institutions of\n Germany for insane persons.\u201d\n\n_Activity of the former organization._ Registration sheet.\n\n Letter of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 1 August 1940.\n (_3871-PS, Pros. Ex. 359._) According to this all sick persons\n are now to be reported. The letter is addressed to the private\n clinic of Hertz at Bonn.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1902._) According to this, the\n program was not resumed again in its original form.\n\nSome of the experts had retired.\n\nThe killing no longer took place by carbon monoxide but by other means\nand by other methods.\n\nIn part the dead were not burned anymore but buried (as at Hadamar).\n\n _Elimination in the Concentration Camps_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\nMotive is not reconcilable with medical authorization; this does not\nallow euthanasia for political or economic reasons.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1913._) The witness explains\n that the execution was a complete breach of the directive at the\n start of euthanasia. \u201cAt least it had nothing to do with the\n euthanasia of lunatics.\u201d\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt.\n\n_Time._\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this Brack\n spoke of undertaking an examination in the KL [concentration\n camp] Oranienburg for the first time in the summer of 1940.\n\n Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) The witness says that a\n second action 14 f 13 started in 1943 (therefore an independent\n action after the suspension of 1941). From that the independent\n character of the \u201cfirst action 14 f 13\u201d must be concluded, and\n it is to be assumed that it was ordered by the Reich Criminal\n Police Office, Berlin, as was the second action 14 f 13.\n\n According to the testimony of Mennecke (_Tr. p. 1914_), Action\n 14 f 13 did not start with the first visit in 1940, but at first\n it was only an expert opinion according to medical points of\n view. In 1940 prisoners were examined by him in the\n concentration camp Buchenwald and registration forms filled out.\n At that time the examination extended to phychoses and\n psychopathy.\n\n Affidavit of Muthig. According to this a transport went from\n Dachau to Mauthausen in December 1941 after examination by\n Heyde. (_NO-2799, Pros. Ex. 497._)\n\n_Order._ There were two parallel orders:\n\nThe order of the office of Bouhler in accordance with the Euthanasia\nProgram, according to which from 1940 on the lunatics in the\nconcentration camps were examined according to the directions.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1935._) According to this, the\n order to visit the concentration camps was issued in the summer\n of 1940.\n\nThe order of Himmler to submit to the special treatment of action 14 f\n13, or to kill undesirable prisoners, regardless of these examinations.\n\n Letter of 10 December 1941 regarding the special action 14 f 13.\n (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)\n\n Affidavit of Hoven. Order by Himmler was at hand for the\n execution of these actions. (_NO-429, Pros. Ex. 281._) Further\n testimony of Hoven.\n\n Report of Dr. Morgen in the proceedings against Hoven: \u201cThe\n right to decide about the life or death of prisoners in the\n concentration camps is assigned to the Reich Leader SS\n _Himmler_.\u201d (_NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526._)\n\n_Organization._ Two organizations working side by side have to be\ndistinguished: (1) Organization for the selection of real lunatics\naccording to the authorization of 1 December 1939. Here the organization\nof Bouhler is active up to summer 1941 within the framework of the\nformer directives. (2) Organization for extermination contrary to the\nformer directives, exclusively by Himmler and the Reich Security Main\nOffice.\n\n Testimony of Roemhild, about Action 14 f 13. (_Tr. p. 1641._)\n\n Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1644._) According to this, Dr.\n Lolling participated, and was corresponding about it with\n Himmler.\n\n Testimony of Roemhild. (_Tr. p. 1659._) According to this, the\n second Action 14 f 13 started on the orders of the Reich\n Criminal Police Office, Berlin.\n\n It was the independent work of Lolling in the concentration camp\n Oranienburg. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._)\n\n Letter from concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the institution\n Bernburg. (_NO-1873, Pros. Ex. 556._)\n\n Report on special treatment to Main Economic and Administrative\n Office. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex. 555._)\n\n_Execution._ Nothing was done before the suspension in August 1941.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1933._) According to this, the\n first visit in 1940 was not the start. Until autumn 1941 there\n was only a general examination of the insane persons.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1940._) There were no objections\n regarding the examination of insane persons in the first action.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1890._) According to this,\n Mennecke himself filled out the registration forms, and they\n were treated in the same way as the registration forms of mental\n institutions. This was only so during the first visits of\n Mennecke, while the examinations were still taking place\n according to the prescribed medical points of view.\n\nAfter autumn 1941 another procedure was adopted. The registration forms\nwere no longer supplied by Tiergartenstrasse 4, but produced and filled\nout by the inspectorate of the concentration camp.\n\n The filling out of the registration forms is restricted to a few\n points according to an order of the Reich Security Main Office.\n (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) It was sufficient to fill out the\n particulars of the form underlined in red. These were name, date\n of birth, religion, race, since when in institution, physical\n incurable complaints, disabled soldier, offense, former criminal\n offenses.\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1914._) He does not know what a\n physician is expected to tell from registration forms filled out\n in such a way.\n\n No expert was present. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)\n\n In the proceedings 14 f 13, the consideration of the disease was\n not the main thing.\n\n Here there is talk about \u201cspecial treatment 14 f 13\u201d; it has\n nothing to do with euthanasia but is extermination. (_NO-158,\n Pros. Ex. 410._)\n\n Correspondence of the Main Economic and Administration Office\n with the concentration camp Gross-Rosen. (_1234-PS, Pros. Ex.\n 555._) Only special treatment is mentioned. The word\n \u201ceuthanasia\u201d nowhere appears.\n\n_Examination._ The fact that the Mauthausen concentration camp is\nmentioned as a place of execution, which was not empowered to carry out\nthe euthanasia within the framework of the order of 1 September 1939,\nshows the arbitrariness of the \u201caction.\u201d It must be assumed that Himmler\nincluded Bernburg, favorably situated to him, in the exercise of his own\nfull powers. The difference in the examination according to the\ndirections and according to the proceedings applied in the concentration\ncamp is shown in the correspondence of Mennecke.\n\n Correspondence of Mennecke. (_NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412._)\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1882._) According to this, it\n later on depended only on ascertaining reasons for the arrest,\n and not on the medical examination.\n\n Letter from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to Liebehenschel\n of 25 March 1942. (_1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411._) According to this,\n a part of the \u201celiminated prisoners\u201d became \u201cfit for work\u201d\n again.\n\n Communication of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen of 16\n November 1941 about the elimination of prisoners. (_NO-158,\n Pros. Ex. 410._) The killing was done at the institutions of\n Bernburg and in the concentration camp Mauthausen.\n\n_Connection of Karl Brandt with the Concentration Camps._\n\n Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_NO-1314, Pros. Ex. 433._) According to\n this, Karl Brandt was said to have been in Buchenwald.\n\n Appendix\u2014Affidavit of Dietzsch. (_Karl Brandt 98, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 39._) Dietzsch corrects his supposition and explains he did\n not see Karl Brandt in Buchenwald.\n\n Testimony of Hoven. (_Tr. p. 9911._)\n\nThe correspondence submitted was conducted exclusively by offices of\nconcentration camps.\n\n Appendix\u2014Report of Dr. Morgen shows that the right over life\n and death is assigned to Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_NO-2366,\n Pros. Ex. 526._) The name of Karl Brandt is not mentioned in the\n correspondence.\n\nThe witness Mennecke cannot give any information about the activity of\nKarl Brandt within the framework of the special treatment 14 f 13\nattributed to him by the indictment.\n\n _Euthanasia Practice on Children (Reich Committee)_\n\n_Position taken in the indictment_\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Position of the defense_\n\n_Motive._ From a medical standpoint, it is a humane motive to shorten\nthe lives of children not fit to live.\n\n Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1854._) At the discussion in 1941\n only medical viewpoints were dealt with. The Reich Committee was\n already being prepared before the authorization of 1 September\n 1939 (Leipzig case).\n\n_Time._ Execution was in force from 1940 to 1944.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7310._) Execution at\n Eglfing-Haar did not start before 1 June 1940.\n\n Pfannmueller letter to Reich Committee of 17 January 1941.\n (_NO-1139, Pros. Ex. 346._) It refers to agreement of 10\n December 1940 in connection with decision of 18 August 1939.\n\n Kaufbeuren documents. (_1696-PS, Pros. Ex. 357._) According to\n this, euthanasia was carried on in the Irrsee Institute, even\n after the occupation in 1945.\n\n Supplement, Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 105._) Opinion on the state of disease was arrived at\n objectively by medical examination.\n\n_Legal basis._ Legal basis was the authorization of 1 September 1939,\nwhich had not been suspended or annulled for the activity of the Reich\nCommittee.\n\n Decree regarding treatment of malformed children. (_Brack 52,\n Brack Ex. 43._) Circular of 1 July 1940, published in the\n Ministerial Gazette. There, compulsory reporting of malformed\n and insane children is provided for.\n\n_Organization._\n\n Affidavit of Sprauer, according to which the direction of the\n Reich Committee was in the hands of von Linden at the Reich\n Ministry and not under Karl Brandt. (_3896-PS, Pros. Ex. 372._)\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt, according to which the direction was\n with Linden of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. (_Tr. p.\n 2433._)\n\n Affidavits of Engel and Schaub. Karl Brandt was attached to the\n Fuehrer\u2019s General Headquarters. (_Karl Brandt 81, Karl Brandt\n Ex. 85_; _Karl Brandt 80, Karl Brandt Ex. 98_.)\n\n Testimony of Mennecke. (_Tr. p. 1903._) Mennecke never saw a\n document signed by Karl Brandt. He never saw him and never heard\n him speak. Karl Brandt was only available to give advice. In a\n few cases, he was consulted when there were doubts about the\n final expert opinion.\n\n Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) According to this Bouhler\n and Brandt voiced their opinion on the judgment of experts only\n in questionable cases. Further observation was indicated if\n there were doubts at all.\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2532._) According to this,\n Karl Brandt resigned from the Reich Committee in the summer of\n 1942. He was not used as an expert.\n\n Letter of the Reich Committee of 16 November 1943 regarding the\n child Anna Gasse. (_NO-890, Pros Ex. 443._)\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2541._) By virtue of this\n letter, addressed to Karl Brandt, an inquiry by the Reich\n Committee is addressed to the Eichberg Institution. This\n incident is the outcome of the claim of an incompetent person.\n The letter shows precisely that Karl Brandt did not have an\n office of his own, but that he remitted the letter to the\n competent official authority.\n\n_Execution._\n\n Registration was handled by the Reich Ministry of the Interior.\n (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)\n\nThe notification about the children was made, as required by law, by\nphysicians, midwives, and clinics.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7312._) According to this,\n the registration sheets were published in the gazette of the\n Reich Ministry.\n\n Sick records had to be attached to the report. (_NO-1133, Pros.\n Ex. 335._)\n\n Directive issued by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to the\n effect that personnel and sick records are to be attached.\n (_NO-1132, Pros. Ex. 341._)\n\n Letter of 30 April 1941, with regard to the child Thalmeyer.\n (_NO-1138, Pros. Ex. 349._) In that case a medical report on the\n child was especially required.\n\n Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1828._) According to this, the\n registration followed upon information obtained from health\n offices, midwives, and clinics for children.\n\nMedical opinion was given by special advisers who cooperated with\nofficial physicians.\n\n Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._)\n\nThe transfer of partly Jewish children has no connection with the Reich\nCommittee.\n\n Directive issued by the Provincial President Bernotat of 15 May\n 1943 concerning the collection of part Jews. (_NO-893, Pros. Ex.\n 426._)\n\n Consent of the parents.\n\n Letter of the Reich Committee of 9 January 1943 to the health\n office at Tuttlingen. (_Karl Brandt 40, Karl Brandt Ex. 84._)\n There the competent authority declares that a transfer of a\n child is not permissible in principle if the consent of the\n parents is not given.\n\n Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7612._) The consent of the parents\n was secured by the official physician or by the physician in\n charge, in other words, before the child was taken to the\n clinic.\n\n It was up to the practicing physicians to inform the parents of\n the type of treatment which the child would undergo and of the\n prospects of success. (_Brack 52, Brack Ex. 43._) The\n probability of death was stressed.\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2399._) According to this,\n the parents were treated with care while being questioned, in\n order that their conscience should not bother them later.\n\n Testimony of Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2544._) According to this the\n consent of the parents was not put into writing but was given\n orally and then a note made of it in the files. No child was\n removed against the express wishes of the parents.\n\n_How the killing was done._\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller (_Tr. p. 7331_) rebuts affidavit of\n Jordans (_3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371_). According to this, where\n treatment was not possible any more, putting to sleep by\n narcotics was effected by the physician of the institution.\n There was no National Socialist nursing staff to carry out the\n killing.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) Comment on the\n statement in the affidavit of Lehner according to which\n euthanasia was not practiced on children before the war.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7329._) Comment on the\n conference of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in 1942.\n According to this, the starvation process had not been ordered\n but on account of the general food situation no additional food\n supplies were permitted which exceeded the rations of the\n civilian population.\n\n Affidavit of Weese. (_Karl Brandt 129, Karl Brandt Ex. 105._)\n Graph indicating cases of death of insane persons in the\n Kaufbeuren Clinic from 1910 till 1944. (_Karl Brandt 123, Karl\n Brandt Ex. 93._) The graph shows that during the membership of\n Karl Brandt in the Reich Committee the number of cases of death\n did not really exceed those of World War I. Only after his\n retirement does the curve rise suddenly.\n\n Performance of experiments by Professor McCance on children not\n fit to live in the Military Hospital, Wuppertal, in 1946. (_Karl\n Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29._)\n\n Testimony of Brack. (_Tr. p. 7716._) According to this, the\n consent of the parents was secured in some form or other.\n\n _Authorization._ The authorization was given for each case\n separately on the basis of the files.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7304._) About the types of\n children in question.\n\n Affidavit of Leusser. (_3864-PS, Pros. Ex. 367._) There it is\n pointed out that the children stood at the lowest level of\n idiocy.\n\n Testimony of Schmidt. (_Tr. p. 1821._) The witness names the\n type of diseases in question. He says that the consultants and\n chief consultants gave the authorization.\n\n Testimony of Pfannmueller. (_Tr. p. 7314._) According to this,\n the authorization orders did not read that the life of the\n children was to be shortened, but it was only an authorization\n for treatment.\n\n Affidavit of Schmidt. (_3816-PS, Pros. Ex. 370._) The witness\n has seen many certificates of authorization, all of which were\n signed by Hegener.\n\n_Special authorization._ The Reich Committee could not issue special\nauthorizations for adults. The signature of Hegener in individual cases\nis in contradiction to issued directives. It was an arbitrary evasion of\nthe decreed cessation of euthanasia.\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR THE DEFENDANT\n BRACK_[108]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe defendants in this trial, who are doctors, were accused in General\nTaylor\u2019s opening speech of having committed atrocities under the guise\nof medical science. The defendant Brack is not one of these doctors.\nBrack would probably not even have appeared before you as a war criminal\nhad his superior Bouhler been still alive. Brack worked as an expert in\nthe Fuehrer\u2019s Chancellery and in his field of work had nothing to do\nwith medical problems. Nor is Brack accused by the prosecution of having\nparticipated in medical experiments.\n\nHowever, Brack is accused of participation in the genocide policy of the\nThird Reich insofar as he participated in the Euthanasia Program and the\nsterilization experiments, and was conscious of their destructive\npurpose.\n\nIn the judgment of the IMT the word \u201ceuthanasia\u201d or \u201cEuthanasia Program\u201d\nis not used at all. It only mentions measures that were taken for the\npurpose of killing all the old, mentally ill, and all those who had\nincurable diseases, in special institutions; this included German\nnationals and foreign workers who were unable to work. In the separate\njudgment of the defendant Frick,[109] too, only these measures are\nmentioned.\n\nAny connection, or even the possibility of such a connection between\nthese measures and persecution of the Jews, dealt with in a separate\nchapter, in particular with the plans drawn up in the summer of 1941 for\na \u201cfinal solution\u201d of the Jewish question in Europe, was never\nestablished by the IMT nor even hinted at.\n\nUntil 1939 the word \u201ceuthanasia\u201d was unknown to Brack as well as to\nlarge circles of the German population. That this word originally meant\nthe \u201cart\u201d of dying, or to meet death with serene calm, had remained the\nsecret of those scientists who were interested in the Greek language.\n\nDuring the course of centuries the meaning of this word changed. It\nfirst became the expression for the attempt of the\nphysician\u2014originating in human compassion, developed by medical\nscience\u2014to alleviate the end of a dying person by soothing his pain.\nBut then the meaning of the word, and with it the concept of euthanasia,\nwas expanded, and towards the end of the 19th century it meant\nassistance in dying through an abbreviation of life if the life of the\nsuffering person had lost its value in view of immediate and painful\ndeath, or as a result of an incurable disease.\n\nIt is a fact that this kind of euthanasia has been applied throughout\nthe world since time began and can be traced back to the Twelve Tables\nof Ancient Rome and to the epoch of state socialism in antiquity.\n\nThe assertion of the prosecution that euthanasia was the product of\nNational Socialism and its racial theories can be indisputably refuted\nby history.\n\nEven if the prosecution is of a different opinion, the Tribunal cannot\noverlook the fact that the testimony of Karl Brandt, Brack,\nPfannmueller, Hederich, Schultze, Grabe, Gertrud Kallmeyer, and Walter\nEugen Schmidt, all stated independently that the measures started\naccording to Hitler\u2019s will in the autumn of 1939 only applied to\nincurable, mentally ill persons, and were suspended in 1941. For these\nmeasures, the participants used the word and the concept of \u201ceuthanasia\u201d\nin the meaning of the final medical assistance, whether justly or\ninjustly, will be discussed later.\n\nIt is not uninteresting to note that the word \u201cEuthanasia Program\u201d\nappears for the first time in the Brack affidavit (_NO-426, Pros. Ex.\n160_), which was drawn up by the prosecution after several\ninterrogations; Brack at that time was in a state of physical and mental\nexhaustion and, therefore, not in a position to realize clearly what he\nsaid.\n\nThe defense, in agreement with the prosecution, refrained from\npresenting an expert medical opinion, but did not, as the prosecution\nnow asserts, refuse to present it.\n\nI regret very deeply that the prosecution, when using the word\n\u201cEuthanasia Program\u201d coined by them, characterizes without sufficient\nproof the euthanasia applied in 1939-1941 for the incurably sick as the\nconscious and deliberate precursor of the different actions of\nannihilation which mark the milestones of the mental and moral ruins\nleft to the German people by men who had become insane.\n\nIf the prosecution had been sure of their assumption, they would not\nhave had to submit those extremely doubtful documents with which they\ntried to prove in cross-examination that the defendant Brack\nparticipated in planning the mass extermination of the Jews.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHow, in the face of such insufficient evidence which is opposed by\nnumerous cases of intervention for Jews in that period of time\u2014I only\nrecall the cases Warburg and Georgii\u2014and in the face of Brack\u2019s sworn\nstatements about his attitude towards Jewry, can the prosecution assert\nthat Brack participated in planning the extermination of the Jews? In\nthis way, the prosecution closed the circle incriminating Brack, which\nthey drew round the euthanasia of incurable mental patients, the Action\n14 f 13, and the final measures to exterminate the Jews.\n\nI wish to stress again that everything that happened after the stop in\nAugust 1941 in the way of abuse by the euthanasia institutions had\nnothing to do with the euthanasia of the incurably insane which was\nsupported by Brack. An opposing view would only be suitable to make a\nhistorical record which is not supported by the weight of the judgment\nof the International Military Tribunal, but merely corresponds to a\nconjecture which in the decisive points themselves is void of every\nsubstantiated basis.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Prosecution Documents_\n\n Pros. Ex.\nDoc. No. No. Description of Document Page\nNO-426 160 Extract from the affidavit of 842\n defendant Brack, 14 October 1946,\n describing administrative details\n and procedure of the Euthanasia\n Program.\n615-PS 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, Bishop of 845\n Limburg, to the Reich Minister of\n Justice, 13 August 1941,\n protesting against the killing of\n mentally ill people.\nNO-429 281 Extract from the affidavit of 847\n defendant Hoven, 24 October 1946,\n concerning the transfer of\n concentration camp inmates to\n euthanasia stations for\n extermination.\n630-PS 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl Brandt 848\n and Bouhler, 1 September 1939,\n charging them with the execution\n of euthanasia.\nNO-1135 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940, of the 848\n transfer of mental patients with\n list of transferred patients\n attached.\n1696-PS 357 Letter from Dr. Conti to the Mental 849\n Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 16\n November 1939, requesting that\n questionnaires (attached) be\n filled out for individual\n patients; letter from the General\n Sick Transport Company to the\n Mental Hospital in Kaufbeuren, 12\n May 1941, stating that the company\n would remove mental patients;\n report from the Provincial\n Association for Social Welfare in\n Swabia, 6 May 1941, that all\n transferred patients had died;\n letter from Gaum, 24 November\n 1942, to Dr. Leinisch stating that\n epileptics would be made available\n for research.\n3896-PS 372 Extract from the affidavit of Dr. 853\n Ludwig Sprauer, 23 April 1946,\n concerning the organization of the\n Euthanasia Program.\nNO-520 374 Letter from the chief of the 854\n institution for feeble-minded in\n Stetten to Dr. Frank, 6 September\n 1940, requesting that euthanasia\n be carried out only after legal\n basis was created.\nNO-660 377 Note by Sellmer, 6 December 1940, 855\n describing the method of selection\n for euthanasia.\nNO-018 404 Letter from Himmler to Brack, 19 856\n December 1940, requesting that\n Euthanasia Station Grafeneck be\n discontinued and that motion\n pictures be shown to dispel\n rumors.\nNO-842 405 Letter from Brack to Dr. 857\n Schlegelberger, 18 April 1941,\n forwarding forms for euthanasia\n and suggesting that death\n notifications should not follow a\n stereotyped form.\nNO-158 410 Letter from Hirche, administrator of 858\n the Mental Institution Bernburg,\n to camp commandant of the\n Gross-Rosen concentration camp, 19\n March 1942, with list of inmates\n transferred from the concentration\n camp to Bernburg.\nNO-907 412 Extract from letter from Dr. Fritz 861\n Mennecke to his wife, 25 November\n 1941, concerning his activities as\n physician selecting inmates of\n concentration camp Buchenwald for\n euthanasia.\nNO-1007 413 Circular from Gluecks to 862\n concentration camp commandants, 27\n April 1943, stating that in the\n future only insane prisoners\n should be used for Action \u201c14 f\n 13\u201d (euthanasia).\nNO-891 414 Directive of the Reich Minister of 863\n the Interior, 6 September 1944,\n ordering euthanasia extended to\n insane Eastern workers.\n1553-PS 428 Extract from the field interrogation 865\n of Kurt Gerstein, 26 April 1945,\n describing the mass gassing of\n Jews and other \u201cundesirables.\u201d\nNO-365 507 Unsigned draft letter from Dr. 870\n Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25 October\n 1941, dealing with Brack\u2019s\n collaboration in the construction\n of gas chambers for the\n extermination of Jews.\n\n _Defense Documents_\n\n Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Documents\nKarl Brandt 18 Karl Brandt Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Dr. 871\n 15 Werner Kirchert, 29 January 1947,\n stating that Karl Brandt was not\n involved in the Euthanasia\n Program.\nKarl Brandt 19 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Alfred Rueggeberg, 23 872\n 16 January 1947, concerning radio\n discussions on euthanasia.\nKarl Brandt 23 Karl Brandt Ex. Affidavit of Eduard Woermann, 18 873\n 19 January 1947, concerning\n discussion of Karl Brandt and\n Pastor Bodelschwingh on\n euthanasia.\nPokorny 19 Pokorny Ex. 27 Affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Weese, 19 874\n March 1947, concerning use of\n caladium seguinum for\n sterilization.\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\nExtracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Dr. Mennecke 875\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Brack 876\nExtract from the testimony of prosecution witness Walter E. Schmidt 890\nExtracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 892\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-426\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 160\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT BRACK, 14 OCTOBER 1946,\n DESCRIBING ADMINISTRATIVE DETAILS AND PROCEDURE OF THE EUTHANASIA\n PROGRAM\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Euthanasia Program_\n\n4. The Euthanasia Program was initiated in the summer of 1939. Hitler\nissued a secret order to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner\nfor Medical and Health Matters, and at that time personal physician to\nthe Fuehrer, and to Philipp Bouhler, charging them with responsibility\nfor the killing of human beings who were unable to live, that is, the\naccording of a mercy death to incurably insane persons. Prior to the\nissuance of this secret order, Bouhler had a conference with Dr. Brandt\nand Dr. Leonardo Conti, the Reich Chief for Public Health and State\nSecretary in the Ministry of Interior. On the basis of this order of\nHitler, Bouhler and Brandt were to select doctors to carry out this\nprogram. Inasmuch as the insane asylums and other institutions were\nfunctions of the Ministry of Interior, Dr. Herbert Linden became the\nrepresentative of the Ministry of Interior. Dr. Karl Brandt and Philipp\nBouhler appointed Professor Dr. Heyde and Professor Dr. Nietsche along\nwith several other medical men to aid in the execution of this\nEuthanasia Program.\n\n5. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was in charge of the medical section of the\nEuthanasia Program. In this capacity, as shown in the chart I have\ndrawn, dated 12 September 1946, Dr. Karl Brandt appointed as his\ndeputies Professor Heyde and Professor Nietsche. In charge of the\nadministrative office under Brandt was first Herr Bohne and later Herr\nAllers. Three different names were used by Brandt\u2019s section in order to\ndisguise the activities of the organization. The names of the\norganization are as follows:\n\n Reich Association\u2014Mental Institutions.\n\n Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care.\n\n General Patient Transport Company.\n\n6. In the early stages of this program, Dr. Karl Brandt visited Philipp\nBouhler and discussed with him many details of this program. As a matter\nof fact, after such meetings between Brandt and Bouhler, I received many\norders, more often from Bouhler than from Brandt directly.\n\n7. In my capacity as Chief of Office II of Bouhler\u2019s Chancellery, I was\nordered to carry out the administrative details of the Euthanasia\nProgram. My deputy was Werner Blankenburg, who eventually became my\nsuccessor, that is, in the beginning of 1942 when I joined the Waffen\nSS. Von Hegener, Reinh, Vorberg, and Dr. Hevelmann were members of my\nstaff.\n\n8. In the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Linden was in charge of the\nEuthanasia Program and his deputy was Ministerialrat Franke. The\nDepartment for Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior had\nauthority over all insane asylums of the Reich, and in this position, my\ndepartment as well as the office of Dr. Brandt maintained close liaison\nin order to operate this Euthanasia Program efficiently.\n\n _The Procedure_\n\n9. By order of Dr. Linden, the directors of all insane asylums in the\nReich had to complete questionnaires for each patient in their\ninstitutions. These questionnaires were drafted by Bouhler, Heyde,\nNietsche, and others in several of their many conferences. The\nquestionnaires were then forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior to be\ndistributed to the various insane asylums and similar institutions.\nTheoretically, Dr. Linden\u2019s office had the questionnaires returned and\nthen forwarded them to the administrative section of the office of Dr.\nBrandt. The program was so arranged that photostats of each\nquestionnaire were to be sent to four experts consisting of about 10 to\n15 doctors. I do not remember the names of all the members of this\npanel, but Dr. Pfannmueller, Dr. Schumann, Dr. Faltlhauser, and Dr.\nRennaux are fresh in my memory in this connection. Each of these experts\nindicated by making a certain comment on the questionnaire whether or\nnot the patient could be transferred to an observation institution and\neventually killed. The questionnaire was then forwarded to a senior\nexpert. According to the regulation, the senior expert was only entitled\nto order the transfer of the patient when all four experts voted for the\ntransfer. This senior expert also marked the questionnaire and then\nsubmitted it to Dr. Linden who ordered the insane asylum to transfer the\npatient to one of the observation institutions. Offhand I can remember,\namong others, the names of the following observation institutions:\nEglfing-Haar, Kempten, Jena, Buch, Arnsberg.\n\n10. At these institutions the patients were under the observation of the\ndoctor in charge for a period of 1 to 3 months. The physician had the\nright to exempt the patient from the program if he decided that the\npatient was not incurable. If he agreed with the opinion of the senior\nexpert, the patient was transferred to a so-called Euthanasia\nInstitution. I can recall the names of the Euthanasia Institutions\u2014\n\n Grafeneck\u2014under Dr. Schuman.\n\n Brandenburg\u2014under Dr. Hennecke.\n\n Hartheim\u2014under Dr. Rennaux.\n\n Sonnenstein\u2014under Dr. Schmalenbach.\n\n Hadamar\u2014(I do not remember under whose leadership).\n\n Bernburg\u2014under Dr. Behnke or Dr. Becker.\n\nIn these institutions the patient was killed by means of gas by the\ndoctor in charge. To the best of my knowledge, about fifty to sixty\nthousand persons were killed in this way from autumn 1939 to the summer\nof 1941.\n\n11. The order issued by the Fuehrer to Brandt and Bouhler was secret and\nnever published. The Euthanasia Program itself was kept as secret as\npossible, and for this reason, relatives of persons killed in the course\nof the program were never told the real cause of death. The death\ncertificates issued to the relatives carried fictitious causes of death\nsuch as heart failure. All persons subjected to the Euthanasia Program\ndid not have an opportunity to decide whether they wanted a mercy death,\nnor were their relatives contacted for approval or disapproval. The\ndecision was purely within the discretion of the doctors. The program\nwas not restricted to those cases in which the person was \u201cin extremis\u201d.\n\n12. Hitler\u2019s ultimate reason for the establishment of the Euthanasia\nProgram in Germany was to eliminate those people confined to insane\nasylums and similar institutions who could no longer be of any use to\nthe Reich. They were considered useless objects and Hitler felt that by\nexterminating these so-called useless eaters, it would be possible to\nrelieve more doctors, male and female nurses, and other personnel,\nhospital beds and other facilities for the armed forces.\n\n_Reich Committee for Research on Hereditary Diseases and Constitutional\n Susceptibility to Severe Diseases_\n\n13. This committee, which was also a function of the Euthanasia Program,\nwas an organization for the killing of children who were born mentally\ndeficient or physically deformed. All physicians assisting at births,\nmidwives, and maternity hospitals were ordered by the Ministry of\nInterior to report such cases to the office of Dr. Linden in the\nMinistry of Interior. Experts in the medical section of Dr. Brandt\u2019s\noffice were then ordered to give their opinion in each case. As a matter\nof fact, the complete file on each case was sent to the offices of\nBouhler and Dr. Brandt in order to obtain their opinions and to decide\nthe fate of each child involved. In many cases these children were to be\noperated upon in such a manner that the result was either complete\nrecovery or death. Death resulted in a majority of these cases. The\nprogram was inaugurated in the summer of 1939. Bouhler told me that Dr.\nLinden had orders to obtain the consent of the parents of each child\nconcerned. I do not know how long this program continued, since I joined\nthe Waffen SS in 1942.\n\n _The Connection between the Euthanasia Program and SS Brigadefuehrer\n Globocnik_\n\n14. In 1941 I received an oral order to discontinue the Euthanasia\nProgram. I received this order either from Bouhler or from Dr. Brandt.\nIn order to preserve the personnel relieved of these duties and to have\nthe opportunity of starting a new Euthanasia Program after the war,\nBouhler requested, I think after a conference with Himmler, that I send\nthis personnel to Lublin and put it at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer\nGlobocnik. I then had the impression that these people were to be used\nin the extensive Jewish labor camps run by Globocnik. Later, however, at\nthe end of 1942 or the beginning of 1943, I found out that they were\nused to assist in the mass extermination of the Jews, which was then\nalready common knowledge in higher Party circles.\n\n15. Among the doctors who assisted in the Jewish extermination program\nwere Eberle and Schumann; Schumann performed medical experiments on\nprisoners in Auschwitz. It would have been impossible for these men to\nparticipate in such things without the personal knowledge and consent of\nKarl Brandt. The order to send these men to the East could have been\ngiven only by Himmler to Brandt, possibly through Bouhler.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 615-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 246\n\n LETTER FROM DR. HILFRICH, BISHOP OF LIMBURG, TO THE REICH MINISTER OF\nJUSTICE, 13 AUGUST 1941, PROTESTING AGAINST THE KILLING OF MENTALLY ILL\n PEOPLE\n\nThe Bishop of Limburg\n Limburg/Lahm, 13 August 1941\nTo the Reich Minister of Justice\n Berlin\n\nRegarding the report submitted on July 16 (_sub. IV, pp. 6-7_) by the\nChairman of the Fulda Bishops\u2019 Conference, Cardinal Dr. Bertram, I\nconsider it my duty to present the following as a concrete illustration\nof destruction of so-called \u201cuseless life\u201d.\n\nAbout 8 kilometers from Limburg in the little town of Hadamar, on a hill\noverlooking the town, there is an institution which had formerly served\nvarious purposes and of late had been used as a nursing home. This\ninstitution was renovated and furnished as a place in which, by\nconcensus of opinion, the above-mentioned euthanasia has been\nsystematically practiced for months\u2014approximately since February 1941.\nThe fact is, of course, known beyond the administrative district of\nWiesbaden because death certificates from the Hadamar-Moenchberg\nRegistry are sent to the home communities. (Moenchberg is the name of\nthis institution because it was a Franciscan monastery prior to its\nsecularization in 1803.)\n\nSeveral times a week busses arrive in Hadamar with a considerable number\nof such victims. School children of the vicinity know this vehicle and\nsay: \u201cThere comes the murder-box again.\u201d After the arrival of the\nvehicle, the citizens of Hadamar watch the smoke rise out of the chimney\nand are tortured with the ever-present thought of depending on the\ndirection of the wind.\n\nThe effect of the principles at work here are that children call each\nother names and say, \u201cYou\u2019re crazy; you\u2019ll be sent to the baking oven in\nHadamar.\u201d Those who do not want to marry, or find no opportunity, say,\n\u201cMarry, never! Bring children into the world so they can be put into the\nbottling machine!\u201d You hear old folks say, \u201cDon\u2019t send me to a state\nhospital! When the feeble-minded have been finished off, the next\nuseless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.\u201d\n\nAll God-fearing men consider this destruction of helpless beings a crass\ninjustice. And if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there\nis yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of a lack of\nlove for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people. The\npopulation cannot grasp the fact that systematic actions are carried out\nwhich in accordance with paragraph 211 of the German Penal Code are\npunishable with death. High authority as a moral concept has suffered a\nsevere shock as a result of these happenings. The official notice that\nN. N. died of a contagious disease and, therefore, his body had to be\nburned, no longer finds credence, and official notices of this kind\nwhich are no longer believed have further undermined the ethical value\nof the concept of authority.\n\nOfficials of the Secret State Police, it is said, are trying to suppress\ndiscussion of the Hadamar occurrences by means of severe threats. In the\ninterest of public peace, this may be well intended. But the knowledge,\nand the conviction, and the indignation of the population, cannot be\nchanged by it; the conviction will be increased with the bitter\nrealization that discussion is prohibited by threats, but that the\nactions themselves are not prosecuted under penal law.\n\n_Facta loquuntur._\n\nI beg you most humbly, Herr Reich Minister, in the sense of the report\nof the Episcopate of 16 July of this year, to prevent further\ntransgressions of the Fifth Commandment of God.\n\n [Signed] DR. HILFRICH\n\nI am submitting copies of this letter to the Reich Minister of the\nInterior and to the Reich Minister for Church Affairs.\n\n [Initialed by the above]\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-429\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 281\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT HOVEN, 24 OCTOBER 1946,\n CONCERNING THE TRANSFER OF CONCENTRATION CAMP INMATES TO EUTHANASIA\n STATIONS FOR EXTERMINATION\n\n AFFIDAVIT\n\nI, Waldemar Hoven, being duly sworn, depose and state:\n\n * * * * *\n\n_Transfer of Inmates to the Bernburg Euthanasia Station for Extermination_\n\nI became aware in 1941 that the so-called Euthanasia Program for the\nextermination of the mentally and physically deficient was being carried\nout in Germany. At that time, the camp commandant Koch called all the\nimportant SS officials of the camp together and informed them that he\nhad received a secret order from Himmler to the effect that all mentally\nand physically deficient inmates of the camp should be killed. The camp\ncommandant stated that higher authorities from Berlin had ordered that\nall the Jewish inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp be included\nin this extermination program. In accordance with these orders 300 to\n400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent to the\neuthanasia station at Bernburg for extermination. A few days later I\nreceived a list of the names of those Jews who were exterminated at\nBernburg from the camp commandant and I was ordered to issue falsified\ndeath certificates. I obeyed this order. This particular action was\nexecuted under the code name \u201c14 f 13\u201d. I visited Bernburg on one\noccasion to arrange for the cremation of two inmates who died in the\nWernigerode branch (Aussenkommando Wernigerode) of the Buchenwald\nconcentration camp.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 630-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 330\n\n LETTER FROM HITLER TO KARL BRANDT AND BOUHLER, 1 SEPTEMBER 1939,\n CHARGING THEM WITH THE EXECUTION OF EUTHANASIA\n\n[Letterhead: A. HITLER]\n\n Berlin, 1 September 1939\n\nReichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with the\nresponsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be\ndesignated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human\njudgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their\ncondition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.\n\n [Signed] A. HITLER\n [Handwritten note]\nGiven to me by Bouhler on 27 August 1940\n [Signed] DR. GUERTNER\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1135\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 334\n\n CONFIRMATION, 30 AUGUST 1940, OF THE TRANSFER OF MENTAL PATIENTS WITH\n LIST OF TRANSFERRED PATIENTS ATTACHED\n\n CONFIRMATION\n\nIn accordance with the decision of the State Ministry of the Interior\n(Public Health Division), dated 8 January 1940, on orders from the Reich\nAssociation of Mental Institutions [Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft der Heil\nund Pflegeanstalten] and as responsible chief of the General Sick\nTransport Company G.m.b.H. [Gemeinnuetzige Krankentransport G.m.b.H.], I\nhave taken charge of the transfer to a Reich institution of the patients\nenumerated in the list below.\n\nEglfing, 30 August 1940 [Signature illegible]\n Commissioner of General Sick Transport Company G.m.b.H.[110]\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSFER MEMORANDUM FOR NIEDERNHART\n\nHanded over were\u2014\n\n1. 149 patients with their own clothing, underwear, money, and\nbelongings.\n\n2. 149 files with personal records (case histories).\n\n3. A list of the amount of money of each patient. A receipt was made out\nfor this purpose.\n\n4. A list of the names. Eglfing-Haar, 30-8-40\n\n [Signed] Head Nurse LOTTE ZELL\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1696-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 357\n\nLETTER FROM DR. CONTI TO THE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 16 NOVEMBER\n 1939, REQUESTING THAT QUESTIONNAIRES (ATTACHED) BE FILLED OUT FOR\n INDIVIDUAL PATIENTS; LETTER FROM THE GENERAL SICK TRANSPORT COMPANY TO\nTHE MENTAL HOSPITAL IN KAUFBEUREN, 12 MAY 1941, STATING THAT THE COMPANY\nWOULD REMOVE MENTAL PATIENTS; REPORT FROM THE PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR\nSOCIAL WELFARE IN SWABIA, 6 MAY 1941, THAT ALL TRANSFERRED PATIENTS HAD\n DIED; LETTER FROM GAUM, 24 NOVEMBER 1942, TO DR. LEINISCH STATING THAT\n EPILEPTICS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH\n\nThe Reich Minister of the Interior\n\n Berlin, NW 40, Koenigsplatz 6, 16 November 1939\n IV g 4178 /39-5100\n\n Telephone:\n Dept. Z, I, II, V, VIII 11 00 27\n Dept. II, IV, VI\n (Unter den Linden 72); 12 00 34\n Tel. Address: Reichsinnenminister.\n\nTo the Head of the Hospital for Mental Cases\nKaufbeuren\n or his deputy in Kaufbeuren.\n\nWith regard to the necessity for a systemized economic plan for\nhospitals and nursing institutions, I request you to complete the\nattached registration forms immediately in accordance with the attached\ninstruction leaflet and to return them to me. If you yourself are not a\ndoctor, the registration forms for the individual patients are to be\ncompleted by the supervising doctor. The completion of the\nquestionnaires is, if possible, to be _done on a typewriter_. In the\ncolumn \u201cDiagnosis\u201d I request a statement as exact as possible, as well\nas a short description of the condition, if feasible.\n\nIn order to expedite the work, the registration forms for the individual\npatients can be dispatched here in several parts. The last consignment,\nhowever, must arrive in any case at this Ministry _at the latest_ by 1\nJanuary 1940. I reserve for myself the right, should occasion arise, to\ninstitute further official inquiries on the spot through my\nrepresentative.\n\n per proxi: DR. CONTI\n\nCertified:\n (Sd.) [Illegible]\n Administrative Secretary.\n\nRegistration Form 1 To be typewritten\nCurrent No.\n Name of the Institution:\n At:\nSurname and Christian name of the patient:\nAt birth\nDate of birth: Place: District:\nLast place of residence District:\nUnmarried, married, widow, widower, divorced:\nReligion: Race[111]:\nPrevious profession: Nationality:\nArmy service when? 1914-18 or from 1-9-39.\nWar injury (even if no connection with mental disorder) Yes/No\nHow does war injury show itself and of what does it consist?\n\nAddress of next of kin:\nRegular visits and by whom (address):\nGuardian or nurse (name, address):\nResponsible for payment:\nSince when in Institution\nWhence and when handed over:\nSince when ill:\nIf has been in other institutions, where and how long:\nTwin? Yes/No Blood relations of unsound mind:\nDiagnosis:\nClinical description (previous history, course, condition; in any case\n ample data regarding mental condition):\n\nVery restless? Yes/No Bedridden? Yes/No\nIncurable physical illness: Yes/No (which)\nSchizophrenia: Fresh attack Final condition Good recovery\nMental debility: Weak Imbecile Idiot\nEpilepsy: Psychological Average frequency of the attacks\nalteration\nTherapeutics (insulin, cardiazol, malaria, permanent result:\n Salvarsan, etc. when?) Yes/No\nAdmitted by reason of par. 51, par. 42b German Penal Code, etc. through\n\nCrime: Former punishable offenses:\nManner of employment (detailed description of work):\nPermanent/Temporary employment, independent Worker? Yes/No\nValue of work (if possible compared with average performance of healthy\n person)\n\n This space to be left blank.\n\n Place, Date\n\n Signature of the head doctor or his\n representative (doctors who are not\n psychiatrists or neurologists, please state\n same).\n\nGeneral Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H.\nDept. II/d, H/K\n\n Berlin, W. 9, 12 May 1941\n Potsdamer Platz 1.\n\nTo the Director of the Hospital\n of the District Association of Swabia,\nKaufbeuren/Bavaria.\n\nDear Director,\n\nBy order of the Reich Defense Commissioner, I must remove mental cases\nfrom your institution and from the branch at Irrsee to another\ninstitution. A total of 140 persons are to be transported, 70 on 4 June\nand 70 on 5 June. I forward you herewith Transport Lists Nos. 8, 9, 10,\nand 11 in triplicate. The additional names on the lists are intended for\npossible deficits (discharged meanwhile, died, etc.).\n\nThe marking of the patients is most suitably done by means of a strip of\nadhesive tape, on which the name is written in indelible pencil, to be\npasted between the shoulder blades. At the same time the name is to be\nput on an article of clothing.\n\nThe hospital reports and personal histories are to be prepared for the\ntransportation and to be handed to our director of transport, Herr\nKuepper; in the same way, the personal possessions of the patients, as\nwell as money and articles of value.\n\nI enclose property information cards and information cards as to the\ndefrayer of the expenses, which must be completed accurately and handed\nin at the time of transportation. Money and articles of value, besides\nbeing noted on the property information cards, must also be noted on\nseparate special lists (in duplicate).\n\nTransportation takes place:\n\n On 4 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren\u201470 patients\n\n On 5 June, 8:46 a. m. from Kaufbeuren\u201470 patients\n\nOur director of transport, Herr Kuepper, will visit you the previous day\nin order to discuss further details with you.\n\nI further request you to provide the patients with food (2-3 slices of\nbread and butter each and some cans of coffee).\n\n Heil Hitler!\n (sd) [Illegible]\n General Sick Transport Company, G.m.b.H.\n\n PROVINCIAL ASSOCIATION FOR SOCIAL WELFARE\n SWABIA\n\n Address: Augsburg 1, P. O. Box Regierungspraesident\n\n Tel. No. 5842\n Cashier\u2019s Office: Principal Govt.\n Cashier\u2019s Office Augsburg.\n Post Office check account: Munich No. 1624\n\nDirector Dr. Faltlhauser, of the Hospital,\n Kaufbeuren.\n\n Your reference: 2080. Your letter of 13 November 1940.\n\n Our reference:\n (must always be\n referred to).\n\n II-B-7-2.\n\n Augsburg, 6 May 1941\n\nConcerning the transfer of patients.\n\nI have the honor to inform you that the female patients transferred from\nyour institution on 8 November 1940 to the institutions in Grafeneck,\nBernburg, Sonnenstein, and Hartheim all died in November of last year.\n\n [Signed] [Illegible]\n\nEnclosures:\n\n * * * * *\n\n Copy\n\nNo. 5255 c 39\nState Ministry of the Interior\n\n Munich, 24 November 1942\n to the Director of the\n Hospital, Kaufbeuren,\n Obermed. Rat\n Dr. Faltlhauser.\n\nTo: Chief Physician, Dr. W. Leinisch\n Guenzburg.\n\nRe letter of 13-11-1942.\n\nDear Doctor,\n\nIn your letter of 13-11-1942 you requested me to send suitable\nepileptics for the carrying out of your research work. I had an\nopportunity to discuss this with the Obermedizinalraete Dr. Faltlhauser\nand Dr. Pfannmueller. Both will willingly deliver suitable patients to\nyou. For various reasons patients from the Institution at Kaufbeuren are\nprimarily to be chosen. If this institution has no suitable material, I\nagree to the transfer of patients from Eglfing-Haar to Guenzburg for\nyour research work. I request that you get in touch with Dr.\nFaltlhauser.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] GAUM\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 3896-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 372\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. LUDWIG SPRAUER, 23 APRIL 1946,\n CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM\n\n AFFIDAVIT\n\nI, Dr. Ludwig Sprauer, born on 19 October 1884, now living at Konstanz,\nBaden, Salmannsweilergasse 2, make the following statement under oath:\n\nI passed my state examination for medicine in Freiburg in 1907, and\nsince 1919 was active in the civil service. During the following 14\nyears I was active as Bezirksarzt in Stockach, Oberkirch, Konstanz. I\njoined the NSDAP in 1933. From 1934 until 1944 I was the highest medical\nofficer of Baden and held the title Ministerialrat. My highest superior\nwas the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. As Frick\u2019s\nsubordinate I traveled several times, perhaps every 2 to 3 months to\nBerlin, to take part in discussions, conferences, etc., in the Reich\nMinistry of the Interior.\n\nThese took place in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Berlin, Unter\nden Linden 72-74; later in the Reich Ministry of the Interior office on\nVoss-Strasse. On one such occasion in Berlin, Dr. Linden,\nMinisterialdirigent in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, stated that\nit was planned to introduce a euthanasia law. For military-political\nreasons to create more space, the incurably insane were to be done away\nwith. The asylums thus vacated were in part asked for by the SS to be\nused for national political educational institutions.\n\nA transportation company was founded for the execution of all these\nmeasures. This company worked hand in hand with the so-called Reich\nCommittee for Research into Hereditary Ailments. This Reich concern was\nmanaged by Frick\u2019s Ministerialdirigent Dr. Linden.\n\nIn the course of these measures from 1941 through 1944, thousands of\npersons were transferred from Baden\u2019s asylums to places like Hadamar,\nGrafeneck, etc., and were killed there. The killings, however, were not\nsolely confined to the mentally sick. In the course of the same\ncampaign, steps were taken by order of the Reich Ministry of the\nInterior to eliminate particularly old but also young people who were\nill.\n\nThe persons killed in the course of this program included not only those\nwho were mentally sick, but also those who suffered from\narteriosclerosis, tuberculosis, cancer, and other ailments. Most of\nthose were older people who were inmates of public institutions at the\nstate\u2019s expense, and who in a respectable society would have been taken\ncare of from public funds. These people were brought from public asylums\nin Baden to Hadamar, Grafeneck, and other asylums and killed there. In\nwhat manner they were killed, I do not know. In this way space was made\navailable in the institutions for the armed forces and for the National\nSocialist educational institutions.\n\nThe whole program was camouflaged on the outside and falsified death\ncertificates were made out.\n\n * * * * *\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-520\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 374\n\nLETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF THE INSTITUTION FOR FEEBLE-MINDED IN STETTEN TO\n DR. FRANK, 6 SEPTEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT EUTHANASIA BE CARRIED OUT\n ONLY AFTER LEGAL BASIS WAS CREATED\n\nL. Schlaich, Stetten i. R.\nChief of the Institution\n for Feeble-Minded and Epileptics.\n Stetten, i. R., 6 September 1940\nTo the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Frank\nBerlin\n\nDear Reich Minister,\n\nThe measures at present being taken with mental patients of all kinds\nhave caused a complete lack of confidence in justice among large groups\nof the people. Without the consent of relatives or guardians, such\npatients are being transferred to different institutions. After a short\ntime they are notified that the person concerned has died of some\ndisease. In view of the abundance of death notices people are convinced\nthat these sick people are being done away with.\n\nSince from the institution under my direction altogether 150 of the\npatients entrusted to me are to be transferred to such an institution\n(75 on the 10th and 75 on the 13th of September) I take the privilege of\nasking: Is it possible for such a measure to be carried out without a\npertinent law having been promulgated? Is it not the duty of every\ncitizen to resist under all circumstances an act not justified by law,\neven forbidden by law, even if such acts are carried out by state\nagencies?\n\nOn account of the complete secrecy and camouflage under which the\nmeasures are carried out, not only are the wildest rumors circulating\namong the people (for example, that people unable to work on account of\nage or injuries received during the World War have also been done away\nwith or are to be done away with), but it seems as if the selection of\nthe persons concerned is performed in a wholly arbitrary manner.\n\nIf the state really wants to carry out the extermination of these or at\nleast of some mental patients, shouldn\u2019t a law be promulgated, which can\nbe justified before the people\u2014a law which would give everyone the\nassurance of careful examination as to whether he is due to die or\nentitled to live and which would also give the relatives a chance to be\nheard, in a similar way, as provided by the law for the Prevention of\nHereditarily Affected Progeny?\n\nWith regard to the patients entrusted to the care of our institutions in\nthe future, I urgently pray that everything possible be done to suspend\nthe execution of this measure until a clear legal situation has been\nestablished.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] SCHLAICH\n\nI have forwarded a copy of this letter by the same mail to the chief of\nthe Reich Chancellery, Reichsminister Dr. Lammers.\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-660\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 377\n\nNOTE BY SELLMER, 6 DECEMBER 1940, DESCRIBING THE METHOD OF SELECTION FOR\n EUTHANASIA\n\nSubject: Mental Institutions\n\nThe following is for your personal information. Please destroy this\nsheet afterwards.\n\nFor some time the inmates of mental institutions have been visited by a\ncommission which functions on orders from some very high office. The\ncommission\u2019s task is to find out which inmates should be selected for\ntransport to certain other institutions. The commission bases its\ndecision on the records of the institution. The patients who are then\ntransferred are examined again in the institution designated by the\ncommission and then the decision is made whether they should be released\nfrom their sufferings.\n\nThe body itself is cremated and the ashes are placed at the disposal of\nthe relatives. Small mistakes in notifying are naturally always liable\nto occur, and in the future it will not be possible to avoid them. The\ncommission itself is anxious to avoid all mistakes. I could give you\nfurther information but I would like to abstain from it and beg you to\nlook me up when you visit the Gauleitung.\n\nI believe that we National Socialists can welcome this action which is\nextraordinarily serious for the affected individual. I beg you,\ntherefore, to oppose all rumors and grumblings with the necessary\nemphasis by representing our point of view in regard to these matters.\n\nNuernberg, 6 December 1940\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] SELLMER\n Gaustabsamtsleiter\n [Stamp]\nNational Socialist German Labor Party\n Gau Franconia\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-018\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 404\n\n LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO BRACK, 19 DECEMBER 1940, REQUESTING THAT\nEUTHANASIA STATION GRAFENECK BE DISCONTINUED AND THAT MOTION PICTURES BE\n SHOWN TO DISPEL RUMORS\n\n Top Secret\n 19 December 1940\n\nSS Standartenfuehrer Viktor Brack\nStaff Leader at Reichsleiter Bouhler\u2019s Office\nBerlin W 8\n\nDear Brack,\n\nI hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the Grafeneck\nInstitution.\n\nThe population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and think they\nknow what is going on at the constantly smoking crematory. What happens\nthere is a secret and yet is no longer one. Thus the worst feeling has\narisen there, and in my opinion there remains only one thing, to\ndiscontinue the use of the institution in this place and in any event\ndisseminate information in a clever and sensible manner by showing\nmotion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just\nthat locality.\n\nMay I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem is solved?\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Initialled] H[EINRICH] H[IMMLER]\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-842\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 405\n\nLETTER FROM BRACK TO DR. SCHLEGELBERGER[112], 18 APRIL 1941, FORWARDING\nFORMS FOR EUTHANASIA AND SUGGESTING THAT DEATH NOTIFICATIONS SHOULD NOT\n FOLLOW A STEREOTYPED FORM\n\nViktor Brack Oberdienstleiter\n Berlin, 18 April 1941\n [Stamp]\n 21 [Penciled]\n 26 April 1941\nDept: [Illegible]\n [Handwritten] Gg.\n Strictly Confidential\nMy dear Party comrade Dr. Schlegelberger,\n [Handwritten] Top Secret\n\nAccording to agreement I send you herewith a _folder with forms_ needed\nfor your ascertainment and partial medical preparation; also another\nfolder with forms for further clerical elaboration resulting from the\ndeath of the patient.[113] The records are secret, however, and I would\nappreciate if you would keep them _under lock and key_. Some more things\nare, of course, necessary for proper recording and administrative\nroutine, but I do not believe that they are of any interest to you.\nThereto belong, for instance, the death notifications to the relatives\nof the patient. These are to be kept somehow different according to the\ndistrict and kind of relatives; they must be altered frequently to avoid\nstereotype texts and therefore a sample letter would only irritate. I\nwould like to call your attention especially to the card files Nos. 13\nand 14. On their reverse sides you will find a list of authorities to be\ninformed.\n\nWhen again reviewing the files which you put at my disposal, I found\nsome details which ought to be clarified and settled; I would be\ngrateful to you for doing so. Therefore, I shall forward them to you\nseparately on Monday or Tuesday next week.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n Respectfully yours\n [Signed] BRACK\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-158\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 410\n\nLETTER FROM HIRCHE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE MENTAL INSTITUTION BERNBURG, TO\n CAMP COMMANDANT OF THE GROSS-ROSEN CONCENTRATION CAMP, 19 MARCH 1942,\nWITH LIST OF INMATES TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONCENTRATION CAMP TO BERNBURG\n\nMental Institution, Bernburg Bernburg, 19 March 1942\nReference: B e. vH. Box 266\n Consultation only by\n appointment\n\nTo [Stamp]\nCamp Commandant Concentration Camp Gross-Rosen\nConcentration Camp Administration\nGross-Rosen Received: 23 March 1942\n Initials [Illegible]\n\nRegistered\nSubject: Transport of 19 March 1942\n\nEnclosed you will find a list of the camp inmates who arrived here on 19\nMarch 1942 from your concentration camp.\n\n Heil Hitler!\n [Signed] HIRCHE\n\n1 Enclosure\n\n * * * * *\n\nList of the camp inmates transferred on 19 March 1942 from the Gross-Rosen\n concentration camp to Bernburg\n\n139/K1. 19-3-1942 Bernburg (Gross-Rosen)\n [Signed]\n [Signed]\n\n [Signed]\n [Signed]\n\n 1942\n26746 10423 BIER, Rudolf Koeln\n 2.11.1901 divorced 19.3.\n26747 10424 BECKERS, Herm Hamburg\n 18.9.1923 single 19.3.\n26748 10444 BAJGELMANN, Isaak Czenstochau\n 4.8.1909 single 19.3.\n26749 10412 COHEN, Arthur Isr Dellwig-Westf.\n 15.8.1908 single 19.3.\n26750 10468 ECKHAUS, Herm Berlin C 2,\n 1.12.1922 single 19.3.\n26751 10395 EDEL, Gerh. Isr Nakel,\n 30.5.1914 single 19.3.\n26752 10440 EISNER, Otto Bochtitz\n 26.4.1910. divorced 19.3.\n26753 10439 FLEISCHNER, Rich Kolin/Elbe\n 20.12.1902 married 19.3.\n26754 10438 FRIED, Hans, Isr Budweis\n 8.3.1919 single 19.3.\n26755 10450 HAASE, Siegfried Schoenlanke\n 3.8.1920 single 19.3.\n26756 10436 HAUSER, Max Kastel\n 15.12.1908 single 19.3.\n26757 10394 HECHT, Jacob, Isr Hamburg-Altona\n 18.10.1896 single 19.3.\n26758 10410 LUBNICKI, Jacob Wuppertal/Elberf.\n 28.6.1918 single 19.3.\n26759 10409 MARKUSE, Esriel Warschau\n 14.3.1897 widower 19.3.\n26760 10470 NACHMANN, Erich Ulm/D.\n 6.10.1907 married 19.3.\n26761 10406 POLLAK, Heinr Lemberg\n 30.9.1904 married 19.3.\n26762 10517 PUFE, Otto Osternburg\n 16.3.1917 single 19.3.\n26763 10421 ROSENBAUM, Otto Isr Muehlheim/Ruhr\n 2.6.1894 married 19.3.\n26764 10486 ROBALEWSKI, Leo Kl. Tarpen\n 15.12.1915 single 19.3.\n26765 10595 ROSE, Reinhold Cochelna\n 4.5.1907 single 19.3.\n26766 10579 REKEL, Josef Tarnow\n 10.1.1909 single 19.3.\n26767 10405 ROUBICEK, Karl Horovice/Boehmen\n 16.6.1906 single 19.3.\n26768 10577 RWASKI, Wladislaus Kszywystock\n 19.6.1919 single 19.3.\n26769 10509 ROST, Hans Willi Apolda/Weimar\n 15.7.1920 single 19.3.\n26770 10606 SCHUENSMANN, Wilh Wittenberge\n 23.8.1892 widower 19.3.\n26771 10576 SKRATAK, Viktor Stazow\n 5.3.1909 married 19.3.\n26772 10575 SMIGIELSKI, Stanislaus Coloneg\n 25.10.1918 single 19.3.\n26773 10425 SOMMER, Arthur Isr. Frankfurt/M.\n 4.12.1900 single 19.3.\n26774 10578 SIKORSKI, Stanislaw Lublin\n 27.1.192 single 19.3.\n26775 10488 SOMMER, Wenzel Litzmannstadt\n 7.8.1907 married 19.3.\n26776 10404 SEITMANN, Simon Warschau\n 17.12.1896 widower 19.3.\n26777 10594 SARBACH, Heinz Erfurt\n 28.4.1921 single 19.3.\n26778 10483 SCHROFF, Karl Reilingen/ Baden\n 11.6.1910 single 19.3.\n26779 10484 SCHILLING, Aug Rake/Wohlau\n 9.3.1896 single 19.3.\n26780 10516 SCHUELER, Manfred Sonneberg/ Thuer.\n Richard 17.9.21 single 19.3.\n26781 10487 SCHMIDT, Johann Nuernberg\n 8.4.1900 divorced 19.3.\n26782 10426 SCHINDLER, Ernst Isr. Sandhofen/Mannh.\n 7.6.1906 single 19.3.\n26783 10427 SPIRA, Alfred Wien,\n 20.11.1908 single 19.3.\n26784 10454 STERN, Zudik Rozniatow\n 28.9.1908 married 19.3.\n26785 10485 STUKA, Wladimir Maehr. Sternberg\n 8.2.1907 married 19.3.\n26786 10453 WEINBERGER, Erich, Isr. Wien\n 16.6.1916 single 19.3.\n26787 10452 WEISZ, Ignaz Munkatesh/Ungarn\n 30.6.1914 single 19.3.\n26788 10503 WALLZAK, Theophil Hohensalza\n 19.4.1907 single 19.3.\n26789 10512 WELSER, Karl Pilgram/Prot.\n 10.11.1918 single 19.3.\n26790 10505 WALCZYK, Josef Bokow\n 24.2.1908 married 19.3.\n26791 10461 WUTKOWSKI, Willi Max Graudenz\n 16.4.1902 divorced 19.3.\n25792 10506 WOZNICZKA, Ignac Kadziak\n 8.7.1916 single 19.3.\n26793 10504 WASOLOWSKI, Marian Markstaedt\n 29.11.1909 single 19.3.\n26794 10507 WENDOLOWSKI, Josef Warschau\n 7.1.1912 single 19.3.\n26795 10604 WOLF, Karl Ged\n 10.5.1903 single 19.3.\n26796 10595 ZBYTNIEWSKI, Zymunt Czekarzowice\n 1.1.1905 single 19.3.\n26797 10592 ZBYTNIEWSKI, Zdzislaw Czekarzowice\n 2.3.1910 married 19.3.\n26798 10502 ZUCHOWSKI, Felike Lietzendorf/W.\n 2.8.18. married 19.3.\n26799 10565 ZIMMERMANN, Willi Dortmund\n 10.2.1917 single 19.3.\n26800 10521 ZDYBIK, Wladislaus Borownica\n 5.4.1915 single 19.3.\n26801 10480 ZIELKE, Karl Butow\n 4.2.1904 married 19.3.\n26802 10422 BIRNBERG, Markus Kolomea\n 5.10.03 divorced 19.3.\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-907\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 412\n\n EXTRACT FROM LETTER FROM DR. FRITZ MENNECKE TO HIS WIFE, 25 NOVEMBER\n 1941, CONCERNING HIS ACTIVITIES AS PHYSICIAN SELECTING INMATES OF\n CONCENTRATION CAMP BUCHENWALD FOR EUTHANASIA\n\nLetter No. 8\n\n Weimar, 25 November 1941,\n Hotel Elephant\n 2058 hours\n\nAt 7 o\u2019clock tomorrow morning we will be awakened. At about 8 o\u2019clock we\nwill have our coffee and then we will drive out in Schmalenbach\u2019s car,\nbut he himself will soon leave for Dresden again. On Thursday and Friday\na meeting will be held in Pirna in connection with the action in which\nproblems of the future will be discussed and in which Schmalenbach will\ntake part as the medical adjutant of Herr Brack (Jennerwein). No experts\nwill be present * * *. The first working day at Buchenwald is over. At\n8:30 this morning we were out there. At first I introduced myself to the\nauthoritative leaders. The deputy of the camp commandant is SS\nHauptsturmfuehrer Florstaedt; camp physician is SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr.\nHoven. At first another 40 reports of a first portion of Aryans had to\nbe completed. The two other colleagues worked on these yesterday\nalready. Out of these 40 I worked up about 15. After this whole portion\nhad been worked up, Schmalenbach left for Dresden. He will not return\nuntil our work here is done. Following this, the \u201cexamination\u201d of the\npatients was carried out, i. e., a presentation of the individuals and a\ncomparison with the entries taken from the files. We did not finish this\nwork until noon, because the other two colleagues worked only in theory\nyesterday, so that I had to \u201cre-examine\u201d those whom Schmalenbach (and I\nmyself this morning) had prepared and Mueller did his people. At 12\no\u2019clock we stopped for lunch * * *.\n\nAfterwards we continued our examination until about 4 o\u2019clock. I myself\nexamined 105 patients, Mueller 78 patients, so that finally a total of\n183 reports were ready as a first group. As a second group a total of\n1,200 Jews followed, all of whom do not need to be \u201cexamined\u201d, but where\nit is sufficient to take the reasons for their arrest from the files\n(often very voluminous!) and to transfer them to the reports. Therefore,\nit is merely theoretical work which will certainly keep us busy until\nnext Monday inclusive, perhaps even longer. Of this second group (Jews),\nwe completed today. I myself did 17, and Mueller 15. At 5 o\u2019clock sharp,\n\u201cwe threw away the trowel\u201d and went for supper * * *.\n\nExactly as the day I described above, the following days will pass\u2014with\nexactly the same program and the same work. After the Jews, another 300\nAryans follow as a third group who will again have to be \u201cexamined\u201d.\nTherefore, we are busy here until the end of next week. Then on\nSaturday, 6 December, we shall go home.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1007\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 413\n\nCIRCULAR FROM GLUECKS TO CONCENTRATION CAMP COMMANDANTS, 27 APRIL 1943,\n STATING THAT IN THE FUTURE ONLY INSANE PRISONERS SHOULD BE USED FOR\n ACTION \u201c14 F 13\u201d (EUTHANASIA)\n\nSS Economic and Administrative Main Office\nDivision Chief D Concentration Camps\nD I/1/File No.: 14 f 13/L/S.\u2014\nSecret Journal No. 612/43\n\n Oranienburg, 27 April 1943.\nSubject: Action 14 f 13 in Concentration Camps.\n\nRe: Our Order\u2014D I/1/File No. 14 f 13/Ot/S.\u2014Secret Diary No.\n\n32/43 of 15 January \u201943.\nEnclosures: None.\n\n [Stamp]\n Top Secret\n \u2014\u2014th copy\n\n To the Camp Commanders of the Concentration Camps\n Dachau, Sachsenhausen, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbuerg,\n Neuengamme, Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen, Natzweiler, Stutthof,\n Ravensbrueck, Riga, Hertogenbosch, Lublin, and Bergen-Belsen.\n\nCopy to: Chief of Amt DII, III in the building.\n\nThe Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police has decreed that in\nfuture only insane prisoners can be selected for the Action 14 f 13 by\nthe medical commissions appointed for this purpose.\n\nAll other prisoners unfit for work (persons suffering from tuberculosis,\nbedridden invalids, etc.) are definitely to be excluded from this\naction. Bedridden prisoners are to be given suitable work which can be\nperformed in bed.\n\nThe order of the Reich Leader SS must be strictly observed in the\nfuture.\n\nRequests for gasoline for this purpose will therefore be discontinued.\n\n [Signed] GLUECKS\n SS Brigadefuehrer and Generalmajor of the Waffen SS\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-891\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 414\n\n DIRECTIVE OF THE REICH MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR, 6 SEPTEMBER 1944,\n ORDERING EUTHANASIA EXTENDED TO INSANE EASTERN WORKERS\n\nReich Minister of the Interior\n Berlin, 6 September 1944\n_g 9255/44_\nTo:\n_a._ The Reich Governor [Reichsstatthalter] (State government)\n_b._ The Oberpraesidenten (administration of the provincial association)\n_c._ The County Presidents\n_d._ The Police President in Berlin\n_e._ The Lord Mayor [Oberbuergermeister] of the Reich capital Berlin.\n\nRe: Mentally insane Eastern workers and Poles\u2014Circular decrees of the\n Reich Minister of the Interior of\u2014_A g 9255/44-5100_\u2014.\n\n1. Due to the considerable number of Eastern workers and Poles brought\ninto the German Reich for employment, the assignment of mental cases\namong them to German asylums is constantly increasing. The purpose of\nsuch assignments must be in any case the speediest possible recovery to\nworking ability. Thus every means of modern therapy must also be applied\nto those mentally insane people. But due to lack of space in German\ninstitutions there can be no justification for patients who are\nconsidered incurable and, therefore, unable to work again in a\nreasonably short time to remain permanently or for a long time in German\ninstitutions. In order to avoid this, the following is ordered:\n\n2. In the following list I have established for each district in the\nReich a collective list for incurable mentally insane Eastern workers\nand Poles. They should be assigned to those institutions immediately if\npossible. If this is impossible due to urgency or to transportation\ndifficulties, the institution in question should deliver their Eastern\nor Polish patients to the collecting institution in their respective\ndistrict within one month at the most. It is not necessary to carry out\nthe removal if the patient is considered able to leave the institution\nwithin 6 weeks at the latest.\n\n3. It is the task of the collecting institution to decide whether the\nrestoration of working ability might be considered within a reasonable\nperiod of time.\n\n4. The expenses from the date of registration in the collecting\ninstitution are to be taken over by the head of the Central Financial\nClearing Office of the sanatorium in Linz/Upper Danube, P. O. Box 324,\nwhich has to be informed immediately of such assignments. The fixed rate\nfor patients of the general class will be paid to the institutions. The\nEastern workers and Poles already assembled in collecting institutions\nare to be reported on a list immediately to the Central Financial\nClearing Office. The expenses for those patient are transferred as from\n1 October 1944 to the Central Accounts Office.\n\n5. After 4 weeks, at the latest, of the registration in the collecting\ninstitution a short report on the prognosis of the case and on the\nquestion of working ability has to be sent to the head of the Central\nFinancial Clearing Office. It is the task of that office to direct the\ntransportation of patients from the collecting institutions to nearby\nspecial asylums in their home district.\n\n6. Only those people are to be considered as Poles who were brought into\nthe Reich for employment. This decree does not apply to the local Polish\npopulation.\n\n7. The leaders of mental institutions in the districts, etc., are to be\ninformed by their superior officials, and the leaders of welfare and\nprivate institutions by their competent higher administrative\nauthorities. The required copies are enclosed herewith.\n\n _List of the collecting institutions_\n\n1. For East Prussia, Danzig, and West Prussia and Wartheland: Mental\nInstitution Tiegenhof.\n\n2. For Upper and Lower Silesia and the Sudetengau: Mental Institution\nLueben.\n\n3. For Pomerania, Mecklenburg, Kurmark, and Berlin: Mental Institution\nLandsberg-Warthe.\n\n4. For Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg: Mental Institution Schleswig.\n\n5. For Bremen, Weser-Ems, Hanover-East, Hanover-South, and Brunswick:\nMental Institution Lueneburg.\n\n6. For the Rhine province, Westphalia, and Lippe: Mental Institution\nBonn.\n\n7. For Baden, Westmark, Wuerttemberg, and Hohenzollern: Mental\nInstitution Schussenried.\n\n8. For Bavaria: Mental Institution Kaufbeuren.\n\n9. For Kurhesse, Nassau, and Land Hesse: Mental Institution Hadamar.\n\n10. For Thuringia-Land and Province Saxony, Anhalt: Mental Institution\nPfaffenrode.\n\n11. For the Alps [Alpen] and Danube districts: Mental Institution\nMauer-Oehling.\n\n BY ORDER:\n\n Wiesbaden, 11 September 1944\n Landeshaus\n\n11_a_ One copy to the County Mental Institution, Eichberg.\n\nWith the request to acknowledge and to take further steps.\n\n BY ORDER:\n LANDESRAT\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1553-PS\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 428\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE FIELD INTERROGATION OF KURT GERSTEIN, 26 APRIL 1945,\n DESCRIBING THE MASS GASSING OF JEWS AND OTHER \u201cUNDESIRABLES\u201d\n\n _Deposition of Kurt Gerstein_\n\n * * * * *\n\nHearing of the massacres of idiots and insane people at Grafeneck,\nHadamar, etc., shocked and greatly affected me, having such a case in my\nfamily. I had but one desire\u2014to gain an insight into this whole\nmachinery and then to shout it to the whole world! With the help of two\nreferences written by the two Gestapo employees who had dealt with my\ncase, it was not difficult for me to enter the Waffen SS.\n\nFrom March 10 to June 2, 1941, I was given elementary instruction as a\nsoldier at Hamburg-Langehorn, Arnhem, and Oranienburg, together with 40\ndoctors. Because of my twin studies\u2014technology and medicine\u2014I was\nordered to enter the medical-technology branch of the SS\nFuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office)\u2014Medical Branch of the\nWaffen SS\u2014Amtsgruppe D (Division D), Hygiene Department. Within this\nbranch, I chose for myself the job of immediately constructing\ndisinfecting apparatus and filters for drinking water for the troops,\nthe prison camps, and the concentration camps. My close knowledge of the\nindustry caused me to succeed quickly where my predecessors had failed.\nThus, it was possible to decrease considerably the death toll of\nprisoners. On account of my successes, I very soon became lieutenant. In\nDecember 1941 the tribunal which had decreed my exclusion from the NSDAP\nobtained knowledge of my having entered the Waffen SS. Considerable\nefforts were made to remove and to persecute me but, due to my\nsuccesses, I was declared sincere and indispensable.\n\nIn January 1942 I was appointed chief of the technical branch of\ndisinfection, which also included the branch dealing with strong poison\ngases for disinfection. On 8 June 1942 SS Sturmbannfuehrer Guenther of\nthe RSHA entered my office. He was in plain clothes and I did not know\nhim. He ordered me to get a hundred kilograms of prussic acid and to\naccompany him to a place which was only known to the driver of the\ntruck. We left for the potassium factory near Collin (Prague). Once the\ntruck was loaded, we left for Lublin (Poland). We took with us Professor\nPfannenstiel, Professor for Hygiene at the University of Marburg on the\nLahn. At Lublin, we were received by SS Gruppenfuehrer Globocnik. He\ntold us, \u201cThis is one of the most secret matters there are, even the\nmost secret. Whoever talks of this shall be shot immediately. Yesterday,\ntwo talkative men died.\u201d Then he explained to us that at the present\nmoment\u201417 August 1942\u2014there were three installations:\n\n 1. Belcec, on the Lublin-Lvov road, in the sector of the Russian\n demarcation line. Maximum 15,000 persons a day. Seen!\n\n 2. Sobiber, I do not know exactly where it is located. Not seen.\n 20,000 persons per day.\n\n 3. Treblinka, 120 kilometers NNE of Warsaw. 25,000 persons per\n day. Seen!\n\n 4. Maidanek, near Lublin. Seen\u2014in the state of preparation.\n\nGlobocnik then said: \u201cYou will have to handle the sterilization of very\nlarge quantities of clothes, 10 or 20 times the amount of the clothing\nand textile collection, which is only arranged in order to conceal the\nsource of these Jewish, Polish, Czech, and other clothes. Your other\nduties will be to change the method of our gas chambers (which are run\nat the present time with the exhaust gases of an old Diesel engine),\nusing more poisonous material, having a quicker effect: prussic acid.\nBut the Fuehrer and Himmler, who were here on August 15, the day before\nyesterday, ordered that I personally should accompany all those who are\nto see the installations.\u201d\n\nThen Professor Pfannenstiel asked: \u201cWhat does the Fuehrer say?\u201d Then\nGlobocnik, now Chief of Police and SS, from the Adriatic Riviera to\nTrieste, answered: \u201cQuicker, quicker! Carry out the whole program!\u201d And\nthen Dr. Herbert Linden, Ministerialdirektor in the Ministry of the\nInterior said: \u201cBut would it not be better to burn the bodies instead of\nburying them? A future generation might think differently of these\nmatters!\u201d * * * Globocnik replied: \u201cBut, gentlemen, if after us such a\ncowardly and rotten generation should arise that it does not understand\nour work which is so good and so necessary, then, gentlemen, all\nNational Socialism will have been for nothing. On the contrary, bronze\nplaques should be put up with the inscription that it was we, we who had\nthe courage to achieve this gigantic task. And Hitler said: \u2018Yes, my\ngood Globocnik, that is the word, that is my opinion, too.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe next day we left for Belcec, a small special station of two\nplatforms against a hill of yellow sand, immediately to the north of the\nLublin-Lvov road and railway. To the south, near the road were some\nservice houses with a signboard: \u201cBelcec, Service Center of the Waffen\nSS.\u201d Globocnik introduced me to SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Obermeyer from\nPirmasens, who with great restraint showed me the installations. No dead\nwere to be seen that day but the smell of the whole region, even from\nthe main road, was pestilential. Next to the small station there was a\nlarge barrack marked \u201cCloakroom,\u201d and a door marked \u201cValuables.\u201d Next to\nthat, a chamber with a hundred \u201cbarber\u2019s\u201d chairs. Then came a corridor,\n150 meters long, in the open air and with barbed wire on both sides.\nThere was a signboard: \u201cTo the baths and inhalations\u201d! Before us we saw\na house, like a bathhouse, with concrete troughs to the right and left\ncontaining geraniums or other flowers. After climbing a small staircase,\nwe came to 3 garage-like rooms on each side, 4 \u00d7 5 meters in size and\n1.90 meters high. At the back were invisible wooden doors. On the roof\nwas a Star of David made out of copper. At the entrance to the building\nwas the inscription, \u201cHeckenholt Foundation.\u201d That was all I noticed on\nthat particular afternoon.\n\nNext morning, a few minutes before 7, I was informed that in 10 minutes\nthe first train would arrive. And indeed, a few minutes later the first\ntrain came in from Lemberg [Lvov]; 45 cars, containing 6,700 persons,\n1,450 of whom were already dead on arrival. Behind the little\nbarbed-wire openings were children, yellow, half scared to death, women,\nand men. The train stopped; 200 Ukrainians, forced to do this work,\nopened the doors and drove all the people out of the coaches with\nleather whips. Then, through a huge loud-speaker, instructions were\ngiven to them to undress completely and to hand over false teeth and\nglasses\u2014some in the barracks, others right in the open air. Shoes were\nto be tied together with a little piece of string handed to everyone by\na small Jewish boy of 4 years of age; all valuables and money were to be\nhanded in at the window marked \u201cValuables\u201d, without receipt. Then the\nwomen and girls were to go to the hairdresser who cut off their hair in\none or two strokes, after which it vanished into huge potato bags \u201cto be\nused for special submarine equipment, door mats, etc.\u201d, as the SS\nUnterscharfuehrer on duty told me.\n\nThen the march began. To the right and left, barbed wire; behind, two\ndozen Ukrainians with guns. Led by a young girl of striking beauty they\napproached. With Police Captain Wirth, I stood right in front of the\ndeath chambers. Completely naked, they marched by, men, women, girls,\nchildren, babies, even one-legged persons, all of them naked. In one\ncorner, a strong SS man told the poor devils in a strong deep voice:\n\u201cNothing whatever will happen to you. All you have to do is to breathe\ndeeply; it strengthens the lungs. This inhalation is a necessary measure\nagainst contagious diseases; it is a very good disinfectant!\u201d Asked what\nwas to become of them, he answered: \u201cWell, of course the men will have\nto work, building streets and houses. But the women do not have to. If\nthey wish they can help in the house or the kitchen.\u201d Once more, a\nlittle bit of hope for some of these poor people, enough to make them\nmarch on without resistance to the death chambers. Most of them, though,\nknew everything, the smell had given them a clear indication of their\nfate. And then they walked up the little staircase\u2014and behold the\npicture: Mothers with babies at their breasts, naked, lots of children\nof all ages, naked too; they hesitate, but they enter the gas chambers,\nmost of them, without a word, pushed by the others behind them, chased\nby the whips of the SS men. A Jewess of about 40 years of age, with eyes\nlike torches, calls down the blood of her children on the heads of their\nmurderers. Five lashes in her face, dealt by the whip of Police Captain\nWirth himself, drive her into the gas chamber. Many of them say their\nprayers; others ask, \u201cWho will give us the water for our death?\u201d Within\nthe chambers, the SS press the people closely together; Captain Wirth\nhad ordered \u201cFill them up full.\u201d Naked men stand on the feet of the\nothers. 700-800 crushed together on 25 square meters, in 45 cubic\nmeters! The doors are closed!\n\nMeanwhile the rest of the transport, all naked, waited. Somebody said to\nme: \u201cNaked, in winter! Enough to kill them!\u201d The answer was: \u201cWell,\nthat\u2019s just what they are here for!\u201d And at that moment I understood why\nit was called the Heckenholt Foundation. Heckenholt was the man in\ncharge of the Diesel engine, the exhaust gases of which were to kill\nthese poor devils. SS Unterscharfuehrer Heckenholt tried to set the\nDiesel engine going, but it would not start! Captain Wirth came along.\nIt was obvious that he was afraid because I was a witness of this\nbreakdown. Yes, indeed, I saw everything and waited. Everything was\nregistered by my stop watch. 50 minutes\u201470 minutes\u2014the Diesel engine\ndid not start! The people waited in their gas chambers\u2014in vain. One\ncould hear them cry. \u201cJust as in a synagogue,\u201d says SS Sturmbannfuehrer\nProfessor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Professor for Public Health at the\nUniversity of Marburg/Lahn, holding his ear close to the wooden door!\nCaptain Wirth, furious, dealt the Ukrainian who was helping Heckenholt\n11 or 12 lashes in the face with his whip. After 2 hours and 49\nminutes\u2014as registered by my stop watch\u2014the Diesel engine started. Up\nto that moment the people in the four chambers already filled were still\nalive\u20144 times 750 persons in 4 times 45 cubic meters! Another 25\nminutes went by. Many of the people, it is true, were dead by that time.\nOne could see that through the little window as the electric lamp\nrevealed for a moment the inside of the chamber. After 28 minutes only a\nfew were alive. After 32 minutes all were dead! From the other side,\nJewish workers opened the wooden doors. In return for their terrible\njob, they had been promised their freedom and a small percentage of the\nvaluables and the money found. The dead were still standing like stone\nstatues, there having been no room for them to fall or bend over. Though\ndead, the families could still be recognized, their hands still clasped.\nIt was difficult to separate them in order to clear the chamber for the\nnext load. The bodies were thrown out blue, wet with sweat and urine,\nthe legs covered with excrement and menstrual blood. Everywhere among\nthe others were the bodies of babies and children. But there is no\ntime!\u2014Two dozen workers were busy checking the mouths, opening them\nwith iron hooks\u2014\u201cGold on the left, no gold on the right!\u201d Others\nchecked anus and genitals to look for money, diamonds, gold, etc.\nDentists with chisels tore out gold teeth, bridges, or caps. In the\ncenter of everything was Captain Wirth. He was on familiar ground here.\nHe handed me a large tin full of teeth and said: \u201cEstimate for yourself\nthe weight of gold! This is only from yesterday and the day before! And\nyou would not believe what we find here every day! Dollars, diamonds,\ngold! But look for yourself!\u201d Then he led me to a jeweler who was in\ncharge of all these valuables. After that they took me to one of the\nmanagers of the big store, Kaufhaus des Westens, in Berlin, and to a\nlittle man whom they made play the violin. Both were chiefs of the\nJewish worker units. \u201cHe is a captain of the Royal and Imperial Austrian\nArmy, and has the German Iron Cross 1st Class,\u201d I was told by\nHauptsturmbannfuehrer Obermeyer.\n\nThe bodies were then thrown into large ditches about 100 \u00d7 20 \u00d7 12\nmeters located near the gas chambers. After a few days the bodies would\nswell up and the whole contents of the ditch would rise 2-3 meters high\nbecause of the gases which developed inside the bodies. After a few more\ndays the swelling would stop and the bodies would collapse. The next day\nthe ditches were filled again, and covered with 10 centimeters of sand.\nA little later, I heard, they constructed grills out of rails and burned\nthe bodies on them with Diesel oil and gasoline in order to make them\ndisappear. At Belcec and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything\napproaching an exact count of the persons killed. Actually, not only\nJews, but many Poles and Czechs, who, in the opinion of the Nazis, were\nof bad stock, were killed. Most of them died anonymously. Commissions of\nso-called doctors, who were actually nothing but young SS men in white\ncoats, rode in limousines through the towns and villages of Poland and\nCzechoslovakia to select the old, tubercular, and sick people and have\nthem done away with shortly afterwards in the gas chambers. They were\nthe Poles and Czechs of category No. III, who did not deserve to live\nbecause they were unable to work. Police Captain Wirth asked me not to\npropose any other kind of gas chamber in Berlin, but to leave everything\nthe way it was. I lied\u2014as I did in each case all the time\u2014and said\nthat the prussic acid had already deteriorated in shipping and had\nbecome very dangerous, that I was therefore obliged to bury it. This was\ndone right away. The next day, Captain Wirth\u2019s car took us to Treblinka,\nabout 75 miles NNE of Warsaw. The installations of this death center\nscarcely differed from those at Belcec, but they were even larger. There\nwere eight gas chambers and whole mountains of clothes and underwear\nabout 35-40 meters high. Then a banquet was given in our \u201chonor,\u201d\nattended by all the employees of the institution. The\nObersturmbannfuehrer, Professor Pfannenstiel, Hygiene Professor at the\nUniversity of Marburg/Lahn, made a speech: \u201cYour task is a great duty, a\nduty useful and necessary.\u201d To me alone he talked of this institution in\nterms of \u201cbeauty of the task\u201d; \u201chumane cause\u201d; and speaking to all of\nthem he said: \u201cLooking at the bodies of these Jews, one understands the\ngreatness of your good work!\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-365\n PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 507\n\n UNSIGNED DRAFT LETTER FROM DR. WETZEL TO ROSENBERG, 25 OCTOBER 1941,\n DEALING WITH BRACK\u2019S COLLABORATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF GAS CHAMBERS\n FOR THE EXTERMINATION OF JEWS\n\n \u201cDraft\u201d [penciled notation]\n\nReich Ministry for the Occupied Territories\nReferent AGR. Dr. Wetzel\n Berlin, 25 October 1941\n Secret\nRe: Solution of the Jewish Question.\nTo the Reich Commissioner for the East.\n\n Re: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the\n Jewish Question.\n\nReferring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed that\nOberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer has declared\nhimself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of the necessary\nshelters as well as the gassing apparatus. At the present time, the\napparatus in question are not on hand in the Reich in sufficient number;\nthey will first have to be manufactured. Since in Brack\u2019s opinion the\nmanufacture of the apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty\nthan if manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send\nhis people directly to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, who\nwill have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter Brack points\nout that the process in question is not without danger, so special\nprotective measures are necessary. Under these circumstances, I beg you\nto turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack, in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer,\nthrough your Higher SS and Police Leader, and to request the dispatch of\nthe chemist Dr. Kallmeyer, as well as of further aides. I draw attention\nto the fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the Referent for Jewish\nquestions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On information\nfrom Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are to be set up in Riga\nand Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich territory may possibly be\nsent. At the present time, Jews being deported from the old Reich are to\nbe sent to Litzmannstadt [Lodz], but also to other camps, to be later\nused as labor in the East, so far as they are able to work.\n\nAs affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing away with\nthose Jews who are not able to work\u2014with the Brack remedy. In this way\noccurrences would no longer be possible such as those which, according\nto a report presently before me, took place at the shooting of Jews in\nVilna [Vilnyus] and which, considering that the shootings were public,\nwere hardly excusable. Those able to work, on the other hand, will be\ntransported to the East for labor service. It is self-understood that\namong the Jews capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate.\n\nI beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.\n\n \u201cN. d. H. M.\u201d\n [Lightly penciled notation, meaning copy for the Minister.]\n \u201cWet 25/10\u201d [in ink]\n\n PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL\n BRANDT 18\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 15\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WERNER KIRCHERT, 29 JANUARY 1947,\n STATING THAT KARL BRANDT WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE EUTHANASIA PROGRAM\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs a former medical officer of the Waffen SS, I had in 1939 a clinical\nassignment as medical assistant in the University Clinic of the Charit\u00e9\nin Berlin. In September 1939 Reich Physician SS Dr. Grawitz summoned me\nand asked me to make a list of the German lunatic asylums and the number\nof their inmates, based on the data in the Reich medical calendar. The\nreason, I was told, was the fact that, due to the evacuation of the West\nWall zone, the inmates had to be transferred to other asylums. After I\nhad finished compiling the list and had handed it in, Grawitz sent me to\nDr. Hevelmann at the Chancellery of the Fuehrer. There I learned that it\nwas actually a matter of _euthanasia_ of the insane, and that the\ntransfer was only a pretext. It was pointed out to me that it was on\ndirect orders from the Fuehrer and that Reichsleiter Bouhler had been\ninstructed to carry it out.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAt first, three institutions in different parts of Germany were\nmentioned. The insane people who were to come under the program were to\nbe selected, and Heyde, as chief expert, reserved the final decision for\nhimself. Everything was to be based on strictly medical views and only\nsuch persons were to be selected who in a psychiatric sense could be\ncalled \u201csiech\u201d (incurably ill).\n\n * * * * *\n\nDuring all the negotiations the names which were mentioned of the\npersons who took part were Grawitz, Hevelmann, Heyde, Blankenburg,\nBrack, and Bouhler. Not a single word was said about Dr. Karl Brandt.\nEverything at that time was still in the early stages.\n\nLater the problem arose again, when I was department head with Reich\nHealth Leader Dr. Conti; that was at the end of the summer of 1941 when\nthe Fuehrer\u2019s order came that _euthanasia_ should be stopped. But here\ntoo the name of Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was never mentioned.\n\n * * * * *\n\n TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 19\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 16\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF ALFRED RUEGGEBERG, 23 JANUARY 1947, CONCERNING RADIO\n DISCUSSIONS ON EUTHANASIA\n\nI, Alfred Rueggeberg, factory owner in Marienheide, have been told by\nthe certifying notary that I am liable to punishment if I make a false\nstatement under oath.\n\nI declare under oath that my statement is true and is being made to be\npresented as evidence to the Military Tribunal I, at the Palace of\nJustice in Nuernberg, Germany:\n\nIn summer 1945 I listened to a BBC broadcast from England, which was an\ninterview between the English radio commentator (as far as I remember it\nwas Mr. Robert Graham) and Pastor von Bodelschwingh of Bethel.\n\nIn the course of this interview Pastor von Bodelschwingh pointed out\nthat a number of years ago the place now occupied by the radio\ncommentator had been occupied by Professor Brandt and Herr Bouhler who,\nunder Hitler\u2019s orders, were discussing questions on euthanasia.\n\nQuestioned by the commentator, Pastor von Bodelschwingh said almost\nliterally\u2014in any case in effect\u2014the following:\n\n \u201cYou must not picture Professor Brandt as a criminal, but rather\n as an idealist.\u201d\n\nThis radio talk left me under the impression that Pastor Bodelschwingh\ndid not agree with the nature of Professor Brandt\u2019s activities, yet he\nhad a favorable opinion of his human qualities.\n\nGummersbach, 23 January 1947.\n\n [Signed] ALFRED RUEGGEBERG\n\n TRANSLATION OF KARL BRANDT DOCUMENT 23\n KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 19\n\nAFFIDAVIT OF EDUARD WOERMANN, 18 JANUARY 1947. CONCERNING DISCUSSIONS OF\n KARL BRANDT AND PASTOR BODELSCHWINGH ON EUTHANASIA\n\nThe Director of the Institution Bethel\nDpt. Bethel-office\n\n Bethel, near Bielefeld, 18 January 1947\n AFFIDAVIT\n\nI, the undersigned Pastor Eduard Woermann in Bethel near Bielefeld, have\nbeen informed that I am liable to punishment if I should give a false\nstatement under oath. I hereby affirm the following:\n\nThe director of the Bodelschwingh institutions in Bethel near Bielefeld,\nPastor D. Friedrich von Bodelschwingh, who died 4 January 1946, had\nseveral discussions with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt on the question of\n\u201cthe extirpation of life not worth living\u201d, in February 1941 and during\nthe following months. Pastor D. Bodelschwingh reported about this only\nvery discreetly within a very close circle of coworkers, to which I\nbelonged.\n\nHe emphasized then that\u2014\n\n1. Though they held fundamentally different views of these measures, he\nhad met a willingness on Professor Dr. Brandt\u2019s part to hear the\nobjections.\n\n2. Professor Dr. Brandt had talked about \u201ccompletely extinguished life\u201d,\nwhile other exponents of these measures based them upon the formula\n\u201cincurable\u201d or \u201chopeless\u201d.\n\n3. Professor Dr. Brandt was aware of the fallibility of these measures,\nand he was prompted to act, not by brutality, but by a certain idealism\nwhich was inherent in his conception of life.\n\nI give my permission for this statement to be presented as evidence to\nthe International Military Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice in\nNuernberg.\n\n [Signed] EDUARD WOERMANN\n\n TRANSLATION OF POKORNY DOCUMENT 19\n POKORNY DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27\n\n AFFIDAVIT OF DR. HELMUTH WEESE, 19 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING USE OF\n CALADIUM SEGUINUM FOR STERILIZATION\n\nI, the undersigned, Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, resident of\nWuppertal-Elberfeld, have first been duly warned that I shall be subject\nto punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my\nstatement is true and was made to be introduced as evidence before the\nMilitary Tribunal I in the Palace of Justice of Nuernberg, Germany.\n\nWhen the question is put to me whether it is to be assumed that a\ndoctor, after studying the monograph by G. Madaus and Fr. E. Koch:\n\u201cStudies of Animal Experiments,\u201d pertaining to the question of\nsterilization by medication (by means of caladium seguinum\n(dieffenbachia seguina)), Journal for the Entire Experimental Medicine,\nvol. 109, p. 68, 1941, could become convinced that human beings can be\nsterilized with caladium seguinum, I have the following to say about it:\n\nIt is pointed out in the investigation referred to above that the\nauthors succeeded in sterilizing rats by feeding them with extract of\ncaladium seguinum. This is proved by mating experiments as well as by\nanatomical investigations. In order to effect this sterilization of both\nfemale and male rats, daily doses of \u00bd cc. for each rat weighing from\n150-180 grams had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times daily,\nrespectively, without being certain of successful results. To apply this\nto a man weighing 70 kilograms, it would mean administering 200 grams of\nextract daily.\n\nThe investigations show abundantly that a considerable number of animals\ntreated perished from the poisonous effects of the caladium extract. The\nextract therefore has no specific effect on the reproductive system. It\nis still completely unknown whether these harmful secondary effects are\ndue to an element in the extract or some kind of accompanying\ningredients.\n\nSuch types of unspecific injuries of the reproductive system are known\nto be caused in man in a similar manner also by other agents, for\nexample, by the excessive misuse of nicotine, morphine, and the like, in\nwhich case, however, they too appear only along with most severe\nimpairment of other functions.\n\nFirst of all every doctor faces the question as to whether these\nexperiments on rats are at all applicable to men. Madaus and Koch reject\nthis from the start, because for them it is merely a question of\ndetermining whether the popular medical practice of making men impotent\nby administering sizable quantities of caladium extract can be\ncorroborated by animal experiments.\n\nThe prerequisite for administering caladium extract to human beings in\nour countries would be the planting in Central Europe of caladium\nseguinum, the habitat of which is in tropical South America. This seems\nextremely improbable even to an only moderately experienced natural\nscientist. Even if the planting were successful, this would not\nnecessarily mean that it produces, in our moderate zone, the same\neffective agents in a sufficient quantity.\n\nBecause of the unspecific effect of the caladium extract, its virulently\npoisonous quality, the doubt as to whether it can be planted and used in\nour moderate zone, I consider it extremely improbable that even a doctor\nof only average education will attempt with conviction the experiment of\nsterilizing human beings with caladium extract on the basis of the work\nof Madaus and Koch. Convincing papers for the problem referred to other\nthan the work of Madaus and Koch are not known to me.\n\nWuppertal-Elberfeld\n\n19 March 1947\n\n [Signed] PROF. DR. HELMUTH WEESE\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS DR. MENNECKE[114]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Doctor, were all the concentration camp inmates selected\nactually insane?\n\nWITNESS MENNECKE: No.\n\nQ. Will you explain your answer please?\n\nA. By insanity we mean a disease which shows characteristic\ninterferences with mental activity. I will not describe them but merely\ncall them characteristics. That is what we mean by insanity. This\ncondition was not prevalent in the majority of cases among inmates in\nthe concentration camps.\n\nQ. Were any inmates selected only for the reason that they were unable\nto work?\n\nA. That is possible.\n\nQ. Were people selected who had diseases other than those of the mind,\nsuch as tuberculosis?\n\nA. Yes. Such people were also included.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: The last question, Dr. Mennecke. Would you be willing to\ntell the Tribunal how you now feel about your participation in the\n\u201ceuthanasia\u201d program?\n\nWITNESS MENNECKE: Yes. I am willing to say something on that subject. I\ndeeply regret the fact that I was drawn into this program in 1940. After\nthe collapse, when the total extent of the extermination of human beings\nbecame known to the public\u2014and to me for the first time\u2014I was ashamed\nthat I had ever had any part in this program (even though in a\nsubordinated position), and I am still ashamed today. That is what I\nhave to say.\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Thank you, Dr. Mennecke. I have no further questions.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT BRACK[115]\n\n_EXAMINATION_\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: Witness, when adult persons were selected for euthanasia\nand sent by the transport to euthanasia stations for that purpose, by\nwhat methods were the mercy deaths given?\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: The patients went to a euthanasia institution after the\nwritten formalities were concluded\u2014I need not repeat these formalities\nhere, they were physical examination, comparison of the files, etc. Then\nthe patients were led to a gas chamber and were there killed by the\ndoctors with carbon monoxide gas (CO).\n\nQ. Where was that carbon monoxide obtained, by what process?\n\nA. It was in a compressed gas container, like a steel oxygen container,\nsuch as is used for welding\u2014a hollow steel container.\n\nQ. And these people were placed in this chamber in groups, I suppose,\nand then the monoxide was turned into the chambers?\n\nA. Perhaps I had better describe this in some detail. Bouhler\u2019s basic\nrequirement was that the killing should not only be painless, but also\nimperceptible. For this reason, the photographing of the patients, which\nwas only done for scientific reasons, took place before they entered the\nchamber, and the patients were completely diverted thereby. Then they\nwere led into the gas chamber which they were told was a shower room.\nThey were then in groups of perhaps 20 or 30. They were gassed by the\ndoctor in charge.\n\nQ. Have you ever been present when a mercy death was accorded to these\npeople by that process?\n\nA. Yes. I had to be present because Bouhler wanted a report on whether\nthings were being done according to his orders, and in a dignified and\nnot a brutal fashion.\n\nQ. And you found from your inspection and witnessing these ceremonies\nthat they were being done in accordance with Bouhler\u2019s orders, in a\ndignified and painless sort of way?\n\nA. Yes. But let me say I was already convinced that the method was\npainless. And I also saw that by this method the patient did not realize\nthat he was about to be killed. There were benches and chairs in the\nchamber. A few minutes after the gas was let in, the patient became\nsleepy and tired and died after a few minutes. They simply went to sleep\nwithout even knowing that they were going to sleep, and that was one of\nthe most essential requirements.\n\nQ. When was the first time that you witnessed one of these procedures?\n\nA. The first time was on the occasion of an experiment with four such\npatients. I think it must have been December 1939 or January 1940. I\nknow there was snow on the ground at the time. That is why I remember\nthese months. Bouhler, Conti, and I don\u2019t know who else was there, there\nwere a few other doctors witnessing it for the first time. On the basis\nof this experiment Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be\nused for killing the patients.\n\nQ. Well now, before or after that time had you tried any other gases or\nany other means of administering euthanasia to these people?\n\nA. No, we\u2014and by this I mean Bouhler\u2019s organization\u2014never used any\nother gas or any other means.\n\nQ. You found the carbon monoxide quite satisfactory, so you never had to\nresort to any other means?\n\nA. Yes. You can put it that way.\n\nQ. Now, where was it that these four people were accorded the privilege\nof a mercy death in December, 1939 or 1940?\n\nA. That was in the first euthanasia station in Brandenburg.\n\nQ. And who were the subjects that were used for that experiment?\n\nA. They were four mentally incurable persons.\n\nQ. Do you know what institution they came from?\n\nA. No. That I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Were they men or women?\n\nA. Men.\n\nQ. All men. What were their ages, were they young men, middle-aged men,\nor elderly men; how would you classify them?\n\nA. I really don\u2019t remember that.\n\nQ. What can you say in regard to their nationality; do you know anything\nabout that?\n\nA. They must have been Germans, they could not have been anything but\nGermans, because according to regulations only German mentally defective\npersons were used for euthanasia.\n\nQ. And you say Hitler was there?\n\nA. No. Hitler was not there, Bouhler was there.\n\nQ. Bouhler?\n\nA. Bouhler was there, Conti was there, and I believe Brandt.\n\nQ. Karl Brandt?\n\nA. Yes, Karl Brandt.\n\nQ. Do you remember any of the other defendants who were there?\n\nA. None of the defendants here was present except myself.\n\nQ. Well, then you remember that you, Bouhler, Conti, and Karl Brandt\nwere there; now do you remember any of the other gentlemen there at the\ntime?\n\nA. Yes. I said there were some more doctors there, but none of the\ndefendants here.\n\nQ. Dr. Pfannmueller, perhaps?\n\nA. No. Dr. Pfannmueller was certainly not there. They must have been\nBerlin doctors.\n\nQ. When after December of 1939 or January of 1940 was it that you again\nwitnessed a euthanasia procedure?\n\nA. I should say that during 1940 in all the euthanasia institutions\nexisting at that time I personally assured myself once or twice that the\neuthanasia was being correctly carried out. But I think I recollect that\nthe Hadamar Institute was only set up in 1941 and in that year I did not\nwitness euthanasia being carried out, so that this would eliminate the\nHadamar Institute.\n\nQ. The Institute at Hadamar, I think you said there were five other\nstations?\n\nA. Yes. There were six altogether.\n\nQ. So that during the year 1940, you assured yourself that each of the\nfive stations on perhaps one, two or perhaps more visits that the\nprocedure insisted upon by Bouhler was being carried out in a humane\nmanner, in a painless manner by carbon monoxide?\n\nA. Completely imperceptible.\n\nQ. And now who were the people\u2014let me put it this way\u2014the first time\nat Brandenburg there were four people, all men?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, can you remember on your subsequent visits in 1940 to the other\neuthanasia stations who the people were, men or women?\n\nA. Both, sometimes men and sometimes women.\n\nQ. And what can you say in regard to their nationality?\n\nA. I can only say that they were only Germans, because I am perfectly\nconvinced that Bouhler\u2019s regulations, which rested on an order from\nHitler, namely that no foreigners were to be given euthanasia, were\nobserved strictly by all the euthanasia institutions.\n\nQ. Where were these stations located, Witness?\n\nA. I don\u2019t understand what you mean, where they were?\n\nQ. In what part of Germany or in what part of Poland, or in what part of\nCzechoslovakia, in what part of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, in\nwhat part of Denmark, in what part of Holland, in what part of France,\nand in what part of Europe were these stations located?\n\nA. Now I understand you correctly. The first one was in Brandenburg on\nthe Havel in the neighborhood of Berlin about 70 or 80 kilometers away.\nThe next was the Grafeneck Institute, that was in Wuerttemberg. Another\ninstitution was Sonnenstein and that is near Pirna near Dresden. There\nwas the Hartheim Institute which was near Linz on the Danube in Austria.\nThen there was the Bernburg Institute on the Saale River near Dessau.\nThe Hadamar Institute is in Hesse.\n\nQ. Were any of these stations located in that portion of Poland which\nwas occupied by the Germans in military occupation?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. And the six stations you have just named were all the stations known\nto you that existed; there were just six?\n\nA. Those were the only ones, yes.\n\nQ. Witness, can you approximate the population of Germany as it existed\nin the year of 1939 or the year of 1940? Were there some fifty or sixty\nmillion people?\n\nA. No, roughly eighty to eighty-five million.\n\nQ. Now by that, when you say eighty to eighty-five million, you include\nthe entire German Reich, including Austria, the Sudetenland, and the\noccupied territory?\n\nA. Austria and the Sudetenland, but not the occupied territory.\n\nQ. And you estimate roughly there were eighty-five million people?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Of that eighty-five million, how many Jews would you say were living\nin Germany at the time who were German nationals?\n\nA. Maybe two or three million.\n\nQ. You are talking now about the Greater German Reich, including Austria\nand the Sudetenland?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You estimate there were between two or three million who were German\nnationals?\n\nA. Roughly, yes.\n\nQ. Now with two or three million German Jews amalgamated into the German\npopulation of eighty-five million people who were German nationals,\nexplain, if you will, to the Tribunal why it was that the German Jews\nwere excluded from the Euthanasia Program, if as you say it was a\nsalutary program according to people the privilege of a mercy death for\ntaking them out of their misery; why was it that the German Jews were\nnot included in that program?\n\nA. I have already stated that. As Bouhler explained it, the blessing of\neuthanasia should be granted only to Germans.\n\nQ. I understand that, but I thought you said at that time there were\nbetween two and three million Germans in Germany, German citizens who\nwere Jews?\n\nA. Yes. That is so.\n\nQ. Why were they not included in the program, if the privilege of the\nprogram was going to be accorded to all Germans?\n\nA. The reason possibly lies in the fact that the government did not want\nto grant this philanthropic act to the Jews.\n\nQ. They wanted to grant this philanthropic act to all Aryan Germans, but\ndid not want to grant it to German Jews, and they did not want to grant\nthis philanthropic act to German soldiers of the first war, who had\nreceived mental injuries growing out of their war wounds. Is that\ncorrect?\n\nA. As I have already said, that was a great inconsistency in this\nprocedure and we often protested. However, it was determined by\nconsiderations of a military and psychological nature.\n\nQ. Thank you.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Witness, I think you said yesterday afternoon that these six\neuthanasia stations were located at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Hadamar,\nHartheim, Grafeneck, and Sonnenstein, is that correct?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct.\n\nQ. When were the gas chambers at these euthanasia stations built?\n\nA. When the institutions were set up as euthanasia institutions.\n\nQ. Can you remember the approximate dates?\n\nA. No. I cannot remember the dates. I just know the years when the\ninstitutions became euthanasia institutions\u2014approximately. I know that\nGrafeneck and Brandenburg were the first institutions to become\neuthanasia institutions. It began at the end of 1939 at the earliest,\nthe beginning of 1940 at the latest. Sonnenstein and Hartheim were set\nup in the early summer 1940. In the early summer or spring. The\ninstitution at Bernburg was established in the fall or winter of 1940,\nHadamar, in the winter or spring of 1941. This is as accurate as I can\ngive it.\n\nQ. You said the winter or spring of 1941. Do you mean the winter of 1940\nor the spring of 1941? You said the winter or spring of 1941.\n\nA. If I say winter \u201941, I mean January \u201941, but it might have been March\ntoo, I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. And you think that Hadamar was the last one that was set up?\n\nA. I am quite certain that Hadamar was the last one.\n\nQ. Now, of what materials were these gas chambers built? Were they\nmovable gas chambers, very much like the low-pressure chambers that\nProfessor Dr. Ruff talked about, or were they something that was built\npermanently into the camp or installation?\n\nA. No special gas chamber was built. A room suitable in the hospital was\nused, a room of necessity attached to the reception ward and to the room\nwhere the insane persons were kept. This room was made into a gas\nchamber. It was sealed, given special doors and windows, and then a few\nmeters of gas piping were laid, or some kind of piping with holes in it.\nOutside this room there was a container, a compressed gas container with\nthe necessary apparatus, that is a pressure gauge, etc.\n\nQ. Now what department had the responsibility for constructing or\nbuilding these gas chambers, what department of the Party or of the\ngovernment?\n\nA. No office of the Party. I don\u2019t understand the question.\n\nQ. Somebody had to build these chambers. Who gave the orders and who had\nthe responsibility of building them, was that your department?\n\nA. I assume the orders were given by the head of the institution, but I\ndon\u2019t know who actually did give the orders.\n\nQ. In other words, were these chambers not built according to some\nspecifications, plans and specifications?\n\nA. I can\u2019t imagine that, every chamber was different. I saw several of\nthem.\n\nQ. Do you know what department gave the order for having the chambers\nbuilt? Was that your department under Bouhler?\n\nA. No. It was Bouhler himself.\n\nQ. And he gave the order to the various heads of institutions to install\nthis chamber, is that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, how would the heads of each of these institutions know how to\ninstall a gas chamber unless there were certain plans and specifications\ngiven to them?\n\nA. I never saw any such plan. I don\u2019t know of any.\n\nQ. Would you know how to go out and build a gas chamber unless some\nengineer or planner had told you? Certainly I wouldn\u2019t.\n\nA. I don\u2019t know whether I would either. Presumably he called in an\nengineer.\n\nQ. That\u2019s what I\u2019m trying to say. What engineer or group of engineers\nwas responsible for seeing that these gas chambers were built so that\nthey would do the job they were supposed to do?\n\nA. There was certainly no group of engineers. I presume there was\nsomebody at the institutions who had enough technical ability to do it.\nI don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Then, so far as you know, someone at one of these institutions would\nbe told by Bouhler to construct a gas chamber and he would call\u2014the\nhead of the institution then would call on someone, you don\u2019t know whom,\nto go out and build the chamber? Is that correct?\n\nA. That is how I imagine it.\n\nQ. Well, wouldn\u2019t it make a considerable difference whether the chamber\nwas to be constructed for euthanasia by carbon monoxide or by some other\nmeans? Wouldn\u2019t there have to be some technical information available to\nthe head of the institution so that he could give directions to his\nmechanic to build the thing to do the thing it was supposed to do?\n\nA. I must say honestly I really don\u2019t know anything about that. I can\u2019t\njudge.\n\nQ. Do you know whether or not any department of the government, under\nBouhler, or under Brandt, or under anybody else, was responsible for\nseeing that the gas apparatus was installed properly?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know, but I don\u2019t believe so because I would probably have\nheard of it.\n\nQ. How large were these gas chambers?\n\nA. They were of different sizes. It was simply an adjoining room. I\ncan\u2019t remember whether they were 4 \u00d7 5 meters, or 5 \u00d7 6 meters. Simply\nnormal sized rooms, but I can\u2019t tell you the exact size. It was too long\nago. I can\u2019t remember.\n\nQ. Were they as large as this courtroom?\n\nA. No. They were just normal rooms.\n\nQ. Well, a man of your intelligence must have some idea about the size\nof these rooms. The assertion \u201cnormal size\u201d doesn\u2019t mean anything in\nparticular.\n\nA. By that I mean the size of the normal room in a normal house. I\ndidn\u2019t mean an assembly room or a cell either. I meant a room, but I\ncan\u2019t tell you the exact size because I really don\u2019t know it. It might\nhave been 4 \u00d7 5 meters, or 5 \u00d7 6 meters, or 3\u00bd \u00d7 4\u00bd, but I really don\u2019t\nknow. I didn\u2019t pay much attention to it.\n\nQ. Have you ever visited a concentration camp or a military camp of any\nkind?\n\nA. I visited a concentration camp, and I was once in a military camp as\na soldier.\n\nQ. Have you ever seen a shower room or shower bath built into a camp of\nthat kind where the inmates of concentration camps, or where soldiers in\na military barracks, can take showers?\n\nA. Yes, I have. In my own barracks.\n\nQ. And would you say that this euthanasia room at the various\ninstitutions was about that dimension?\n\nA. I think it was much smaller.\n\nQ. Well, perhaps we can get at it this way. I thought perhaps you knew\nsomething about the mechanical construction that I supposed everybody\nknew something about. This room of yours that you talk about, how many\npeople would it accommodate?\n\nA. Yesterday I said that according to my estimate it might have been\ntwenty-five or thirty people.\n\nQ. And that is still your estimate today? I remember yesterday that you\nsaid that, and that is still your estimate today, it could comfortably\ntake care of twenty-five or thirty people?\n\nA. Yes. That\u2019s my estimate.\n\nQ. Now, the carbon monoxide gas that was used for the purpose of\neuthanasia, where did it come from? I know you said yesterday that it\ncame out of tubes very much like oxygen came in, but where did the tubes\ncome from? Do you know?\n\nA. I don\u2019t know. They were the normal steel containers which can be seen\neverywhere.\n\nQ. Do you know how they reached the camp?\n\nA. That I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Do you know whether any department of the government was responsible\nfor furnishing the gas to the camp?\n\nA. No. They were probably bought.\n\nQ. You think then that perhaps the superintendent of the institution, if\nhe wanted some carbon monoxide gas, would just walk down-town and walk\ninto a store and buy a steel tube of it and put it under his arm and\ncarry it on back to the camp; pay for it out of his pocket?\n\nA. No, not out of his own pocket but through the institution. The\ninstitutions bought them, I mean.\n\nQ. Do you know from what sources the institution bought it?\n\nA. Yes. All the funds came from the Reich Ministry of the Interior. They\nwere advanced by the Party treasurer.\n\nQ. Well, now, at that time, wasn\u2019t virtually everything in Germany of a\ncritical nature on some sort of priority? Do you understand what I mean?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. Would not the diversion of this carbon monoxide in tubes to the\nvarious institutions have to be given a priority rating and approved by\nsomeone or by some department in the government and thus be made\navailable to the hospitals? Don\u2019t you understand what I mean?\n\nA. Yes, I understand. I have no idea, but I don\u2019t believe so. Why?\n\nQ. What was done with the bodies of these people after mercy deaths were\ngiven?\n\nA. When the room had been cleared of gas again, stretchers were brought\nin and the bodies were carried into an adjoining room. There the doctor\nexamined them to determine whether they were dead.\n\nQ. Then what happened to the bodies?\n\nA. When the doctor had determined death, he freed the bodies for\ncremation and then they were cremated.\n\nQ. After he had freed the bodies, had determined that they were dead,\nthey were then cremated? Is that correct?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. There was a crematory built for every one of these institutions?\n\nA. Yes. Crematoriums were built in the institutions.\n\nQ. Do you know whether or not\u2014what department or agency, either under\nthe government, that is, the Reich government, or under the\nsuperintendent of the various institutions, was responsible for this\ndetail of cremation?\n\nA. I don\u2019t understand. Bouhler ordered the cremation. Bouhler ordered,\non principle, that the bodies were to be cremated after death. There was\nno office for that.\n\nQ. Was there any report made to anyone of the fact that certain people,\nwho had been selected for euthanasia had finally arrived at these\ninstitutions, had actually been accorded the privilege of mercy deaths\nand then had been cremated?\n\nA. No. I know nothing about that.\n\nQ. No records were kept at all?\n\nA. Oh, I thought you said reports. Now you mean records?\n\nQ. I don\u2019t care what you call it. There must have been a report or\nrecord of some kind kept of these people. Was there?\n\nA. Yes, of course. Not only the case histories, but the personal data of\nthe individual patients were collected at the euthanasia institution and\nthere the death records were added and whatever else was available. In\nmy direct examination I pointed out that there were announcements to the\nagencies concerned, for example, the guardianship court. All these files\nwere sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4.\n\nQ. They were finally sent to Tiergartenstrasse 4?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Isn\u2019t it true that only in that way could an accurate record or\nreport of this program be made?\n\nA. I didn\u2019t understand. Whether this fact created accurate records about\nthe people, or whether records were kept?\n\nQ. Records were kept, were they not, of this entire transaction of each\nindividual from the time he was expertized?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Until finally he was cremated?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And those records were filed with T-4?\n\nA. Yes. They were kept there.\n\nQ. Now, I believe you said that these euthanasia chambers were built to\nresemble shower rooms?\n\nA. Yes. That\u2019s how I remember it.\n\nQ. And the only people that were accorded euthanasia were people who\nwere incurably insane, I think you said?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. These were people who, as you put it, on ethical grounds did not have\nthe mental capacity either to consent or to resist the decision to grant\nthem euthanasia, and that consequently as you viewed it, it was a humane\nprocedure to accord them a mercy death; is that correct, did I\nunderstand you correctly?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Now, were these people, the ones whom you saw, so insane as not to\nunderstand where they were or what was going on around them?\n\nA. I can only say that of course I am not a doctor and therefore not in\na position to judge the condition of such patients, but when I was at\nsuch institutions I myself saw that the patients, in as far as they were\nable to walk, went into these chambers or rooms where they were told to\ngo without any objection and sat down on the benches or lay down and\nwere quite quiet.\n\nI don\u2019t know to what extent they realized where they were. I do know,\nhowever, that they were not in any way worried, but perfectly calm.\nBouhler had ordered that the doctors were to arrange things so that the\npatients would not realize what was being done to them.\n\nQ. And that was the reason that the gas chambers were constructed to\nresemble shower rooms, I suppose?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And these people thought that they were going in to take a shower\nbath?\n\nA. If any of them had any power of reasoning, they no doubt thought\nthat.\n\nQ. Well now, were they taken into the shower rooms with their clothes\non, or were they nude?\n\nA. No. They were nude.\n\nQ. In every case?\n\nA. Whenever I saw them, yes.\n\nQ. And you said, I believe, yesterday that you witnessed perhaps some 10\nto 12, or 15, or 20 occasions when groups were accorded mercy deaths?\n\nA. No. I said that I visited each of the institutions, with the\nexception of Hadamar, at least once, perhaps twice.\n\nQ. And on each occasion did you witness the according of a mercy death\nto a group?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. And I believe you said yesterday that some of these groups were\nadults, that some groups were men, other groups were women, and that on\nsome occasions the groups were made up of both men and women, is that\ncorrect?\n\nA. No. Apparently I did not express myself clearly. They were either men\nor women, but I saw both.\n\nQ. And you think perhaps you saw as many as 20 to 30 comfortably\naccommodated in the chamber?\n\nA. Yes, quite comfortably. There was plenty of room.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. HOCHWALD: You never cooperated in the program of extermination of\nthe Jews, is that correct?\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: No. I personally never did.\n\nQ. Is the name Eichmann, Obersturmbannfuehrer Adolf Eichmann, familiar\nto you?\n\nA. Yes. I know the name now.\n\nQ. You did not know him before? That is, during the war?\n\nA. No, not to my knowledge.\n\nQ. Did you know anything about his activities during the war from your\nown knowledge, not what you heard now?\n\nA. I cannot remember ever having heard the name Eichmann before.\n\nQ. In order to keep the record straight I would like to offer Document\nNO-2737. This is an excerpt from the judgment of the International\nMilitary Tribunal about the activities of Eichmann, and I would like to\nask the Tribunal whether I should give an identification number to this\ndocument or whether the Tribunal will take judicial notice of the\ndocument.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: While the Tribunal will take judicial notice of\nthe document mentioned, it would be convenient to have an identification\nnumber for the purpose of identification only.\n\nDR. HOCHWALD: So it will be Prosecution Exhibit 505 for identification;\nextract from the judgment of the International Military Tribunal:[116]\n\n \u201cIn the summer of 1941, however, plans were made for the \u2018final\n solution\u2019 of the Jewish question in Europe. This \u2018final\n solution\u2019 meant the extermination of the Jews, which early in\n 1939 Hitler had threatened would be one of the consequences of\n an outbreak of war, and a special section in the Gestapo under\n Adolf Eichmann, as head of Section B-4 of the Gestapo, was\n formed to carry out the policy * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201c* * * Adolf Eichmann, who had been put in charge of this\n program by Hitler, has estimated that the policy pursued\n resulted in the killing of 6,000,000 Jews, of which 4,000,000\n were killed in the extermination institutions.\u201d\n\nDid you ever have any conferences or discussions with Eichmann\nconcerning the extermination of the Jews and the solution of the Jewish\nproblem?\n\nDEFENDANT BRACK: I already said that I did not remember having heard the\nname Eichmann at all.\n\nQ. I want to put to you NO-997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506 for\nidentification, your Honors. This is a draft of a letter from the Reich\nMinister for the Occupied Eastern Territories to the Reich Commissioner\nfor the East:\n\n \u201cSolution of the Jewish Problem.\n\n \u201cReference: Your report of 4 October 1941, concerning the\n solution of the Jewish problem.\n\n \u201cI have no objection against your suggestion for the solution of\n the Jewish problem. Attached please find a memorandum concerning\n the conversation between my expert consultant, Amtsgerichtsrat\n Dr. Wetzel, Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the\n Fuehrer, and Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, expert consultant to the\n Reich Security Main Office. Please note the details of the\n matter from this memo. Will you please take the necessary steps\n at the Reich Security Main Office and with Oberdienstleiter\n Brack from the Chancellery of the Fuehrer via your Higher SS and\n Police Leader. Please keep me informed.\n\n [Handwritten] F. d. H. M.\n [For the Minister]\n\n \u201c2d Copy\n \u201c(_a_) Reich Security Main Office\n \u201c(_b_) Chancellery of the Fuehrer\n Attention: Oberdienstleiter Brack,\n Copy of (1), including enclosure for information.\u201d\n\nDid you receive a copy of this letter?\n\nA. May I first ask you what the date of this letter is?\n\nQ. Only 1941 is mentioned here. But that is the date I told you. Did you\nreceive a copy of this letter, Herr Brack?\n\nA. I did not receive a copy of it nor did I even see a copy of that\nletter, nor do I know this Amtsgerichtsrat Wetzel.\n\nQ. Did you have a conference with Eichmann on this problem, on the\nsolution of the Jewish question?\n\nA. I already said I cannot even remember the name Eichmann, nor can I\nremember the name Wetzel.\n\nQ. Do you know anything about the matters discussed at this conference\nconcerning the solution of the Jewish problem?\n\nA. No. I know nothing.\n\nQ. You have no idea. You never made any suggestions as to what kind of\ntreatment or what kind of gas chambers should be used for the solution\nof the Jewish problem? You never did that?\n\nA. I can remember nothing in this connection.\n\nQ. You were questioned by the Tribunal last Friday as to whether plans\nwere made for the construction of the gas chambers in the euthanasia\nstations or whether an engineer or specialist was ordered to assist the\ndirectors of the stations in setting up such gas chambers, were you not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You were not able to give any information to the Tribunal on that\nfact, were you?\n\nA. No. I said I didn\u2019t concern myself with these matters.\n\nQ. Is the name Kallmeyer, K-a-l-l-m-e-y-e-r, familiar to you?\n\nA. Yes. But I can\u2019t remember in which connection.\n\nQ. His wife executed an affidavit for you here. (_Brack 39, Brack Ex.\n23._) Do you remember him now?\n\nA. Yes. Yes, I remember him now.\n\nQ. Was Kallmeyer the engineer, or was he a chemist, who made these plans\nfor gas chambers and assisted the directors in euthanasia stations in\nsetting up these gas chambers?\n\nA. No. Kallmeyer had to check that the gas chambers were operating\nproperly, but I don\u2019t believe he made any plans for that purpose.\n\nQ. Kallmeyer was the man who supervised these gas chambers, was he not?\n\nA. I believe so, yes, but not for long, only for a short time.\n\nQ. All right. And does the name Kallmeyer refresh your memory as to\neventual plans you made together with Eichmann about the solution of the\nJewish problem, Herr Brack?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. I want to put to you Document NO-365, which will be Prosecution\nExhibit 507 for identification, your Honors. This is a draft from the\nReich Ministry for the Occupied Territories dated Berlin, 25 October\n1941.\n\n \u201cReferent AGR. Dr. Wetzel\n\n \u201cRe: Solution of the Jewish Question\n\n \u201c1. To the Reich Commissioner for the East\n\n \u201cRe: Your Report of 4 October 1941 Concerning Solution of the\n Jewish question\n\n \u201cReferring to my letter of 18 October 1941, you are informed\n that Oberdienstleiter Brack of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer\n has declared himself ready to collaborate in the manufacture of\n the necessary shelters, as well as the gassing apparatus. At the\n present time the apparatus in question are not on hand in the\n Reich in sufficient number; they will first have to be\n manufactured. Since in Brack\u2019s opinion the manufacture of the\n apparatus in the Reich will cause more difficulty than if\n manufactured on the spot, Brack deems it most expedient to send\n his people direct to Riga, especially his chemist Dr. Kallmeyer,\n who will have everything further done there. Oberdienstleiter\n Brack points out that the process in question is not without\n danger, so that special protective measures are necessary. Under\n these circumstances I beg you to turn to Oberdienstleiter Brack,\n in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, through your Higher SS and\n Police Leader and to request the dispatch of the chemist Dr.\n Kallmeyer as well as of further aides. I draw attention to the\n fact that Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, the referent for Jewish\n questions in the RSHA, is in agreement with this process. On\n information from Sturmbannfuehrer Eichmann, camps for Jews are\n to be set up in Riga and Minsk to which Jews from the old Reich\n territory may possibly be sent. At the present time, Jews being\n deported from the old Reich are to be sent to Litzmannstadt,\n [Lodz] but also to other camps, to be later used as labor in the\n East so far as they are able to work.\n\n \u201cAs affairs now stand, there are no objections against doing\n away with those Jews who are unable to work with the Brack\n remedy. In this way occurrences would no longer be possible such\n as those which, according to a report presently before me, took\n place at the shooting of Jews in Vilna and which, considering\n that the shootings were public, were hardly excusable. Those\n able to work, on the other hand, will be transported to the East\n for labor service. It is self-understood that among the Jews\n capable of work, men and women are to be kept separate.\n\n \u201cI beg you to advise me regarding your further steps.\u201d\n\nHerr Brack, are you still going to maintain what you said here in direct\nexamination, namely, that you tried to protect the Jews and to save the\nJews from their terrible fate and that you were never a champion of the\nextermination program?\n\nA. I should even like to maintain that misuse, terrible misuse, was made\nof my name. I see from this letter and from the date of this letter that\nall these negotiations were carried out at a time when I was far away\nfrom Berlin, when I was on sick leave. If I have the possibility I hope\nI shall be able to bring witnesses who will testify to that effect. I\nmust frankly admit that at this period something was going on which\nentirely contradicted my opinion, but this could only have been done\nunder misuse of my name and my agency. I was not willing to participate\nin these things.\n\nQ. Can you tell me, Herr Brack, where Riga and Minsk are located?\n\nA. Riga is on the Baltic in Latvia, and Minsk is in Russia.\n\nQ. These two places were outside Germany, were they not?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Prosecution has no further questions at this time.\n\nEXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS WALTER E. SCHMIDT[117]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: What kind of directives were given at that time about the\nexecution of the Euthanasia Program?\n\nWITNESS SCHMIDT: Well, the same directives as were finally carried\nout\u2014to move the invalids from lunatic asylum to the euthanasia\ninstitution. I personally received subsequently the orders from the\nReich committee which had already been discussed during that meeting.\n\nQ. Did you at that time consider that an order for murder?\n\nA. In no way at all. The jurists in Berlin told us that this was a legal\nmatter, that it was a Hitler decree or a law which had been duly\napproved; also that the jurists had discussed whether Hitler was\nauthorized to issue such a decree and decided in the affirmative, and we\nwere told that this was a matter which was a quite legal\u2014\n\nQ. Witness, a little slower.\n\nA. That it was a legal task of the State which had already been planned\nin 1932 and which was also being planned in other countries and that we\nwould not incriminate ourselves in any way, on the contrary, a sabotage\nof this order would be a criminal offense. The question of secrecy was\nalso discussed in detail and it was stated that this was a kind of law\nnow; that the patients were not to have knowledge of such a measure\nbeforehand because otherwise they would be excited, and that was\nprobably the main reason why this law could not be published. In\naddition at that time we were at war and those kinds of measures should\nbe kept secret in the interior.\n\nQ. Who were the people to be concerned by the Euthanasia Program?\n\nA. The incurably sick. However, it was not quite clear to me where the\nlimit was to be drawn. For me personally, such a measure could only be\nconsidered in the cases of persons who were dying anyhow.\n\nQ. Was there any mention made at that time of \u201cuseless eaters\u201d and other\neconomic points of view?\n\nA. I never actually heard the words \u201cuseless eaters\u201d at all during the\nwar.\n\nQ. Was it mentioned at the time that the institution had to be kept free\nfor other purposes, and that that was the reason?\n\nA. The reason for this measure was only touched upon briefly. We were\ntold that these were tasks of the state which had become urgent because\nof the war and, yes, of a eugenic nature.\n\nQ. How about the children?\n\nA. At the time there was always talk about the last medical aid.\n\nQ. Well, if I understood you correctly, the decisive viewpoint was the\nmedical one?\n\nA. Yes. I only observed it from the medical point of view.\n\nQ. Now was the procedure actually carried out from this point of view?\nOr didn\u2019t this so-called program actually go far beyond its limits in\nits execution?\n\nA. The limits of the program were certainly exceeded to a great extent.\nI personally did not see it myself, but on the basis of the reports I\nreceived, I must say that excesses certainly took place.\n\nQ. Witness, how was it in your institution with reference to excesses?\n\nA. In my institution procedure was taken only on the basis authorized by\nlaw. We also had a therapy station. Of course, I must say, it was not\nvery nice to watch these transports.\n\nQ. Now, you said that later on Eastern workers were picked up?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Wasn\u2019t that in excess of the original order which you received?\n\nA. I cannot say that. I don\u2019t know.\n\nQ. Do you know where the order came from to transport these people away?\n\nA. From the Ministry of the Interior. It was given to us by the superior\noffice of the Ministry of the Interior.\n\nQ. You mean the Reich Minister of the Interior?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. You further mentioned that the action was concluded in August 1941,\nthat it was stopped. Do you know the reason for this?\n\nA. Yes. I do not know the official reason, but I heard of it\nunofficially. I heard that Herr von Galen protested, and that was\nprobably why the whole procedure was stopped. I emphasize that I don\u2019t\nknow for certain, but anyway for me it was a reason.\n\nQ. Well was this procedure actually stopped everywhere in the end?\n\nA. No. When Hadamar was closed I immediately assumed that some other\ninstitution would continue this task or that the procedure would be\nfollowed up in some other way. That is also what Mr. von Hegener said\nwhen he was there.\n\nQ. You said that these Eastern workers were collected by the same busses\nas before?\n\nA. Yes. The busses were the same. They were big black busses, and we\nknew the drivers because they came frequently.\n\nQ. To whom did the busses belong? To the Gauleiter\u2019s office?\n\nA. These busses were owned by the transport company. The Sick Transport\nCompany in Berlin. Some of the personnel remained in Hadamar.\n\nQ. Was there no medical personnel?\n\nA. No. There was no medical personnel.\n\nQ. You said something about the excesses with reference to the program.\n\nA. One must differentiate between how things were until the action was\nstopped in 1941, and how it was later on.\n\nQ. What excesses do you know of before the action was stopped in 1941?\n\nA. You mean individually?\n\nQ. Yes, in your institution.\n\nA. There were none at all in our institution. The people were\ntransported away.\n\nQ. You acted according to directives?\n\nA. Yes. I personally was not in charge of this action. My chief was in\ncharge. But as far as I know no excesses were committed by the nursing\npersonnel. Of course, some of the obstinate patients refused to enter\nthe busses. That is natural.\n\nQ. Were these all extreme cases which were sent for under this\nEuthanasia Program?\n\nA. Of course, it depends where the limit is drawn. One can maintain the\nview that a large part of the patients, perhaps, might have undergone a\ncertain change through modern shock treatment or some other modern\nmethod of treatment. But with those cases there in which the mental\ndisease was in a very advanced stage, in my opinion, most of the\npatients no longer had any chance to enjoy life.\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[118]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Witness, you are charged with participation in the\nEuthanasia Program. I shall show you the decree of 1 December [1\nSeptember] 1939. (_NO-630, Pros. Ex. 330._) Please describe how this\ndecree came about.\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: After the end of the Polish campaign in about\nOctober [sic], the Fuehrer was at Obersalzberg. I was called to him for\nsome reason which I can no longer remember and he told me that because\nof a document which he had received from Reichsleiter Bouhler, he wanted\nto bring about a definite solution in the euthanasia question. He gave\nme general directives on how he imagined it, and the fundamentals were\nthat insane persons who were in such a condition that they could no\nlonger take any conscious part in life were to be given relief through\ndeath. General instructions followed about petitions which he himself\nhad received, and he told me to contact Bouhler himself about the\nmatter. I did so by telephone on the same day, and I then informed\nHitler about my conversation with Bouhler. Thereupon he drafted a\nformulation of this decree, not in the form we have here, but in a\nsimilar form, and certain changes were made. My request was that a\nprecaution be introduced because of the medical participation, and I\nused an expression for this which was familiar to me from expert\nopinions. It stated that euthanasia could be carried out on persons and\nthen comes the formulation \u201cwho are incurable with a probability\nbordering on certainty.\u201d Since this formulation was strange to him, \u201con\nthe most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness\u201d was added.\nTherefore, when this decree was signed about the end of October, the\ntext read as follows: \u201cReichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged\nwith the responsibility of extending the authority of certain doctors,\nto be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to\nhuman judgment, are incurably sick, can, on the most careful diagnosis\nof their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death.\u201d\n\nQ. Did you talk to Bouhler?\n\nA. At first I only talked to Bouhler on the telephone and even after the\ndecree was signed I did not talk to him immediately but sent the signed\ndecree to him in Berlin.\n\nQ. And what was Hitler\u2019s idea of euthanasia? What did he understand by\nit?\n\nA. The decisive thing for him was also expressed here in the decree,\nnamely, that incurably sick persons\u2014actually it should have read insane\npersons\u2014other persons were absolute exceptions\u2014could be accorded a\nmercy death. That is, therefore, a measure dictated by purely humane\nconsiderations, and nothing else could be thought under any\ncircumstances, and nothing else was ever said to me.\n\nQ. You said that the Fuehrer gave you the assignment on the basis of a\ntelephone call from Bouhler? The call from Bouhler could not have been\nthe only reason. There must have been others.\n\nA. It was not a telephone call. There was some kind of a documentary\nincident which was decisive. It may be that the Fuehrer already had\nthese documents or that Bouhler spoke to him again about them. I don\u2019t\nknow exactly. But this was not the cause of the Euthanasia Program being\nstarted. In his book, \u201cMein Kampf,\u201d Hitler had already referred to it in\ncertain chapters, and the law for the \u201cprevention of the birth of\nchildren suffering from hereditary diseases\u201d is a proof that Hitler had\ndefinitely concerned himself with such problems earlier. The law for the\n\u201cprevention of the birth of children suffering from hereditary diseases\u201d\nis actually a law which followed the events. It certainly arose because\nchildren with congenital diseases existed. Proof that this is a problem\nwhich affects the whole world lies in the fact that similar laws with\nsimilar formulation and contents have been passed in other countries.\n\nDr. Gerhardt Wagner, who was Dr. Conti\u2019s predecessor, discussed these\nquestions at the Party rally in Nuernberg. I did not talk to Gerhardt\nWagner at that time and had nothing to do with these things. However, I\nhear now that in 1935 Gerhardt Wagner had a film made presenting the\nproblem of the insane. Apparently the film was made in asylums with\ninsane persons.\n\nQ. Witness, did not the requests received by Bouhler and the Fuehrer\nplay a certain part?\n\nA. Requests to this effect were certainly constantly received by\nBouhler, and the Chancellery of the Fuehrer always received such things.\nI only know that these requests were afterwards passed on to the Reich\nMinistry of the Interior. I myself know of one request which was sent to\nthe Fuehrer himself through his adjutant\u2019s office in the spring of 1939.\nThe father of a deformed child approached the Fuehrer and asked that\nthis child or this creature should be killed. Hitler turned this matter\nover to me and told me to go to Leipzig immediately\u2014it was in\nLeipzig\u2014to confirm the fact on the spot. It was a child who was born\nblind, an idiot\u2014at least it seemed to be an idiot\u2014and it lacked one\nleg and part of one arm.\n\nQ. Witness, you were speaking about the Leipzig affair, about this\ndeformed child. What did Hitler order you to do?\n\nA. He ordered me to talk to the physicians who were looking after the\nchild to find out whether the statements of the father were true. If\nthey were correct, then I was to inform the physicians in his name that\nthey could carry out euthanasia.\n\nThe important thing was that the parents should not feel themselves\nincriminated at some later date as a result of this euthanasia\u2014that the\nparents should not have the impression that they themselves were\nresponsible for the death of this child. I was further ordered to state\nthat if these physicians should become involved in some legal\nproceedings because of this measure, these proceedings would be quashed\nby order of Hitler. Martin Bormann was ordered at the time to inform\nGuertner, the Minister of Justice, accordingly about this case.\n\nQ. What did the doctors who were involved say?\n\nA. The doctors were of the opinion that there was no justification for\nkeeping such a child alive. It was pointed out that in maternity wards\nunder certain circumstances it is quite natural for the doctors\nthemselves to perform euthanasia in such a case without anything further\nbeing said about it. No precise instructions were given in that respect.\n\nQ. Was this problem of deformities dealt with anywhere else?\n\nA. The problem of deformities was probably discussed before this Leipzig\ncase. However, in the course of the summer it was worked on in a more\nconcrete form, first of all by the Ministry of the Interior. In this\ncase, Dr. Linden participated as a special consultant, probably as\nrepresentative of Dr. Conti\u2014who became Reich Minister for Health after\nthe death of his predecessor Wagner, and then afterwards State Secretary\nin the Ministry of the Interior.\n\nQ. Who was Dr. Linden?\n\nA. Dr. Linden was Ministerialrat in the Reich Ministry of the Interior.\nHe was a doctor and was the competent official who was later in charge\nof this office for the mental institutions, perhaps he already was at\nthe time, I don\u2019t know exactly. Later on, during the treatment of the\neuthanasia question he was appointed exponent of all these matters.\n\nQ. What was the procedure at the time? Was Hitler informed about all\nthese matters?\n\nA. In August 1944 he ordered me to participate in a conference which\ntook place between Dr. Linden, Mr. Bouhler, and some other people. The\nquestion of the registration of these deformities was discussed, and\nalso how to set about this registration. Dr. Linden, on behalf of the\nMinistry of the Interior, submitted pertinent documents, questionnaires,\netc., which were then discussed once more in detail. It was the\npreparatory work for the Reich Committee for the Registration of Serious\nHereditary and Constitutional Diseases, which was subsequently\nestablished.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Now, Witness, this is the first time that I have ever heard\nmentioned in connection with the Euthanasia Program that anybody\u2019s\nconsent had to be obtained, and I take it that it is a rather\nfundamental matter. Are you ready to swear to this Tribunal that the\nReich committee never performed euthanasia on children without obtaining\nthe consent of the parents of the child?\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I said yesterday that the approval of the parents\nwas necessary for the euthanasia of children, and I am of the opinion\nthat such approval was actually given.\n\nQ. Was the approval written approval or verbal approval?\n\nA. That I don\u2019t know. I cannot say.\n\nQ. Have you ever seen any written approval?\n\nA. I believe that during the first period when this authorization was\nsubmitted for signature to Bouhler and to me, all the other papers were\ntogether with it, such as approvals, etc. It may be that during the\nlater period we were only concerned with the authorization papers and\nthat the other papers were left with the Reich committee. However, I did\nsee such letters of approval but I don\u2019t believe that they were in\nwriting in every case. I think they were partly given orally through the\nlocal physician or some other agency which dealt with the case.\n\nQ. Well, Witness, let\u2019s look at this letter again. I find some\ndifficulty in reconciling your testimony about the necessity of consent\nby the relatives of the child with what\u2019s written here in this letter.\nFor example, the third line reads: \u201cIt seems that the relatives of Anna\nGasse tried to obtain her release by every possible means.\u201d If, Witness,\nit was necessary to obtain consent, why was there any question about\nreleasing Anna Gasse?\n\nA. I cannot say that either. According to my opinion, the child could\nnot be kept in an institution if the parents wanted it at home.\n\nQ. And the last sentence which reads, \u201cIf from a medical point of view\nsuch release is warranted, one could perhaps take into consideration\nwhether one should not perhaps comply with such request in the interest\nof the good reputation of the institution.\u201d Don\u2019t you find that language\njust a bit restrained, Witness?\n\nA. Yes. I think it is very restrained.\n\n-----\n\n[93] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 247, 301, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n[94] Defendant in case before International Military Tribunal. See Trial\nof the Major War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[95] Objection to admission in evidence sustained.\n\n[96] Ibid.\n\n[97] Objection to admission in evidence sustained.\n\n[98] Defendant (in absentia) before International Military Tribunal. See\nTrial of the Major War Criminals, vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[99] Code name for the killing of non-German nationals and Jews who were\ninmates of the concentration camps.\n\n[100] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XX, pp. 490-1, Nuremberg,\n1948.\n\n[101] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[102] United States _vs._ Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials\nof War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947.\n\n[103] Ibid.\n\n[104] Not introduced in evidence.\n\n[105] Not introduced in evidence.\n\n[106] United States _vs._ Alfons Klein, et al. See Law Reports of Trials\nof War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 46-54, London, 1947.\n\n[107] Ibid.\n\n[108] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947,\npp. 11220-11244.\n\n[109] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 298-301, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[110] Literally: Nonprofit Sick Transport Company.\n\n[111] German or of similar blood (of German blood), Jew, Jewish mixed\nbreed Grades I or II, Negro (mixed breed).\n\n[112] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Josef Altsetoetter, et\nal. See Vol. III.\n\n[113] Enclosures were not available.\n\n[114] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16, 17\nJan. 1947, pp. 1866-1946.\n\n[115] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 7, 8,\n9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 May 1947, pp. 7413-7772.\n\n[116] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 250, 252-253,\nNuremberg, 1947.\n\n[117] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 Jan\n1947, pp. 1816-1863.\n\n[118] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4,\n5, 6, 7 Feb 1947, pp. 2301-2661.\n\n\n\n\n E. Selections From Photographic Evidence\n of the Prosecution\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: INMATES OF THE DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP\n IN DIFFERENT STAGES OF SIMULATED ALTITUDE IN THE\n LOW PRESSURE CHAMBER\n DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41]\n\n[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41]\n\n[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-610, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 41]\n\nPOST-MORTEM DISSECTION OF HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTAL\nSUBJECTS SHOWING AIR BUBBLES IN BLOOD VESSELS\nIN SUBARACHNOID SPACE OF BRAIN AND UNDER PLEURA\nOF ANTERIOR CHEST WALL\n\n[Illustration: DOCUMENT NO-1080 A, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 A]\n\nEXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS MARIA KUSMIERCZUK WHO\nUNDERWENT SULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS\nWHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION\nCAMP\n\n[Illustration: EXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS MARIA KUSMIERCZUK WHO UNDERWENT\nSULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS WHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK\nCONCENTRATION CAMP\u2014Continued]\n\nDOCUMENT NO-1080 E\nPROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 E\n\nDOCUMENT NO-1080 F\nPROSECUTION EXHIBIT 219 F\n\n[Illustration: EXPOSURES OF THE WITNESS JADWIGA DZIDO WHO UNDERWENT\nSULFANILAMIDE AND BONE EXPERIMENTS WHILE AN INMATE OF THE RAVENSBRUECK\nCONCENTRATION CAMP]\n\nDOCUMENT NO-1082 A\nPROSECUTION EXHIBIT 214 A\n\nDOCUMENT NO-1082 C\nPROSECUTION EXHIBIT 214 C\n\n[Illustration: PHOSPHORUS BURNS ARTIFICIALLY INFLICTED ON\n INMATES OF THE BUCHENWALD CONCENTRATION CAMP\n DOCUMENT NO-579, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288]\n\n[Illustration: TANK CONTAINING FORMALDEHYDE FOR THE\n PRESERVATION OF CORPSES\n DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185]\n\n[Illustration: CORPSES ASSEMBLED IN TANKS PRIOR TO DISSECTION\n DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185]\n\n[Illustration: CORPSES ASSEMBLED IN TANKS PRIOR TO DISSECTION\u2014Continued\n DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185]\n\n[Illustration: CORPSE SHOWING INCISIONS IN PREPARATION FOR DISSECTION\n DOCUMENT NO-807, PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 185]\n\n\n\n\n VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON\n IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE\n\n\n A. Applicability of Control Council Law No. 10 to\n Offenses Against Germans During the War\n\n a. Introduction\n\nUnder count III of the indictment, \u201cCrimes against Humanity\u201d, the\nprosecution alleged that the defendants had engaged in medical\nexperiments \u201c_upon German civilians_ and nationals of other countries\u201d\nand that the defendants had participated in executing \u201cthe so-called\n\u2018euthanasia program\u2019 of the German Reich, in the course of which the\ndefendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings,\n_including German civilians_, as well as civilians of other nations\u201d.\n[Emphasis added.] Insofar as these offenses involved German nationals,\nthe defense argued that international law was not applicable. The\ndefense argued that under, the Charter annexed to the London Agreement,\ncrimes against humanity within the meaning of the Charter do not exist\nunless offenses are committed \u201cin the execution of, or in connection\nwith, any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal\u201d. Although the\nanalogous provision of Control Council Law No. 10 does not include the\nwords of limitation \u201cin the execution of, or in connection with any\ncrime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal\u201d, the defense argued that\nControl Council Law No. 10 was only \u201can implementation law\u201d of the\nLondon Agreement and Charter, and hence could not increase the scope of\nthe offenses defined by the London Charter. Pointing to the section of\nthe judgment of the International Military Tribunal entitled \u201cThe law\nrelating to war crimes and crimes against humanity\u201d,[119] the defense\nnoted that the IMT stated: \u201cto constitute crimes against humanity, the\nacts relied on before the outbreak of war must have been in execution\nof, or in connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the\nTribunal\u201d,[120] that is, crimes against peace or war crimes. Although\nthe indictment in the Medical Case did not allege that crimes were\ncommitted against German nationals before the outbreak of the war on 1\nSeptember 1939, the defense further argued that any offenses against\nGerman nationals committed after 1939 had not been shown to be \u201cin\nexecution of, or in connection with\u201d crimes against peace and war crimes\nand hence were not cognizable as crimes within the jurisdiction of the\nTribunal.\n\nExtracts from the closing statement of the prosecution appear below on\npages 910 to 915. A summation of the evidence on this question by the\ndefense has been taken from the closing brief for defendant Karl Brandt.\nIt appears below on pages 915 to 925.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION_[121]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Law of the Case_\n\nBefore proceeding to outline the prosecution\u2019s case, it may perhaps be\ndesirable to anticipate several legal questions which will undoubtedly\nbe raised with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity, as\ndefined in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. Law No. 10 is, of\ncourse, the law of this case and its terms are conclusive upon every\nparty to this proceeding. This Tribunal is, we respectfully submit,\nbound by the definitions in Law No. 10, just as the International\nMilitary Tribunal was bound by the definitions in the London Charter. It\nwas stated in the IMT judgment that:[122]\n\n \u201cThe jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in the Agreement\n and Charter, and the crimes coming within the jurisdiction of\n the Tribunal, for which there shall be individual\n responsibility, are set out in Article 6. The law of the Charter\n is decisive and binding upon the Tribunal * * *.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn outlining briefly the prosecution\u2019s conception of some of the legal\nprinciples underlying war crimes and crimes against humanity, I shall,\nwith the Tribunal\u2019s permission, adopt some of the language from the\nopening statement of the prosecution in the case against Friedrich\nFlick, et al., now pending before Tribunal IV. [See Vol. VI.] General\nTaylor there said\u2014\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cLaw No. 10 is * * * a legislative enactment by the Control\n Council and is therefore part of the law of and within Germany.\n One of the infirmities of dictatorship is that, when it suffers\n irretrievable and final military disaster, it usually crumbles\n into nothing and leaves the victims of its tyranny leaderless\n amidst political chaos. The Third Reich had ruthlessly hunted\n down every man and woman in Germany who sought to express\n political ideas or develop political leadership outside of the\n bestial ideology of nazism. When the Third Reich collapsed,\n Germany tumbled into a political vacuum. The declaration by the\n Allied Powers of 5 June 1945 announced the \u2018assumption of\n supreme authority\u2019 in Germany \u2018for the maintenance of order\u2019 and\n \u2018for the administration of the country\u2019, and recited that\u2014\n\n \u2018There is no central government or authority in Germany\n capable of accepting responsibility for the maintenance\n of order, the administration of the country, and\n compliance with the requirements of the victorious\n powers.\u2019\n\n \u201cFollowing this declaration, the Control Council was constituted\n as the repository of centralized authority in Germany. Law No.\n 10 is an enactment of that body and is the law of Germany,\n although its substantive provisions derive from and embody the\n law of nations. The Nuernberg Military Tribunals are established\n under the authority of Law No. 10,[123] and they render judgment\n not only under international law as declared in Law No. 10, but\n under the law of Germany as enacted in Law No. 10. The\n Tribunals, in short, enforce both international law and German\n law, and in interpreting and applying Law No. 10, they must view\n Law No. 10 not only as a declaration of international law, but\n as an enactment of the occupying powers for the governance of\n and administration of justice in Germany. The enactment of Law\n No. 10 was an exercise of legislative power by the four\n countries to which the Third Reich surrendered, and, as was held\n by the International Military Tribunal:[124]\n\n \u2018* * * the undoubted right of these countries to legislate for\n the occupied territories has been recognized by the civilized\n world.\u2019\u201d\n\nWar crimes are defined in Law No. 10 as atrocities or offenses in\nviolation of the laws or customs of war. This definition is based\nprimarily upon the Hague Convention of 1907 and the Geneva Convention of\n1929, which declare the law of nations at those times with respect to\nland warfare, the treatment of prisoners of war, the rights and duties\nof a belligerent power when occupying territory of a hostile state, and\nother matters. The laws and customs of war apply between belligerents,\nbut not domestically or among allies. Crimes by German nationals against\nother German nationals are not war crimes, nor are acts by German\nnationals against Hungarians or Romanians. The war crimes charged in\nthis indictment all occurred after 1 September 1939, and it is therefore\nunnecessary to consider the somewhat narrow limitation of the scope of\nwar crimes by the International Military Tribunal to acts committed\nafter the outbreak of war. One might argue that the occupations of\nAustria and the Sudetenland in 1938, and of Bohemia and Moravia in March\n1939, were sufficiently similar to a state of belligerency to bring the\nlaws of war into effect, but such questions are academic for purposes of\nthis case.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn connection with the charge of crimes against humanity, it is also\nanticipated that an argument will be made by the defense to the effect\nthat crimes committed by German nationals against other German nationals\ncannot constitute crimes against humanity as defined by Article II of\nControl Council Law No. 10 and hence are not within the jurisdiction of\nthis Tribunal. The evidence of the prosecution has proved that in\nsubstantially all of the experiments prisoners of war or civilians from\nGerman-occupied territories were used as subjects. This proof stands\nuncontradicted save by general statements of the defendants that they\nwere told by Himmler or some unidentified person that the experimental\nsubjects were all German criminals or that the subjects all spoke fluent\nGerman. Thus, for the most part, the acts here in issue constitute war\ncrimes and hence, at the same time, crimes against humanity. Certainly\nthere has been no proof whatever that an order was ever issued\nrestricting the experimental subjects to German criminals as\ndistinguished from non-German nationals. If, in this or that minor\ninstance, the proof has not disclosed the precise nationality of the\nunfortunate victims or has even shown them to be Germans, we may rest\nassured that it was merely a chance occurrence.\n\nBe that as it may, the prosecution does not wish to ignore a challenge\nto the jurisdiction of the Tribunal even though it is of minor\nimportance to this case. One thing should be made clear at the outset:\nWe are not here concerned with any question as to jurisdiction over\ncrimes committed before 1 September 1939, whether against German\nnationals or otherwise. That subject has been mooted and is in issue in\nanother case now on trial, but the crimes in this case all occurred\nafter the war began.\n\nMoreover, we are not concerned with the question whether crimes against\nhumanity must have been committed \u201cin execution of or in connection with\nany crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.\u201d The International\nMilitary Tribunal construed its Charter as requiring that crimes against\nhumanity be committed in execution of, or in connection with, the crime\nof aggressive war. Whatever the merit of that holding, the language of\nthe Charter of the International Military Tribunal which led to it is\nnot included in the definition of crimes against humanity in Control\nCouncil Law No. 10. There can be no doubt that crimes against humanity\nas defined in Law No. 10 stand on an independent footing and constitute\ncrimes _per se_. In any event, the crimes with which this case is\nconcerned were in fact all \u201ccommitted in execution of, or in connection\nwith, the aggressive war.\u201d This is true not only of the medical\nexperiments, but also of the Euthanasia Program, pursuant to which a\nlarge number of non-German nationals were killed. The judgment of the\nInternational Military Tribunal expressly so holds.[125]\n\nThus, it is clear that the only issue which is raised in this case as to\ncrimes against humanity is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over\ncrimes committed by Germans against Germans. Does the definition of\ncrimes against humanity in Control Council Law No. 10 comprehend crimes\nby Germans against Germans of the type with which this case is\nconcerned? The provisions of Law No. 10 are binding upon the Tribunal as\nthe law to be applied to the case.[126] The provisions of Section 1(c)\nof Article II are clear and unambiguous. Crimes against humanity are\nthere defined as\u2014\n\n \u201cAtrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder,\n extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture,\n rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any _civilian\n population_, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious\n grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the\n country where perpetrated.\u201d [Emphasis supplied.]\n\nThe words \u201cany civilian population\u201d cannot possibly be construed to\nexclude German civilians. If Germans are deemed to be excluded, there is\nlittle or nothing left to give purpose to the concept of crimes against\nhumanity. War crimes include all acts listed in the definition of crimes\nagainst humanity when committed against prisoners of war and the\ncivilian population of occupied territory. The only remaining\nsignificant groups are Germans and nationals of the satellite countries,\nsuch as Hungary or Romania. It is one of the very purposes of the\nconcept of crimes against humanity, not only as set forth in Law No. 10\nbut also as long recognized by international law, to reach the\nsystematic commission of atrocities and offenses by a state against its\nown people. The concluding phrase of the definition of crimes against\nhumanity, _which is in the alternative_, makes it quite clear that\ncrimes by Germans against Germans are within the jurisdiction of this\nTribunal. It reads \u201cor persecutions on political, racial, or religious\ngrounds _whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country\nwhere perpetrated_.\u201d This reference to \u201cdomestic laws\u201d can only mean\ndiscriminatory and oppressive legislation directed against a state\u2019s own\npeople, as for example, the Nuernberg Laws against German Jews.\n[Emphasis supplied.]\n\nThe matter is put quite beyond doubt by Article III of Law No. 10 which\nauthorizes each of the occupying powers to arrest persons suspected of\nhaving committed crimes defined in Law No. 10, and to bring them to\ntrial \u201cbefore an appropriate tribunal.\u201d Paragraph 1(d) of Article III\nfurther provides that\u2014\n\n \u201cSuch Tribunal may, in the case of crimes committed by persons\n of German citizenship or nationality against other persons of\n German citizenship or nationality, or stateless persons, be a\n German court, if authorized by the occupying authorities.\u201d\n\nThis constitutes an explicit recognition that acts committed by Germans\nagainst other Germans are punishable as crimes under Law No. 10\naccording to the definitions contained therein in the discretion of the\noccupying power. This has particular reference to crimes against\nhumanity, since the application of crimes against peace and war crimes,\nwhile possible, is almost entirely theoretical. If the occupying power\nfails to authorize German courts to try crimes committed by Germans\nagainst other Germans (and in the American zone of occupation no such\nauthorization has been given), then these cases are tried only before\nnon-German tribunals, such as these Military Tribunals.\n\nWhat would be the effect of a holding that crimes by Germans against\nGermans can under no circumstances be within the jurisdiction of the\nTribunal? Is this Tribunal to ignore the proof that tens of thousands of\nGermans were exterminated pursuant to a secret decree, because a group\nof criminals in control of a police state thought them \u201cuseless eaters\u201d\nand an unnecessary burden, or that German prisoners were murdered and\nmistreated by thousands in concentration camps, in part by medical\nexperimentation? Military Tribunal II in the Milch case held that crimes\nagainst nationals of Hungary and Romania were crimes against humanity.\nThere is certainly no reason in saying that there is jurisdiction over\ncrimes by Germans against Hungarians but not against Germans.\n\nThe judgment of the International Military Tribunal shows a clear\nrecognition of its jurisdiction over crimes by Germans against Germans.\nAfter reviewing a large number of inhumane acts in connection with war\ncrimes and crimes against humanity, the Tribunal concluded by saying\nthat\u2014\n\n \u201c* * * from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were\n committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against\n humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the\n indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did\n not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution\n of, or in connection with the aggressive war, and therefore\n constituted crimes against humanity.\u201d[127]\n\nSince war crimes are necessarily also crimes against humanity, the\nbroader definition of the latter can only refer to crimes not covered by\nthe former, namely, crimes against Germans and nationals of countries\nother than those occupied by Germany. Moreover, the prosecution in that\ncase maintained that the inhumane treatment of Jews and political\nopponents _in Germany_ before the war constituted crimes against\nhumanity. The Tribunal said in this connection\u2014\n\n \u201cWith regard to crimes against humanity there is no doubt\n whatever that political opponents were murdered in Germany\n before the war, and that many of them were kept in concentration\n camps in circumstances of great horror and cruelty. The policy\n of terror was certainly carried out on a vast scale, and in many\n cases was organized and systematic. The policy of persecution,\n repression, and murder of civilians in Germany before the war of\n 1939, who were likely to be hostile to the government, was most\n ruthlessly carried out. The persecution of Jews during the same\n period is established beyond all doubt.\u201d[128]\n\nThe Tribunal was there speaking exclusively of crimes by Germans against\nGermans. It held that such acts were not crimes against humanity, as\ndefined by the Charter, not because they were crimes against Germans,\nbut because they were not committed in execution of, or in connection\nwith, aggressive war. Indeed, the Tribunal went on to hold that the very\nsame acts committed after the war began were crimes against humanity. No\ndistinction was drawn between the murder of German Jews and Polish or\nRussian Jews. And, moreover, no distinction was drawn between criminal\nmedical experimentation on German and non-German concentration camp\ninmates or the murder of German and non-German civilians under the\nEuthanasia Program. The Tribunal held them all to be war crimes and/or\ncrimes against humanity.\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Punishable Crime Against Humanity_\n\nThe criminality of the crime against humanity is based on Law No. 10 of\nthe Control Council for Germany. Article II of this law states\u2014\n\n \u201c1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime:\n\n * * * * *\n\n _c._ Crime against humanity * * *.\u201d\n\nThe concept of the crime against humanity has not been established and\nit is questionable whether crimes against humanity according to Law No.\n10 also refer to such acts as have been committed on German nationals by\nGerman nationals. The decision of this question is of particular\nsignificance since the medical experiments with which the defendants are\ncharged and the mercy killings executed were, in the first place,\ncarried out on German nationals.\n\nThe question here is not to establish whether such acts are against\nhumanity but whether they are crimes against humanity punishable\naccording to Law No. 10 which were committed knowingly and willfully. If\nmeasures taken against German nationals do not come under the law, the\nevidence of the prosecution to be examined is restricted mainly to those\ncases in which certain foreigners were affected, and in addition,\nevidence must be produced proving that the defendant was aware of the\nfact that foreigners too had actually been involved by these measures.\n\nIt is to be understood from Law No. 10 that it is merely an\n_implementation law_ to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and the\nstatute belonging to it. This has been expressly stressed in the\nintroduction, and beyond that the London Statute and the Moscow\nDeclaration of 30 October 1943 have been declared inseparable components\nof the law according to Article I.\n\nThe legally pre-eminent London Statute therefore is decisive for the\ninterpretation of the substantive law. Article 6(c) of this statute\nprovides that crimes against humanity can be considered punishable only\nif they were committed \u201cin execution of or in connection with any crime\nwithin the jurisdiction of the Tribunal * * *\u201d. This jurisdiction,\nhowever, extends only to crimes against peace and to war crimes. The\npunishable crime against humanity, therefore, is restricted to the\nlatter. The prosecution, however, has only recently championed a\ndifferent opinion. In Case 5 before Tribunal IV, the case against Flick\nand others,[129] the prosecution declared in its opening statement on 19\nApril 1947 that the clause: \u201cin connection with a crime within the\njurisdiction of the tribunal\u201d has a different meaning from what it\nexpresses. The clause is to signify that the Tribunal is not to deal\nwith individual crimes but only with such crimes as have been committed\non _a large scale_ and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the\ntrial.\n\nThis meaning of the clause was not apparent to the International\nMilitary Tribunal, the prosecutors of the signatory powers at that time,\nnor to those who later commented on the verdict, and I do not believe\nthat one can agree with the newly established interpretation of the\nprosecution. The decision of the _International Military Tribunal_ is\nauthoritative for the interpretation since it was pronounced by the\njudges of the signatory powers who were expressly appointed for\napplication of the new law. _The high authority_ of the International\nMilitary Tribunal is emphasized by Ordinance 7, Article X, according to\nwhich its actual findings are binding for the later courts.\n\nThis International Military Tribunal, however, has ruled that the\npunishable crime against humanity is a _dependent, subsidiary crime_ and\nthat it can only be considered a crime if it has been committed in\nconnection with a war crime or a crime against peace. The verdict of the\nInternational Military Tribunal[130] in rejecting the criminality of\ncrimes against humanity committed prior to the war states the following:\n\n \u201cThe Tribunal is of the opinion that revolting and horrible as\n many of these crimes were, it has not been satisfactorily proved\n that they were done in execution of, or in connection with, any\n such crime.\u201d\n\nThe _prosecution before the International Military Tribunal_ has on its\npart endeavored to prove such a connection; this would not have been\nnecessary if it had not considered this connection a part of the\nspecification of the crime against humanity. Professor Donnedieu de\nVabres, the French judge of the International Military Tribunal,\nexpressed his attitude to this limitation of the punishable crime\nagainst humanity after the pronouncement of the verdict in a lecture\nquoted by the prosecution in the Flick case;[131] his opinion can be\nconsidered important. The French judge deplores the limitation of the\ncrime against humanity, but he confirms it. This limitation is no\nfigment of the imagination but the _necessary result_ of the prevailing\ninternational law; it has its origin in the concept of _sovereignty_.\n\nIt is the purport of the _Moscow Declaration_ and the London Statute,\nboth of which have been incorporated into Law No. 10, to deal only with\nthe crimes that affect the relations between nations. These relations\nare to be safeguarded and for that reason crimes are to be punished\nwhich are significant according to international law and which are\nconnected with war crimes and crimes against peace. The\n\u201c_international_\u201d crimes are to be punished.\n\nThis significance of the international crime to be understood from the\npoint of view of international law is especially clearly expounded in a\nbook written by Professor Trainin who was the official advisor on\njudicial matters for the _Soviet Union_ in the proceedings in Case I,\nthe International Military Tribunal. This is a book entitled \u201cThe\nCriminal Responsibility of the Hitlerites\u201d published by the Law\nInstitute, Academy of Science in the Soviet Union, through [edited by]\nthe academician Vishinsky. The book was written at the time the statute\noriginated. According to this, it is not the meaning and purpose of\n\u201cinternational criminal law\u201d to impose punishment for crimes which have\nno effect _beyond the borders of their own country_ and which do not\ninvolve the _sphere of international law_.\n\nThe fact that no thought was given to punishment of crimes committed\nwithin the borders of Germany is evident from the _Moscow Declaration_\nof 30 October 1943. In this declaration crimes are mentioned exclusively\nwhich have been committed in other countries to which the accused are to\nbe _returned_.\n\nIf there could still be doubts with regard to the interpretation of the\nsubsidiary nature of the crime against humanity, these doubts are\neliminated by the _Berlin Addendum Minutes_ [Zusatzprotokoll] added to\nthe statute, dated 6 October 1945. In these minutes the subsidiary\nnature of the crime against humanity is elucidated by means of a\n_correction_, the apparent insignificance of which is the very thing\nthat serves to emphasize its importance. According to this, the four\nAllied Main Powers, as the signatories of the statute, meet again only\nfor the purpose of transforming a _semicolon into a comma_ and it\nappears in the minutes that this was done because the meaning and\nintentions of the agreements and the statute require it.\n\nArticle 6 (c) of the statute was originally worded as follows and even\nat present is reproduced in many copies in the same form as far as\npunctuation is concerned:\n\n \u201c(c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination,\n enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed\n against any civilian population, before or during the war \u2018;\u2019 or\n persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in\n execution of or in connection with any crime within the\n jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the\n domestic law of the country where perpetrated.\u201d\n\nThe wording of the Berlin Addendum Minutes [Protocol] dated 6 October\n1945 in this context reads as follows:[132]\n\n \u201cWhereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of\n War Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in\n the English, French, and Russian languages,\n\n \u201cAnd whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the\n originals of Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter in the\n Russian language, on the one hand, and the originals in the\n English and French languages, on the other, to wit, the\n semicolon in Article 6, paragraph (c), of the Charter between\n the words \u2018war\u2019 and \u2018or\u2019, as carried in the English and French\n texts, is a comma in the Russian text,\n\n \u201cAnd whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy:\n\n \u201cNOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said\n Agreement on behalf of their respective Governments, duly\n authorized thereto, have agreed that Article 6, paragraph (c),\n of the Charter in the Russian text is correct, and that the\n meaning and intention of the Agreement and Charter require that\n the said semi-colon in the English text should be changed to a\n comma, and that the French text should be amended to read as\n follows:\n\n \u201c(c) LES CRIMES CONTRE L\u2019HUMANITE: c\u2019est \u00e0 dire l\u2019assassinat,\n l\u2019extermination, la r\u00e9duction en esclavage, la d\u00e9portation, et\n tout autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations\n civiles, avant on pendant la guerre, ou bien les pers\u00e9cutions\n pour des motifs politiques, raciaux, ou r\u00e9ligieux, lorsque ces\n actes ou pers\u00e9cutions, qu\u2019ils aient constitu\u00e9 ou non une\n violation du droit interne du pays o\u00f9 ils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 perp\u00e9tr\u00e9s ont\n \u00e9t\u00e9 commis \u00e0 la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la comp\u00e9tence\n du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime.\n\n \u201cIn witness whereof the Undersigned have signed the present\n Protocol.\n\n \u201cDone in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October 1945,\n each in English, French, and Russian, and each text to have\n equal authenticity.\n\n For the Government of the United States of America:\n [Signature] ROBERT H. JACKSON\n For the Provisional Government of the French Republic:\n [Signature] FRAN\u00c7OIS DE MENTHON\n For the Government of the United Kingdom of\n Great Britain and Northern Ireland:\n [Signature] HARTLEY SHAWCROSS\n For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics:\n [Signature] R. RUDENKO\u201d\n\nObviously it was no printing error which simply would have been\ncorrected. This is rather a _carefully thought out limitation_ on the\npart of the Signatory Powers which was _clarified_ unmistakably. Without\nthis limitation, a _precedent_ of decisive significance would have been\ncreated for _international law_ for the possibility would have existed\nto prosecute at any time alleged crimes against humanity in a different\ncountry. According to this, the socialist states would have assailed the\nsocial conditions in capitalistic countries as crimes against humanity,\nand vice versa the capitalistic states could have replied to the\nmeasures of the socialist countries with an _intervention_ as\nexperienced by the young Bolshevist Revolution in 1919. Precisely that\nhowever was to be prevented by not recognizing an independent crime\nagainst humanity for the protection of sovereign states. Professor\nDonnedieu de Vabres has particularly mentioned this point of view in his\nlecture _as a decisive point of view of the International Military\nTribunal_.\n\nThe same restrictive view of this question is taken in the latest\n_International Law of the United Nations Organization_ (UNO), Chapter I,\nArticle 2, paragraph 7 of the resolution of San Francisco, concerning\nthe establishment of UNO, dated 26 June 1945, reads that an\n_interference_ in matters which are within the jurisdiction of the\ncountry is _inadmissible_. Accordingly it is a fixed principle of\ninternational law even today that proceedings within a state cannot\nentail sanction; spoken in the words of the statute, there are no\nindependent crimes against humanity, which might be punished as\ninternational crimes.\n\nThe opinion of Hugo Grotius and his numerous adherents is rejected and\nis no longer valid as international law today. _Interventions from\npoints of view of humanity are declined_, as their motive seems\nsuspicious to the states.[133]\n\nDecisive alone is the practice of the members of the _body of the\nnations who have agreed on international law_\n(Voelkerrechtsgemeinschaft) and the existing agreements on international\nlaw.\n\nThese _legal realities_ must be contrasted with the extravagant opinion,\nwhich believes that the protection of humanity can only be safeguarded\nby a kind of international sovereignty limited by the sovereignty of the\nindividual states. This would be an aim which we would most sincerely\ndesire to attain, but practice shows that there are plenty of crimes\nagainst humanity even today, but _no institution_ which has the power to\npunish them. There will never be such an institution, except insofar as\nit concerns the totally _vanquished after a total war_, to which in the\nfuture every war must lead.\n\nAnother point of view is quoted too which, in face of the decision of\nthe IMT and while avoiding a precedent, will make crimes against\nhumanity independent, at least insofar as application in Germany is\nconcerned, with the effect that crimes of Germans against Germans could\nbe punished by the military tribunals of the occupying power.\n\nIt is maintained that the _authority of the Control Commission_ for\nGermany _with regard to national law_ gave them the power to extend the\nscope of punishment for crimes against humanity, independent of the\nstatute. This is opposed by the elementary principle of international\nlaw that the _legislative authority_ of an occupying power _only_ begins\n_with the moment of occupation_ and therefore can have _no retrospective\nforce_. This principle is not in opposition to the theory that\ninternational law acknowledged a so-called \u201c_retrospectiveness_\u201d for war\ncrimes in a wider sense, for this retrospectiveness only refers to the\n\u201c_international crimes_\u201d which are effective outside of one\u2019s own\ncountry and have an immediate influence from the point of view of\ninternational law. There it serves to carry through international penal\nlaw, the realization of which would _otherwise be impossible_. Here the\nso-called retrospectiveness means nothing else but that international\nlaw takes precedence over national law. This international point of view\ncan have no value for national law.\n\nIf a different rule were in operation, all persons who supported the\npolitical opponent, i. e., the so-called \u201c_patriots_\u201d might be punished\nafter the occupation of a country, and Hitler\u2019s Commissar Order\n[Kommissar-Befehl] according to which all active Communists were to be\nshot, would be sanctioned, because they were Communists and because of\nthat were declared enemies of mankind, i. e. \u201ccriminals against\nhumanity.\u201d\n\nSuch a _checking of the \u201cmorals\u201d_ of the enemy seems inadmissible; the\nchecking of the conditions in one\u2019s own country is a matter for the\npeople itself; the latter may, on account of its laws, or in a\nrevolution, prosecute its compatriots itself, on the grounds of their\nbehavior. The IMT kept just to this fundamental idea of the statute and\none cannot push this law aside arbitrarily by declaring on political\ngrounds that _in order to secure peace and democracy_ all actions\ncommitted formerly in the country must be punished as crimes against\nhumanity.\n\nBy such an interpretation of the authority in national law you would\nplace yourself in strong opposition to the _proclamation of General\nEisenhower_ on the occasion of the occupation of Germany; this was\nincorporated in Law No. 1 of Military Government, and the following was\ndecreed under threat of death in case of violation:\n\n \u201cAccusation may only be brought in, sentence only be passed and\n punishment be inflicted, if a law which was in force at the time\n when the act was committed expressly declares this action\n punishable. Punishment of acts as a result of application of\n analogy or according to the opinion of the \u2018sound popular\n feeling\u2019 is prohibited.\u201d\n\nThen attempts were made to support the unlimited legislative right of\nthe occupying power by other means, and they referred to a\n\u201c_debellatio_\u201d or \u201c_quasi-debellatio_\u201d or to the fact that Germany had\n_capitulated unconditionally_.\n\nDisregarding the fact that no _debellatio_ is in hand and that only the\nAllies pronounce themselves occupying powers, and, without mentioning\nthat Grossadmiral Doenitz[134] _had no valid authority_ to renounce the\nprotective international law for the German people, the valid law is\nclearly laid down in the _Hague Convention_. The regulations contained\nthere in _Chapter III_ have been created just for a capitulation\nsituation and regulate the _right of occupation_.\n\nUnconditional capitulation does not mean renunciation of the protection\nof international law nor submission to arbitrariness and illegality; but\n_capitulation within the framework of the war conventions_, i. e.,\nwithin the framework of the Hague Convention.\n\nThese provisions of the Hague Convention are not only valid for the time\nof actual fighting, but must be valid also for the _time after cessation\nof the actual hostilities_ until the peace treaty. The fundamental idea\nof the Hague Convention is the protection of the population against the\narbitrariness of the enemy, and it cannot be permitted that after\ncessation of hostilities _stricter rules_ may be applied to the\ninhabitants of an occupied territory _than during the time of actual\nfighting_. In the time when the occupying power hardly seems endangered\nany more the arbitrariness of a belated punishment of political\nopponents for actions, which they did in their own country according to\nthe laws of their own country, must not rule.\n\nLaw No. 10 cannot disregard this international law, which was\nacknowledged by the International Military Tribunal after it had been\nissued and this Tribunal will have to check the _authority of the\nControl Commission_ and watch that no measures are taken of which the\nparticipating peoples of the Signatory States are not informed\nofficially, as the decisive laws were submitted to _no special\nratification_.\n\nThus we come to the conclusion that the crime against humanity _of Law\nNo. 10_ must be the _same as that of the statute_. Bound to a war crime\nit cannot be applied to actions of Germans against Germans. Connected\nwith a _crime against peace_ you can imagine such crimes against\nGermans, but these crimes must be in the execution of or in connection\nwith a crime against peace. So at least there must be a _close\nconnection_ with a _certain crime_.\n\nCertainly it cannot be sufficient, therefore, that an act against a\nGerman is committed during a war and objectively furthered the war, but\nthe perpetrator _must have known_ that his action was in _connection_\nwith a certain crime against peace, even if he himself were not guilty\nof it. Without this limit, all hard measures, which are taken during a\nwar even against one\u2019s own population, as for example against\nconscientious objectors and saboteurs, ought to be punished as crimes\nagainst humanity in connection with a crime against peace, if this war\nis declared to be an aggressive one by the enemy, after it has been\nlost.\n\nTherefore _certain_ things must be in hand which make the crime\n_obvious_ and prove the connection. If you were to decide otherwise the\nwell-formulated specifications of the statute would be superfluous, and\nlikewise the protection of the population by the Hague Convention would\nbe set aside in an inadmissible way, as the execution of every ordered\nwar measure can be declared \u201cinhuman\u201d. This interpretation of the\nsubsidiary nature of the crime against humanity is confirmed, if one\nascertains what _the real crime against humanity_ itself is _primarily_\nsupposed to be.\n\nIn the Flick[135] case the prosecution tried to make a definition from\nArticle 6 (c) of the statute. They referred to the clause \u201c_in\nconnection with a_ crime within the jurisdiction of the court\u201d, and\ninterpreted this as follows: That crimes of especially _large\nproportions_ must be in question, since the International Military\nTribunal should only deal with such. Such an interpretation cannot be\nmaintained, as the International Military Tribunal is competent for _the\nmost insignificant war crime too_, and for every crime against peace,\nregardless of its dimensions.\n\nIt must be admitted that the statute _does not contain a definition at\nall_ and that characteristics of a crime against humanity are _not\nstipulated_. If you want to find such a specification for an independent\ncrime against humanity, which is detached from crimes against peace and\nwar crimes, you can only fall back on the notorious \u201c_sound feeling_\u201d\nand you will get lost in the void, because its limits are not fixed, but\nshift according to the _political wish_.\n\nHere you can point to the fact that Germany\u2019s unrestrained _U-boat war_\nduring the First World War was then pilloried as a _crime against\nhumanity_ and caused America to enter the war. During World War II,\nhowever, the same manner of warfare was used by the USA against Japan;\nthis was cleared up before the International Military Tribunal by an\naffidavit of Admiral Nimitz.[136]\n\nThe answer to the question as to what the crime against humanity itself\nconsists of can only be given from the _examples of the statute_ and can\nbe supported by the _interpretation_ which the International Military\nTribunal has given. According to this the _crime against humanity_ is\nthe _aggravation_ of a war crime or a crime against peace. It differs\nfrom these crimes by its _dimension_, its _system_, and the _manner_ of\nexecution. This can be deduced from the wording of the text of the\nstatute where as typical examples are quoted: \u201cextirpation, enslavement,\ndeportation\u201d.\n\nIn cases of crimes against humanity, according to this, actions must be\nin question which are punishable in themselves already, but in addition\nto this go further and are extended, so that they are _\u201cqualified\u201d\ncrimes_. The dimension of the crimes is confirmed by the _wording of the\nRussian text_, which does not mention \u201chomicide\u201d but \u201chomicides\u201d in the\nplural, and not \u201cpersecution\u201d but \u201cpersecutions\u201d in the plural. The\nRussian text of Law No. 10 is worded similarly.\n\nThis opinion is confirmed in two places by the decision of the\nInternational Military Tribunal. The question of crimes against humanity\nis specially dealt with there in the section \u201cWar Crimes and Crimes\nagainst Humanity\u201d,[137] and in the section \u201cThe Law Relating to War\nCrimes and Crimes against Humanity\u201d.[138] Here the actions which are\npronounced as _crimes against humanity_ are characterized as perpetrated\n\u201c_on a large scale_\u201d and as \u201cmethodically\u201d and \u201csystematically\u201d\nexecuted. They are called \u201cterror politics\u201d and are called \u201cterrible and\nbrutal\u201d as well as \u201cutterly ruthless\u201d, \u201cdeterrent and horrible\u201d. Not\nisolated murder nor isolated imprisonment nor the isolated boycotting of\na Jew is meant, but only a _general measure_ which violates \u201cthe most\nelementary laws of humanity\u201d.\n\nThese are not actions which an _individual_ can execute _alone_; he\nneeds _organized_ help for that. _Therefore_ the _perpetrator can only\nbe a commander_; he who obeys is his tool and can only become a\npunishable assistant. Here the individual does _not_ act _from his own_\ncriminal _motive_, but he acts according to order and higher\ninstruction. Therefore the _motive_ of the action is basically\n_political_. Above all, the Hague Convention had in mind common _crimes\nof individuals_, which are rejected by the states themselves and which\nthey themselves prosecute by penal law in the interest of humanity. For\nthis purpose the states had issued corresponding national laws.\n\nIn the development of this idea, it is from now on a question of\npreventing political measures, which are _methodically carried through\nby the state_, by international penal law, i. e., measures which are\nrejected by the International Military Tribunal as \u201cbarbaric methods\u201d\nand as \u201cmethods for breaking every resistance.\u201d\n\nThe rejection of such methods as crimes against humanity was expressed\nfor the first time in _the Hague Convention [Annex] in Article 22_,\naccording to which the belligerent nations have no unlimited right in\nthe choice of means for doing damage to the enemy. Now the perpetrators\nof these actions are to be _punishable_.\n\nWhich means are still permitted in battle, however, and which methods\nare still admissible, can only be gathered from the practice of the\nstates. If you look for an independent _measuring rod for humanity_, you\nmust establish that things seem still admissible which force us to stop\na moment. The destruction of hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of an\nunprotected city by bomb carpets and the use of the atomic bomb makes a\ndiscussion rather senseless, as humanity did not object to these\nhorrors, which in future will even be surpassed.\n\n_This measuring rod must_ not be forgotten if you proceed to the\njudgment of the crimes against humanity of which people are accused\nhere. If such monstrosities are deemed admissible on one side, while\nsimilar actions on the part of the enemy are condemned, the _judgment_\nof humanity can only depend on the approval or disapproval of the\n_purpose and aim_, and thereby loses the name of justice.\n\nThe firm ground on which the punishable crime against humanity rests,\ncan only be the _proved war crime_ or a _definite crime against peace_.\n\n-----\n\n[119] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, pp. 253-255, Nuremberg,\n1947.\n\n[120] Ibid., p. 254.\n\n[121] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[122] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 218, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[123] Control Council Law No. 10, Article III, par. 1(d) and 2, Military\nGovernment Ordinance No. 7, Article II.\n\n[124] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 218, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[125] Ibid., pp. 231, 247, 252, 254, 301.\n\n[126] Ibid., pp. 174, 253.\n\n[127] Ibid., pp. 254, 255.\n\n[128] Ibid.\n\n[129] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.\n\n[130] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 254, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[131] Lecture of Professor Donnedieu de Vabres, Association des Etudes\nInternationales \u201cLe Proc\u00e8s de Nuremberg.\u201d Library of the International\nMilitary Tribunal XII 259.\n\n[132] Translation of Protocol in this brief differed from original\nEnglish copy. Authentic English version has been inserted here.\n\n[133] Compare literature of the Soviet Union. (_Karl Brandt 188_ [not\nintroduced in evidence].)\n\n1. History of the all-Soviet Communist Party (Bolshevists). Under the\neditorial management of the commission of the Central Committee of the\nCommunist Party 1938 (Bolshevists) approved by the Central Committee of\nthe Communist Party OGIS State Publishing Office for Political\nLiterature 1945, chapter 8:\n\n \u201cThe party of the Bolshevists during foreign military\n intervention and the Civil War 1918-1920, page 215.\n\n2. \u201cIntervention,\u201d play in 4 acts by Salawin [Slavin] 1940, Moskau\n[Moscow]-Leningrad (_Karl Brandt 127_ [not introduced in evidence]).\n\n[134] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[135] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick, et al. See Vol. VI.\n\n[136] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVII, pp. 377-381,\nNuremberg, 1948.\n\n[137] Ibid., vol. I, pp. 226-228.\n\n[138] Ibid., vol. I, pp. 253-255.\n\n\n B. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates\n\n a. Introduction\n\nDefendants who were in high positions in the German medical service\nrejected responsibility for the alleged criminal conduct of their\nsubordinates. The prosecution argued that it \u201cwould be an unforgivable\nmiscarriage of justice to punish the doctors who worked on the victims\nin the concentration camps while their superiors, the leaders,\ninstigators, and organizers go free.\u201d The prosecution, for example,\nargued that Karl Brandt held supreme authority over all medical services\nin Germany, both military and civilian; that Handloser was the Chief of\nthe Medical Services in the Wehrmacht; that Rostock was Karl Brandt\u2019s\ndeputy charged with the task of \u201ccentrally coordinating and directing\nthe problems and activities of the entire medical and health service\u201d in\nthe field of science and research; that Schroeder was the Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe; that Genzken was the Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Waffen SS; that Blome was the Deputy Reich Health\nLeader; and that these men were clearly responsible for the acts of\ntheir subordinates in their respective sectors.\n\nThe prosecution\u2019s summation of evidence on this question has been taken\nfrom the closing statement which appears below on pages 926 to 936.\nExtracts from the final pleas for the defendants Karl Brandt, Schroeder,\nRostock, and the closing briefs for Handloser, Genzken, and Blome appear\non pages 936 to 957.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[139]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Responsible Leaders of the Medical Services_\n\nIn view of the clear and overwhelming proof, it can only be concluded\nthat the practice of experimentation on concentration camp inmates\nwithout their consent was an organized and systematic program. It is,\ntherefore, appropriate to consider whether we have in this dock the\nleaders of the German medical services without whom these crimes would\nnot have been possible. It would be an unforgivable miscarriage of\njustice to punish the doctors who worked on the victims in the\nconcentration camps while their superiors, the leaders, organizers, and\ninstigators go free. It has been established beyond controversy that\nthese things could not have happened without cover from the top. Who,\nthen, were these men on the top? Their survivors, with one exception,\nare all in this dock.\n\nIn the number one seat we have the defendant Karl Brandt. He held\nsupreme authority over all the medical services in Germany, both\nmilitary and civilian. He joined the Nazi Party in January 1932 and the\nSS in 1934, in which he rose to the rank of Gruppenfuehrer [Major\nGeneral]. In the latter year, at the age of 30, he became the attending\nphysician to Adolf Hitler and retained this position until 1945. His\nclose personal relationship to the Fuehrer explains his rapid rise to\npower. On the day Poland was invaded in 1939, Hitler ordered Brandt and\nPhilipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, to carry\nout the so-called Euthanasia Program.\n\nAside from his personal influence and intimate connection with Hitler,\nBrandt\u2019s greatest power in the medical services came from his position\nas General Commissioner and later Reich Commissioner of the Health and\nMedical Services. As a result of the disastrous winter campaign in the\nEast in 1941, Hitler established for the first time a medical and health\nofficial under his direct control by decree of 28 July 1942. This decree\nmade Brandt the supreme authority over all medical services in Germany.\nIt stated in part as follows:\n\n \u201cI empower Professor Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me\n personally and receiving his instructions directly from me, to\n carry out special tasks and negotiations, to readjust the\n requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc.,\n between the military and the civilian sectors of the Health and\n Medical Services.\n\n My plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services is to be kept\n informed about the fundamental events in the Medical Services of\n the Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He is\n authorized to intervene in a responsible manner.\u201d (_NO-080,\n Pros. Ex. 5._)\n\nBy the same decree chiefs were also commissioned for the Medical\nServices of the Wehrmacht and the Civilian Health Service. The defendant\nHandloser became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, while\nDr. Leonardo Conti, State Secretary for Health and the Reich Health\nLeader, was made Chief of the Civilian Health Services. Brandt was the\nsuperior of both Handloser and Conti, and through them had extensive\npowers over the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS, and Civilian Medical\nServices. Brandt stood at the apex of power. He was subordinated to no\none save the Fuehrer. He was the man to act for the Fuehrer in medical\nmatters. The decree authorized Brandt \u201cto intervene in a responsible\nmanner\u201d and directed that he be kept informed of \u201cfundamental events\u201d.\nCertainly nothing could be more fundamental than a policy of performing\nmedical experiments involving the torture and death of involuntary human\nsubjects.\n\nOn 5 September 1943 Hitler issued a second decree empowering Brandt\n\u201cwith centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities\nof the entire medical and health services * * *\u201d. (_NO-081, Pros. Ex.\n6._) The order expressly stated that Brandt\u2019s authority covered the\nfield of medical science and research. Shortly following the issuance of\nthis decree, the defendant Rostock was appointed by Brandt as Chief of\nthe Office for Science and Research, with plenary powers in that field.\n\nFinally, on 25 August 1944, the Fuehrer elevated Brandt to Reich\nCommissioner for the Health and Medical Services and stated that in this\ncapacity \u201chis office ranks as highest Reich authority.\u201d Brandt\u2019s\nposition was thus equivalent to that of a Reich Minister. He was\nauthorized \u201cto issue instructions to the offices and organizations of\nthe State, Party, and Wehrmacht, which are concerned with the problems\nof the Medical and Health Services\u201d. (_NO-082, Pros. Ex. 7._) It is\nclear that this decree was issued to resolve a struggle for power\nbetween Brandt and Conti. Certainly the decree does no more than give\nBrandt a more august title and restate his powers, powers which he had\nalready received as early as July 1942. Brandt testified that it merely\n\u201cstrengthened\u201d his position. A service regulation issued by Keitel for\nHandloser, as Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, at a time\nwhen Brandt was still General Commissioner, provided that Handloser was\nsubject to the \u201cgeneral rules of the Fuehrer\u2019s Commissioner General for\nthe Medical and Health Services\u201d and that Brandt had to be informed of\nthe \u201cbasic events\u201d in the field of the Medical Services of the\nWehrmacht. In a pretrial affidavit the defendant Handloser stated that\nafter he became Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht on 28\nJuly 1942 \u201cBrandt was my immediate superior in medical affairs.\u201d\n(_NO-443, Pros. Ex. 10._) Schroeder stated that \u201cKarl Brandt, Handloser,\nand Rostock were informed of the medical research work conducted by the\nLuftwaffe.\u201d (_NO-449, Pros. Ex. 130._) In addition to his position as\nGeneral and Reich Commissioner of the Health and Medical Services,\nBrandt was also a member of the Presidential Council of the Reich\nResearch Council, an organization which gave financial support for\ncriminal experiments.\n\nIn the number two seat is the defendant Handloser who held supreme power\nover the medical services of all branches of the Wehrmacht. Early in\n1941 he was appointed Army Medical Inspector and Army Physician [Army\nMedical Chief (Heeresarzt)]. He held these positions until September\n1944 and as such had complete command over the entire Army Medical\nServices which was by far the largest of the medical branches of the\nWehrmacht. In his capacity as Army Medical Inspector, Handloser had\nsubordinated to him the Consulting Physicians of the Army, the Military\nMedical Academy, the Typhus and Virus Institutes of the OKH at Krakow\nand Lemberg [Lvov], and the Medical School for Mountain Troops at St.\nJohann. He attained the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt, the highest\nmilitary medical rank.\n\nOn 28 July 1942, Handloser was elevated to the newly created position of\nChief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. This was the same decree\nwhich appointed Brandt General Commissioner, to whom Handloser, on the\nmilitary side, and Conti, on the civilian side, were subordinated.\nHandloser was charged with the coordination of the Medical Services of\nthe Wehrmacht and all organizations and units subordinated or attached\nto the Wehrmacht, including the Medical Services of the Waffen SS. Prior\nto this decree there were four separate medical branches of the\nWehrmacht, the Army, Luftwaffe, Navy, and Waffen SS, each operating\nindependently of the other. Pursuant to this decree, Handloser was\nappointed to coordinate and unify their operations and was directly\nresponsible to Keitel as Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht\n(OKW). He had authority over the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe,\nand Waffen SS Medical Services, and all organizations and services\nemployed within the framework of the Wehrmacht, and over \u201c_all\nscientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical institutions\nof the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS_.\u201d [Emphasis\nadded.] (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11._) He was the adviser of the Chief of the\nSupreme Command and of the Wehrmacht in all questions concerning the\nmedical services of the Wehrmacht and of its health guidance. In the\nfield of medical science, his duties were to carry out uniform measures\nin the field of health guidance, _research and combating of epidemics_,\nand all medical matters which required a uniform ruling among the\nWehrmacht, and further, _in the evaluation of medical experiences_.\n\nOne of the principal means used by the defendant Handloser in\ncoordinating scientific research was the joint meeting of consulting\nphysicians of the four branches of the Wehrmacht. At the Second Meeting\nEast of Consulting Physicians in December 1942 at the Military Medical\nAcademy, Handloser himself pointed out quite clearly the task of the\nChief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht in unifying medical\nscientific research. In addressing the full meeting he said:\n\n \u201cThe demands and extent of this total war, as well as the\n relationship between needs and availability of personnel and\n material, require measures, also in military and medical fields,\n which will serve the unification and unified leadership. It is\n not a question of \u2018marching separately and battling together\u2019,\n but marching and battling must be done in unison from the\n beginning in all fields.\n\n \u201cAs a result, with respect to the military sector, the Wehrmacht\n Medical Service and with it the Chief of the Medical Services of\n the Wehrmacht came into being. Not only in matters of personnel\n and material\u2014even as far as this is possible in view of special\n fields and special tasks which must be considered\u2014but also with\n a view to medical scientific education and research, our path in\n the Wehrmacht Medical Service must and will be a unified one.\n Accordingly, the group of participants in this Second Work\n Conference East, which I have now opened, is differently\n composed from the First Work Conference in May of this year.\n Then it was a conference of the army; today the three branches\n of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and Police, the Labor Service\n and the Organization Todt are participating and unified.\n\n \u201cYou will surely permit that I greet you with a general welcome\n and with the sincere wish that our common work may be blessed\n with the hoped for joint success.\n\n \u201cI would, however, like to extend a special greeting to the\n Reich Chief of Health Services, Under Secretary Conti, who holds\n the central leadership of medical services in the civilian\n sector. I see in his presence not only an interest in our work\n themes, but the expression of his connection with the Wehrmacht\n Medical Service and his understanding of the special importance\n of the Wehrmacht in the field as well as at home. I need not\n emphasize that we are as one in the recognition of the necessity\n to assure and ease the mind of the soldier, that he need not\n worry about the physical well-being of the homeland as far as\n this is within the realm of possibility in wartime.\u201d (_NO-922,\n Pros. Ex. 435._)\n\nAgain, at the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians in May 1944 the\ndefendant Karl Brandt stressed the importance of Handloser\u2019s position,\nsaying\u2014\n\n \u201cGeneraloberstabsarzt Handloser, you, a soldier and a physician\n at the same time, are responsible for the use and the\n performance of our medical officers.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cI believe, and this probably is the sole expectation of all\n concerned, that this meeting which today starts in Hohenlychen\n will be held for the benefit of our soldiers. The achievements\n to date of your physicians, Herr Generaloberstabsarzt, confirm\n this unequivocally, and their readiness to do their share makes\n all of us proud and\u2014I may also say\u2014confident.\n\n * * * * *\n\n \u201cIt is good simply to call these things by their names and to\n look at them as they are. This meeting is the visible expression\n of it\u2014it is, it shall be, and it must be so in every respect;\n the consulting physicians are gathered around their medical\n chief. When I look at these ranks, you Generaloberstabsarzt\n Handloser, are to be envied; medical experts, with the best and\n most highly trained special knowledge, are at your disposal for\n care of the soldiers. In reciprocal action between yourself and\n your medical officers, the problem of our medical knowledge and\n capacity are kept alive.\u201d (_NO-924, Pros. Ex. 437._)\n\nThis was no accolade paid to a man without power and influence. If\nHandloser is not responsible for the crimes committed by the medical\nservices of the Wehrmacht, and especially of the Army and Luftwaffe,\nthen no one is responsible.\n\nIn the number three seat we have the defendant Rostock who, as Brandt\u2019s\nspecial deputy, was charged with the task of \u201ccentrally coordinating and\ndirecting the problems and activities of the entire Medical and Health\nServices\u201d in the field of science and research. Even prior to his\nappointment to that position in the fall of 1943, Rostock was one of the\nresponsible leaders of the German medical profession. In 1942 he was\nappointed Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. In\nthe same year he became consulting surgeon to Handloser as the Army\nMedical Inspector. He attained the rank of Generalarzt. As Chief of the\nOffice for Science and Research under Brandt, it was Rostock\u2019s task to\ncoordinate scientific research in Germany. He received reports as to the\nissuance of research assignments by the various agencies in Germany and\ndetermined which of such assignments should be considered \u201curgent\u201d. He\nalso served as Brandt\u2019s alternate on the Reich Research Council.\n\nIn the number four seat we have the defendant Schroeder, who from 1\nJanuary 1944 until the end was the Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe. From 1935 until February 1940 Schroeder was Chief of Staff to\nhis predecessor, Erich Hippke as Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. From\nFebruary 1940 until January 1944 he served as Air Fleet Physician of Air\nFleet 2, when he replaced Hippke as Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe. Simultaneously he was promoted to the rank of\nGeneraloberstabsarzt. As Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe,\nall medical officers of the German Air Force were subordinated to him.\nHis position and responsibility are clear and unequivocal.\n\nIn seat number five is the defendant Genzken, who, as Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Waffen SS, was one of the highest ranking medical\nofficers in the SS. He joined the Nazi Party in 1926 and in 1936 he went\non active duty with the SS in the Medical Office of the SS Special\nService [disposal] Troops [SS Verfuegungstruppe], which subsequently\nbecame the Waffen SS. In the spring of 1937 the Medical Office of the SS\nwas enlarged and split into two departments. Genzken was made director\nof the department charged with the supply of medical equipment to and\nthe supervision of medical personnel in the concentration camps. In this\ncapacity he was the medical adviser to the notorious Eicke, predecessor\nof Pohl as the commander of all concentration camps. Sachsenhausen,\nDachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenbuerg, and Neuengamme, among\nothers, were under the medical supervision of Genzken. Few men could\nhave been better advised as to the systematic oppression and persecution\nof the hapless prisoners of these institutions.\n\nIn May 1940, Genzken became Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS\nin the SS Operational Headquarters, with the rank of Oberfuehrer. The SS\nOperational Headquarters was subordinated to Gruppenfuehrer Hans\nJuettner and was one of the twelve main offices of the Supreme Command\nof the SS. While Juettner was Genzken\u2019s military superior, his technical\nor medical superior was Reichsarzt SS Grawitz for whom he served as\ndeputy on many occasions. In 1942 his position became known as Chief of\nthe Medical Service of the Waffen SS, Division D of the SS Operational\nHeadquarters. He attained the rank of Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and\nGeneralleutnant of the Waffen SS [major general]. Among the offices\nsubordinated to Genzken was that of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical\nService under Blumenreuter and Hygiene under the defendant Mrugowsky.\nMrugowsky was attached to Genzken\u2019s office as a hygienist in 1940 and\nwas at the same time Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS\nwhich, in turn, was subordinated to Genzken. On 1 September 1943, the\nMedical Service of the SS was reorganized and, among other things,\nBlumenreuter, Mrugowsky, and the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS were\ntransferred to the Office of the Reichsarzt SS, Grawitz. Thereafter the\ndirect subordination was to Grawitz rather than to Genzken.\n\nAnd then there is the defendant Blome, Gruppenfuehrer [Major General] in\nthe SA, Deputy Reich Health Leader, Deputy Leader of the Reich Chamber\nof Physicians and the National Socialist Physicians Association,\nRepresentative for the Department of Medical Study, Plenipotentiary in\nthe Reich Research Council, and Chief of Research on Bacteriological\nWarfare. As the closest associate of Conti, he cannot be omitted from\nthe list of the powerful. Conti was the highest authority in the field\nof civilian health administration. The decree of 28 July 1942, signed by\nHitler, concerning the reorganization of the medical services, defines\nthe position of Conti as follows:\n\n \u201cIn the field of civilian health administration the State\n Secretary in the Ministry of Interior, and the Chief of the\n Health Administration of the Reich [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer],\n Dr. Conti, is responsible for coordinated measures. For this\n purpose he has at his disposal the competent departments of the\n highest Reich authorities and their subordinate offices.\u201d\n (_NO-080, Pros. Ex. 5._)\n\nThere was not a single medical question which did not reach the Reich\nHealth Department of the Nazi Party and the Reich Chamber of Physicians,\nsubordinated to which were all physicians in Germany, with the exception\nof those on active Service with the armed forces and in the SS. As a\nmember of the Reich Research Council, Blome was personally connected\nwith plans and enterprises involving criminal medical experimentation.\n\nThese were the responsible leaders of the medical services of Germany.\nWho, then, is missing from this illustrious gathering? During the course\nof the trial, we have frequently heard mentioned the names of Conti and\nGrawitz. Indeed, the defendants would have us believe that in these two\nmen, together with Hitler and Himmler, resided the exclusive\nresponsibility for the manifold crimes with which we are here concerned.\nI hardly need call attention to the fact that all are dead. All of them\ntook their own lives rather than face the bar of justice. No one can\ndeny that those men were, indeed, guilty. But this in no way serves to\nexonerate these defendants, who all played important roles in the mad\nscheme. It is a curious thing that not one of the defendants has pointed\nan accusing finger at a living man. If they are to be believed, all the\nguilty parties to these crimes are dead. According to them, justice must\nseek retribution only from the cadavers. The Luftwaffe defendants have\nbeen strangely silent as to Hippke, who, but for a belated capture,\nwould have a prominent seat in the dock. Those defendants who worked\nwith the dead criminals\u2014such as Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick\nwith Grawitz, and Blome with Conti\u2014ask the Tribunal to say that their\nassociation was honorable and pure, that their work was in another\nfield, that their masters\u2019 crimes come as a great surprise and were\nnever known to them. The evidence proves, however, that they not only\nknew of and supported these crimes, but also took a personal part in\nthem.\n\nIn connection with the responsible positions of these defendants and\nmost particularly of Karl Brandt and his assistant Rostock, Handloser,\nSchroeder, Genzken, and Blome, I wish to call the Tribunal\u2019s attention\nto the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of\n_In re Yamashita_.[140] On 25 September 1945, Yamashita, the Commanding\nGeneral of the Fourteenth Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in\nthe Philippine Islands was charged with violation of the laws of\nwar.[141] He thereafter pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty as\ncharged, and sentenced to death by hanging. A petition for a writ of\nhabeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court purporting to show that\nYamashita\u2019s detention was unlawful for the reason, among others, that\nthe charge preferred against him failed to charge him with a violation\nof the laws of war.\n\nThe charge stated that Yamashita, between 9 October 1944 and 2 September\n1945, in the Philippine Islands, \u201cwhile commander of armed forces of\nJapan at war with the United States of America and its Allies,\nunlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to\ncontrol the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to\ncommit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against people of the\nUnited States and of its Allies and dependencies, particularly the\nPhilippines; and he * * * thereby violated the laws of war.\u201d The\nmilitary commission[142] which tried Yamashita found that atrocities and\nother high crimes had been committed by members of the Japanese Armed\nForces under his command, that they were not sporadic in nature but in\nmany cases were methodically supervised by Japanese officers, and that\nduring the period in question Yamashita failed to provide effective\ncontrol of his troops as was required by the circumstances. The Supreme\nCourt stated the question for their decision in the following language:\n\n \u201cIt is not denied that such acts directed against the civilian\n population of an occupied country and against prisoners of war\n are recognized in international law as violations of the law of\n war * * *. But it is urged that the charge does not allege that\n petitioner has either committed or directed the commission of\n such acts, and consequently that no violation is charged against\n him. But this overlooks the fact that the gist of the charge is\n an unlawful breach of duty by the petitioner as an army\n commander to control the operations of the members of his\n command by \u2018permitting them to commit\u2019 the extensive and\n widespread atrocities specified. The question then is whether\n the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such\n appropriate measures as are within his power to control the\n troops under his command for the prevention of the specified\n acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely\n to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled\n soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal\n responsibility for his failure to take such measures when\n violations result.\u201d\n\nThe Court held that the charge was sufficient and that the law of war\n\u201cplainly imposed on petitioner, who at the time specified was military\ngovernor of the Philippines, as well as commander of the Japanese\nforces, an affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his\npower and appropriate in the circumstances to protect prisoners of war\nand the civilian population. This duty of a commanding officer has\nheretofore been recognized, and its breach penalized by our own military\ntribunals.\u201d\n\nThis decision is squarely in point as to the criminal responsibility of\nthose defendants in this dock who had the power and authority to control\nthe agents through whom these crimes were committed. It is not incumbent\nupon the prosecution to show that this or that defendant was familiar\nwith all of the details of all of these experiments. Indeed, in the\nYamashita case, there was no charge or proof that he had knowledge of\nthe crimes. In the case before the International Military Tribunal,\nproof was submitted that the Reichsbank, of which the defendant Funk was\npresident, had received from the SS the personal belongings of victims\nwho had been exterminated in concentration camps. In that connection the\nTribunal said in its judgment:\n\n \u201cFunk has protested that he did not know that the Reichsbank was\n receiving articles of this kind. The Tribunal is of the opinion\n that he either knew what was being received or was deliberately\n closing his eyes to what was being done.\u201d[143]\n\nBut we need not discuss the requirement of knowledge on the facts of\nthis case. It has been repeatedly proved that those responsible leaders\nof the German medical services in this dock not only knew of the\nsystematic and criminal use of concentration camp inmates for murderous\nmedical experiments, but also actively participated in such crimes. Can\nit be held that Karl Brandt had no knowledge of these crimes when he\npersonally initiated the jaundice experiments by Dohmen in the\nSachsenhausen concentration camp and the phosgene experiments of\nBickenbach? Can it be found that he knew nothing of the criminal\nEuthanasia Program when he was charged by Hitler with its execution? Can\nit be said that Handloser had no knowledge when he participated in the\nconference of 29 December 1941 where it was decided to perform the\nBuchenwald typhus crimes, when reports were given on criminal\nexperiments at meetings called and presided over by him? Was Rostock an\nisland of ignorance when he arranged the program for and presided over\nthe meetings at which Gebhardt and Fischer lectured on their\nsulfanilamide experiments, when he classified as \u201curgent\u201d the criminal\nresearch of Hirt, Haagen, and Bickenbach? Did Schroeder lack knowledge\nwhen he personally requested Himmler to supply him with inmates for the\nsea-water experiments? Can it be found that Genzken had no knowledge of\nthese crimes when the miserable Dr. Ding was subordinated to and\nreceived orders from him in connection with the typhus experiments in\nBuchenwald, when his office supplied Rascher with equipment for the\nfreezing experiments? Was Blome insufficiently informed in the face of\nproof that he collaborated with Rascher in the blood coagulation\nexperiments, issued a research assignment to him on freezing experiments\nand to Hirt on the gas experiments, as well as performed bacteriological\nwarfare and poison experiments himself?\n\nNo, it was not lack of information as to the criminal program which\nexplains the culpable failure of these men to destroy this\nFrankenstein\u2019s monster. Nor was it lack of power. Can anyone doubt that\nKarl Brandt could have issued instructions to Handloser and Conti that\ndoctors subordinated to them were not to experiment on concentration\ncamp inmates? It is no excuse to say that Hitler and Himmler approved\nthe policy and that his efforts may have failed. Certainly they approved\nit. But the fact is that Brandt also approved of and personally\nparticipated in the program. He was the \u201chighest Reich authority\u201d in the\nmedical services, not Himmler. The medical services were Brandt\u2019s\nprimary function, while Himmler had a few other tasks to keep him busy,\nsuch as running the SS, the Ministry of Interior, the German Police, and\nthe Home Army, to mention a few.\n\nNothing could have been easier for Handloser than to issue a general\ndirective that officers of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht were to\nkeep out of concentration camps. If he could not have done so, then we\nmust conclude that no one could have. Handloser had no peer in the\nmilitary medical services. And what Handloser could have done for all\nthe branches of the Wehrmacht, Schroeder, Genzken, and Blome could have\ndone with respect to the Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS, and the Reich Health\nDepartment.\n\nThe conclusion is inescapable that the crimes of these responsible\nleaders is a hundredfold greater than that of the wretches who executed\nthe murderous experiments in the concentration camps. Theirs was the\npower, the opportunity, and the duty to control and their failure is\ntheir everlasting guilt.\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n KARL BRANDT_[144]\n\n * * * * *\n\nTo what extent is the defendant Karl Brandt implicated in the medical\nexperiments?\n\nThe prosecution says he is implicated in almost all of them and refers\nto his position and his connections. They state that he was the highest\nReich authority in the medical sphere; there, however, they are misled\nby an error of the translator, for Karl Brandt only had the powers,\nregulated in a general way, of an \u201cOberste Reichsbehoerde\u201d [highest\nReich agency], but the execution of these powers was restricted to\nspecial cases.\n\nThis appears from the three known decrees and from the explanation\nthereof given by the witnesses. Moreover Karl Brandt was not given these\nfunctions until 1944, when these experiments were practically finished,\nas is shown by the time schedule submitted to the Tribunal for\ncomparison.\n\nIt has been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt himself in a broadcast\npublicly called his position as Reich Commissioner that of a\n\u201cdifferential\u201d (coordinator). In fact, Karl Brandt\u2019s task was not to\norder but to adjust; it was a task designed to fit his character.\n\nWe have also learned from the presentation of evidence that the\ndefendant Karl Brandt did not have the machinery at his disposal for\nissuing orders which was necessary for a supreme Reich authority; he\nlacked the staff and the means. No one who is acquainted with a\ngovernment administration will think it possible under these\ncircumstances that the defendant Karl Brandt might have been able to\nenforce his point of view against the resistance of the old agencies; no\none will even think it probable that anything would have been done to\nfacilitate such an attempt of the \u201cnew master.\u201d\n\nConsequently, Karl Brandt\u2019s position was not such as to justify the\nconclusion drawn by the prosecution about his general knowledge. There\nwas no official channel by which everything had to come to his\nknowledge, for he was not the superior of other authorities.\n\nIt is true that the defendant Karl Brandt was supposed to be informed\nabout fundamental matters, that he had the right to intervene, etc. But\nthese were only possibilities, not in conformity with conditions in\npractice. We have seen that Conti opposed him and that Himmler\nprohibited direct contact with Karl Brandt within his sphere.\n\nTherefore, Karl Brandt can be brought into connection only with the\nevents in which he participated directly.\n\nHere it is striking first of all that the defendant Karl Brandt, who is\nsupposed to have been the highest authority, appears only very rarely.\n\n * * * * *\n\nNow the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of Karl Brandt\nwith the other experiments via the Reich Research Council. It is true\nthat one can establish such a connection theoretically on paper, but the\nlinks of the chain break when one examines them closely. Only the head\nof the specialized department [Fachspartenleiter] judged the so-called\nresearch assignments, and he only investigated whether the aim was\nnecessary for war, not how the experiment was to be carried out. He\ncould not inform others of matters which he did not get to know himself.\n\nThe defendant Karl Brandt is charged further with not having protested\nin one case when he heard about deaths caused by experiments on persons\nsentenced to capital punishment in the well-known lecture on\nsulfanilamide. I must point out that even if this experiment had been\ninadmissible, silence would not be a crime for assent after the act is\nwithout importance in criminal law and one can be connected with plans\nand enterprises only as long as they have not come to an end.\n\nNow the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief the new charge\nby which it holds the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for negligence.\nIn this respect I should like to point out that no indictment for\nnegligence has been brought in and that the concept of a crime against\nhumanity committed by negligence cannot exist.\n\nIt will, therefore, be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged\nnegligence depends on the existence of an obligation of supervision and\nthe right to give orders through other agencies. In every state the\nspheres of competency are separated and it is not possible for everyone\nto interfere in everything because everyone is responsible for\neverything.\n\nThe prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used\nhis influence and have availed himself of his intimate relationship to\nHitler to stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the\nfacts as crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal but only of a\npolitical or moral nature.\n\nTill now nobody has been held criminally responsible for the conduct of\na superior or a friend; however, the Tribunal only has to consider the\nquestion of criminal law.\n\nBut in fact these close relations did not exist; the defendant Karl\nBrandt was the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr.\nMorell, the latter\u2019s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the\nconfidence placed in Karl Brandt so that he was charged with commissions\nwhich removed him farther and farther from the sphere of his medical\nactivity.\n\nThe alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation\nof a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted\neven a consultation on the charges advanced against him.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n SCHROEDER_[145]\n\n * * * * *\n\nYour Honors, a clear distinction must be made between the periods when\nProfessor Schroeder was not yet Chief of the Medical Service of the\nLuftwaffe and the time when he held that office. We are concerned here\nwith the period from the beginning of 1940 to the end of 1943. During\nthat period Professor Dr. Schroeder was the leading medical officer of\nAirfleet 2, and as such continually on service outside Germany. It was\nonly from 1 January 1944 onwards that he held the position of Chief of\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe.\n\nThis shows clearly that Professor Dr. Schroeder cannot be held\nresponsible for all experiments in concentration camps which were\ncarried out prior to 1 January 1944. His sphere of duties was confined\nto the medical care of the airfleet units under him and he was without\nany official points of contact with the Medical Inspectorate unless the\nlatter was competent for his position as an airfleet doctor.\n\nTo give a picture of Professor Schroeder\u2019s duties at that time, I draw\nattention to the fact that the personnel strength of Airfleet 2 amounted\nto 200,000 to 300,000 men.\n\nWhen dealing with Professor Schroeder\u2019s responsibility for the\nhigh-altitude experiments in Dachau, the prosecution had overlooked the\nfact that at the time in question, Professor Schroeder was airfleet\ndoctor and maintained that during that time he was, after Professor Dr.\nHippke, the Medical Chief, the second highest medical officer of the\nLuftwaffe. From that circumstance, the prosecution draws the inference\nthat Professor Schroeder, as the second highest medical officer, was the\nobvious deputy for Hippke and, therefore, had to know about the most\nimportant events concerning the Medical Inspectorate.\n\nThe defendant Professor Schroeder has in his defense proved beyond doubt\nthat he was not the most senior medical officer after Hippke and,\ntherefore, not Hippke\u2019s deputy. As Generalarzt and Generalstabsarzt he\nsimply had the rank next to that of the Medical Chief, as did the other\nfive airfleet doctors. Above him in rank were two Generalstabsaerzte,\nnamely Generalstabsarzt Dr. Neumueller and Dr. Blaul. The former had his\noffice in Berlin and was in fact Hippke\u2019s deputy if and when necessary.\n\nProfessor Dr. Schroeder has also refuted the further assumption of the\nprosecution that his relations with Professor Dr. Hippke had been\nparticularly close, for which reason Hippke had informed him about the\nhigh-altitude experiments. In particular the witness Dr. Augustinick,\nSchroeder\u2019s personal adjutant during his service as an airfleet doctor,\nconfirmed that relations between Hippke and Schroeder were extremely\ntense and unpleasant and that they confined themselves to discussing\nonly the necessary things on the occasion of their highly infrequent\nofficial meetings.\n\n * * * * *\n\nYour Honors, if one surveys the conduct of Professor Schroeder during\nthe entire period from 1940 until the end of the war, one will not be\nable to find one single piece of evidence to show that Professor\nSchroeder at any time or in any manner violated the duties which the\ncalling of a physician or medical ethics prescribed for him. In no\ninstance did he act in a manner which could not stand examination by a\ncourt. One may well claim that he never disregarded the maxim of\nHippocrates \u201cprimum nil nocere,\u201d but preserved it as a guiding principle\nof his actions as a doctor and officer of the medical services of the\nGerman Luftwaffe.\n\nThe prosecution has failed to prove that Schroeder ever ordered such an\nexperiment during the period of time covered by the charges of the\nprosecution, or that he participated or had knowledge of any such\nexperiment. It has not even been proved that it was possible or\nnecessary for him to gain knowledge of such experiments. Professor\nSchroeder has clearly explained why he could not gain such knowledge.\nFor the whole period of time from 1942 to the end of 1943 the\nresponsibility must rest on Professor Hippke, but not on Professor\nSchroeder.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n ROSTOCK_[146]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the opening statement General Taylor said that the Reich Commissioner\nfor the Medical and Health System was to be regarded as the supreme\nReich authority. (_Tr. p. 19._) The emphasis on this word is confusing\nand contradicts the authentic Document NO-082, Prosecution Exhibit 7\nwhich states, \u201cIn this capacity his agency is a supreme Reich\nauthority.\u201d In this decree, then, the word \u201cthe\u201d is missing. But this is\nmost essential. For the decree signifies that it is one of many \u201csupreme\nReich authorities,\u201d whereas the type of expression chosen by General\nTaylor must lead one to conclude that it was the only \u201csupreme Reich\nauthority\u201d in the Department of Health. But, as the evidence has shown,\nthis was not true. In his opening statement on 9 December 1946 (_Tr. p.\n19_) General Taylor said: \u201cRostock\u2019s position comprised the activities\nof the medical societies, the medical universities, and the Reich\nResearch Council.\u201d\n\nDuring this trial none of the numerous German medical societies, with\nthe exception of Ahnenerbe, have been attacked. I want to point out here\nthat, first of all, the Ahnenerbe cannot be considered as a medical\nsociety, as is proved beyond doubt by the plan of organization submitted\nto this Tribunal. (_Sievers 2, Sievers Ex. 4_; _Sievers 3, Sievers Ex.\n6_.) And let me point out that Rostock testified (_Tr. p. 3296_) that\nduring the war he did not know this society or even its name, and that\non 11 April 1947 the witness Sievers stated (_Tr. p. 5788_) that\nAhnenerbe\u2019s medical institutes for scientific research of military value\nwere not subordinate to the Commissioner General for the Medical and\nHealth System, that means, were not subordinate to the office directed\nby Rostock.\n\nNeither were the medical universities subject to his supervision. They\nwere subordinate to the Reich Ministry of Education.\n\nI shall deal with the Reich Research Council later on. First, I would\nlike to deal with the _Office for Science and Research_. As far as the\nincorporation into the German state machinery of the Office of the\nCommissioner General or the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and\nHealth Services is concerned, I refer to Dr. Servatius\u2019 statements.\n\nWithout a doubt, the prosecution has gained the wrong impression of the\nextent, actual activity, and influence on other agencies of the Office\nfor Science and Research.\n\nRostock has dealt with this question in detail during direct\nexamination. The Tribunal will certainly still have a recollection of\nhis statement. Rostock actually had no supervisory authority over\nresearch work of the branches of the Wehrmacht and the SS.\n\nBrandt\u2019s, and thus also Rostock\u2019s, commission did not comprise all\nmedical affairs but only special tasks as was testified quite clearly\nhere by the witness Lammers on 7 February 1947. (_Tr. p. 2667._) And the\nassignment given Rostock did not include supervision of practical\nresearch. (_Tr. p. 2449._) On 23 April 1947 Professor Rose quite\ncorrectly described the situation in Germany (_Tr. p. 6300_) when he\nsaid that the central planning of medical research in Germany is a\nphantom born 1\u00bd years after the end of the war. True, attempts were made\nto correct the impossible situation created by the lack of a central\ndirection of science in Germany. Attempts were made but the leading\nGerman politicians recognized the importance of science too late.\n\nGermany did not have an institution with the competency and the\nfinancial means of the American \u201cOffice of Scientific Research and\nDevelopment\u201d under Dr. Vannevar Bush which, under the direction of the\nsame man, was taken over into the United States\u2019 peace organization\nunder the name of \u201cJoint Research and Development Board.\u201d The\nrelationship of Rostock\u2019s agency to the SS must be discussed briefly,\nfor all experiments which play a part in these proceedings were, after\nall, carried out in concentration camps which came under the\njurisdiction of the SS. Rostock himself was never a member of the SS.\nApart from that, he had no other relations of any kind with the SS. When\nthe agency of the Commissioner General for the Medical and Health System\nwas created, Hitler, in the presence of Himmler, made it quite clear to\nKarl Brandt that in his (Karl Brandt\u2019s) capacity of Commissioner General\nthe SS was not his affair. (_Tr. p. 2324._) The practical execution of\nthis directive has been expressly confirmed by Genzken. (_Tr. p. 3780._)\nFurthermore, the decree of 25 August 1944 (_NO-082, Pros. Ex. 7_), which\nlists the agencies to which the Reich Commissioner for the Medical and\nHealth System could give directives, does not mention the SS. Genzken\nalso testified that no direct connections existed between Genzken\u2019s and\nBrandt\u2019s offices. According to the numerous affidavits submitted by\nGenzken (_Genzken 1, Genzken Ex. 3_; _Genzken 9, Genzken Ex. 9_;\n_Genzken 6, Genzken Ex. 10_; _Genzken 8, Genzken Ex. 11_; _Genzken 3,\nGenzken Ex. 12_; _Genzken 5, Genzken Ex. 13_; _Genzken 16, Genzken Ex.\n14_; _Genzken 17, Genzken Ex. 15_; _Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16_) only\nGrawitz was competent for scientific research within the SS. Genzken\nalso testified that Rostock never gave instructions in research affairs\nto the SS. (_Tr. p. 3780._)\n\nGebhardt testified on 4 March that Grawitz was never subordinate to Karl\nBrandt and that Brandt never even had the right to give directives to\nGrawitz. (_Tr. p. 3977._) He testified further that Himmler wanted to\ncreate a \u201cscience exclusively for the SS\u201d and that the university people\nhad resisted that attempt. However, Rostock must quite definitely be\nconsidered an exponent of university scientists. The proof for the\ncorrectness of Himmler\u2019s intention of a \u201cscience exclusively for the SS\u201d\nis contained in a letter, dated 22 September 1942, from SS\nGruppenfuehrer Berger to the Reich Leader SS. (_Karl Brandt 120, Karl\nBrandt Ex. 35._)\n\nWhen in the instruction of 15 May 1944 (_NO-919, Pros. Ex. 460_) Himmler\nfixed the formalities for the carrying out of experiments on prisoners,\nit was natural that the names of Rostock or Karl Brandt were not\nmentioned in it. This instruction was not sent to Karl Brandt even for\ninformation purposes as is revealed by the document itself. This should\nbe sufficient proof that Rostock had no influence on research activities\nwithin the SS or the concentration camps. During discussion of the\nindividual experiments it has already been pointed out that he did not\neven know of them.\n\nIn regard to research commissions given to the medical chiefs of the\nLuftwaffe, Schroeder had claimed (_NO-449, Pros. Ex. 130_)\u2014and during\ncross-examination he was again reproached for this document (_Tr. p.\n3695_)\u2014that all research assignments had to go through Rostock\u2019s\noffice. In his affidavit Schroeder testified that this was an erroneous\ndescription. (_Rostock 11, Rostock Ex. 10._) In another interrogation on\n27 February 1947 by Dr. Krauss (_Tr. p. 3695_) Schroeder expressly\nconfirmed the correctness of this affidavit. For it had only been agreed\nthat a carbon copy of the research commission given out would be sent to\nRostock. His approval of the assignment of commissions was not required.\nThe witness Wuerfler, too, confirmed this during his cross-examination\nby Dr. Krauss on 19 February 1947. (_Tr. p. 3142._) And in his\naffidavit, Becker-Freyseng testified that the Luftwaffe did not\ncommission Rostock\u2019s office to carry out research by way of experiments\non human beings. (_Rostock 10, Rostock Ex. 9._)\n\nDuring the hearing of evidence on 2 June 1947 in the case of\nBecker-Freyseng, it was discussed in detail how research commissions\nhappened to come about, how reports were made on them and that the means\nby which results were obtained were not prescribed; and that a real\ncontrol by the agency giving out the commissions was neither exercised\nnor possible. I refer to the transcript which contains significant\ntestimony in this connection. (_Tr. pp. 8317, 8320, 8321, 8324-8326._)\n\nAnd now I would like to turn to the problems connected with the _Reich\nResearch Council_. Here the prosecution has charged Rostock with\nresponsibility because from the beginning of 1944 on he was Brandt\u2019s\ndeputy in his capacity as a member of the presiding council of this\nbody. The fact itself is not, but the responsibility, especially in the\nsense of penal law or morals, must be denied. I deny the prosecution\u2019s\nassertion, leading up to Mr. McHaney\u2019s statement of 10 December 1946\n(_Tr. pp. 96 and 144_), that Rostock exercised a \u201csupervisory control\u201d\nover the Reich Research Council or\u2014on the occasion of submitting a\nletter from Rascher about freezing experiments (_NO-432, Pros. Ex.\n119_)\u2014that the \u201cReich Research Council as a whole is implicated in a\ncriminal manner.\u201d\n\nThe question of the Reich Research Council has been cleared up\nsufficiently during the examinations of Karl Brandt, Rostock, Blome,\nSievers, as well as by the affidavits of the Chief of the Managing\nCommittee of the Reich Research Council, Mentzel. (_Rostock 13, Rostock\nEx. 12_; _Sievers 42, Sievers Ex. 43_.) As the crux emerges in this\nconnection the fact that those responsible for the assignment of\nresearch commissions were, exclusively, the managers of the special\nsections and their authorized agents and plenipotentiaries who in turn\nwere directly responsible to Hermann Goering.[147] Rostock was not among\nthem. The members of the presiding board had no supervisory duty over\nand no right to issue directives to the managers of the special\nsections.\n\nThe members of the presiding board were informed about research carried\nout through the printed reports, the so-called \u201cRed Booklets.\u201d It can be\nassumed \u201cthat the prosecution is in possession of these booklets. The\nentire files of the Reich Research Council were handed over to the\nAmerican authorities by Professor Osenberg and some documents from these\nfiles have been submitted during this trial.\u201d\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf the \u201cRed Booklets\u201d contained a single paragraph which could be used\nto prove the prosecution\u2019s claims, it can be assumed with certainty that\nthese booklets would have been submitted here. But this was not done.\nFrom this the conclusion can be drawn with certainty that the members of\nthe Presiding Council of the Reich Research Council did not receive any\ninformation about criminal experiments. And, as quoted before in this\nconnection, Mr. McHaney himself admitted during the cross-examination of\nRostock that he did not believe that, for example, Haagen informed the\nReich Research Council about his experiments in the concentration camps.\n\nHaagen made detailed statements on the coming into being of research\ncommissions in general and, also in particular, on that of the\ncommissions he gave out, and on the right and the duty of control held\nby the agency giving the commission. (_Tr. pp. 9417-9419._)\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n HANDLOSER_\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is the duty of the Inspector of the Army Medical Service, as Chief of\nthe Army Medical Service, to insure within the scope of his official\nsupervision that the intermediate superiors are able to perform their\nduties. He also has to see to it that the military information and\nreport channels are well organized in order to guarantee the required\nsurvey of the _whole_ complex and the reporting and immediate\ninvestigation of unusual _individual_ cases. This requires the greatest\npossible care in the _selection_ of the subordinate leading medical\nofficers, as well as periodic inspections to be carried out by the\nofficers selected.\n\nProfessor Handloser has submitted an affidavit to this Tribunal\nconcerning the reporting systems pertaining to military medical matters\nof the Wermacht branches. (_Handloser 65, Handloser Ex. 62._)\n\nThis document reveals the exemplary organization of the Message and\nReport Organization, including the sphere of the consulting expert\nphysicians. The handling of the reports on \u201cspecial occurrences\u201d seems\nto me to be of special importance for the problem under discussion here.\nIt was a standing order for the whole Wehrmacht that every office,\nincluding the offices of the medical service, had to report to the\nsuperior office immediately and by the quickest method each occurrence\nof each circumstance outside the bounds of normal events. (_Handloser\n65, Handloser Ex. 62._)\n\nProfessor Handloser as Inspector of the [Army] Medical Service and\nSurgeon General [Army Medical Chief (Heeresarzt)] was the Chief of the\nMedical Service for all fronts and the zone of the interior and was\nresponsible to the Commander in Chief of the Army and to the Commander\nof the Replacement Army. The 26,500 medical officers of the army were\nsubordinated to him. His field of office and the extent of his work\nwere, therefore, extremely wide.\n\nTo handle such a large field of work properly\u2014in Handloser\u2019s case it\nalso included the office of the Chief of Army Medical Service\u2014a\ndivision of labor had to be made into time, space, and facts. The\norganization and the progress of work in the sphere of the Army Medical\nInspector and the Chief of the Army Medical Service was explained by\nProfessor Handloser in his affidavit. (_Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4._)\nAccording to this the basic and most important questions were dealt with\nand decided upon in any case by Professor Handloser as the chief of the\nhighest office. In this connection I refer to the testimony of Dr.\nWuerfler (_Tr. p. 3135_) and affidavit of Schmidt-Bruecken. (_Handloser\n62, Handloser Ex. 58._) Special attention has to be paid here to\nincoming mail (messages, reports, letters). In the Handloser affidavit\n(_Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4_), the following is stated:\n\n \u201cAll letters and packages, unless they were marked \u2018secret\u2019 or\n \u2018top secret\u2019 (Mil.) went to the registry. Here they were opened,\n the date stamp was affixed by the registrar who simultaneously\n marked the letter for delivery to the Chief of Staff, or to the\n various section chiefs direct. The Chief of Staff in turn marked\n those communications which were to be submitted to the medical\n chief with a cross in colored pencil.\n\n \u201cSecret and top secret (Mil.) material was handled in a special\n manner. This material was entered in a journal, and then\n directed to the attention of the Chief of Staff who in turn\n determined which documents were to be submitted to, or brought\n to the attention of, the medical inspector immediately or after\n they had been dealt with.\u201d\n\nThis arrangement could be made without prejudicing a regular settlement\nsince the authorities in question were under the command of specially\nqualified people (department chiefs) headed by the Chief of Staff who\nsupervised the daily business routine and was responsible for all\nbusiness matters.\n\nWith regard to Handloser it must be borne in mind that during the war he\nwas very rarely present in the head office (Berlin). Owing to\nHandloser\u2019s double function as an army doctor and Army Medical Chief,\nand furthermore as a result of the division of the Army Medical\nInspectorate into two parts for the front and the zone of the interior,\nHandloser necessarily had to spend most of his time at army headquarters\nand at the front. He could only be present in Berlin for about one-tenth\nof the time. (_Tr. p. 3135._) Furthermore, it became necessary to staff\nthe offices at home with specially qualified medical officers since they\nhad to act mainly on their own initiative in performing their tasks.\n\nThe Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate, for instance, was a\nGeneralarzt; the chiefs of the individual departments were Oberstaerzte.\nIn order to do justice to the burden and the responsibility which\nHandloser had been shouldering, one must visualize the tasks and scope\nof work connected with the Medical Inspectorate. Owing to the war these\ntasks had been intensified to the utmost limits, there was the expansion\nof the theaters of operation and the personal problems of 26,500 medical\nofficers. One will also realize that Handloser could only attend to the\nmost important and the most basic problems.\n\nThe Chief of Staff and the departmental chiefs, as was their duty,\ndetermined which matters were of sufficient basic and vital importance\nto be referred for decision to the Army Medical Chief.\n\nIt must be considered most unlikely for the highest authority (i. e.,\nthe chief) of a large sphere of activity to have knowledge of all\nhappenings within this sphere.\n\nFurthermore, actual facts do not confirm that the person exercising the\n_highest powers_ of command within the military hierarchy of the army is\nin some degree the originator of all orders executed by a subordinate in\nhis hierarchy. If an order has been issued, one must determine who of\nall the supervising chiefs of the offices in this hierarchy is the\noriginator responsible, under criminal law, for this order. If _no_\nspecial order was issued one must examine whether the incriminating\nbehavior on the part of the defendant personally was prompted by\ncircumstances within the scope of responsibility, under criminal law\n(such as orders and regulations which rendered possible the criminal\nbehavior of a subordinate or appropriate consent to commit the criminal\noffense, _before_ its initiation or its completion).\n\nOnly if the prosecution maintains and proves (_a_) that the behavior of\na subordinate constitutes a punishable offense, and (_b_) that _this_\naction in particular was the result of an order issued by the superior,\nor of his consent given prior to the offense, can the defendant be\ncharged as an abettor, offender, accomplice, or participator.\n\nThis exhausts all possible modes of behavior _prior_ to the criminal\noffense. Whatever happened afterwards _cannot_ have any relevant bearing\non this legal evidence. This is _impossible_ since all causality is\nlacking.\n\nWith regard to the question of a possible offense against the duties of\na supervisor, the following must be said: According to Art. 147 of the\nGerman Military Penal Code \u201cWhoever neglects to carry out the task\nincumbent upon him of supervising his subordinates either intentionally\nor through negligence\u201d is liable to punishment. According to German\ntheory and judicial practice, the application of this law presupposes\nthe existence of a _direct_ relationship between superior and\nsubordinate.\n\nIf anything inadmissible or punishable happens in the sphere of duty\nthis might be attributed to the fact that the supervising official\nneglected his duty, but it is also possible that it occurred through no\nfault of the supervising official. In the first instance the supervising\nofficial is liable to punishment according to Art. 147 of the Military\nPenal Code; this, however, does not apply in the latter case. The\nquestion only arises of whether in the former case the supervising\nofficial has to answer _before criminal law_ for the action of his\nsubordinate. This must be answered in the negative. An offense against\nthe duties of service supervision constitutes in itself an offense. It\ndoes _not_ automatically demand that the supervising official should be\npunished for the criminal offense committed by the subordinate, for\naccording to the criminal laws of all civilized countries, a person can\nonly be made responsible before criminal law for an offense committed by\n_himself_, i. e., if the supervising official can be considered an\naccomplice or participant in the crime of a subordinate. Only _thus_ can\nthe passage of count one, 3 of the indictment be understood. This\nprovides for a responsibility before criminal law for others, \u201cfor whose\nactions the defendants are responsible.\u201d\n\nThe prerequisites for this case have been set forth above.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_The position of Professor Handloser as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical\n Service_\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe prosecution asserts that Handloser as Chief of the German Armed\nForces Medical Service had the _supreme supervision_ and _command_ of\nthe medical services of the three branches of the armed forces as well\nas of the Waffen SS. This is a _fundamental_ error which is based on the\nincomprehensible statement of the chief prosecutor in his opening\nstatement:\n\n \u201cUnder the OKW came the High Commands of the three branches of\n the Wehrmacht\u2014the Navy (OKM), the Army (OKH), and the Air Force\n (OKL).\u201d\n\nFrom the verdict of the IMT, I quote the following in regard to the\nChief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces (OKW) who was the\nsuperior of the defendant Handloser:\n\n \u201cKeitel [as Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces]\n did not have command authority over the three Wehrmacht branches\n * * *.\u201d[148]\n\nFrom this the prosecution should have drawn the logical conclusion that,\nif the superior of Handloser, Keitel, had no powers of command over the\nthree branches of the armed forces and their supreme commanders, then\nProfessor Handloser, as his subordinate, also could have had no powers\nof command over the medical chiefs attached to the staff of the supreme\ncommanders. The evidence has corroborated this. (_Tr. pp. 2860-3,\n3129-30, 3219, 3557._)\n\nThe prosecution refers for proof of the contrary only to the statement\nof the former Air Force Chief Hippke in another trial. According to that\nHippke is supposed to have testified that Professor Handloser had been\nhis _professional_ superior. The incorrectness of this statement is\nproved by the opposing testimonies given under oath by Professor Dr.\nSchroeder who succeeded Hippke and of Generalarzt Dr. Hartleben (_Tr.\npp. 3219-20, 3225_), as well as of Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler (_Tr. pp.\n3129-30_). The evidence submitted, combined with the contents of the\ndecree of 1942, has shown that it was the duty of the Chief of the Armed\nForces Medical Service to direct the adjustment of _personnel_ and\n_material_ affairs within the branch of the armed forces as is evidenced\nby the first sentence of the decree. Within the scope of this sphere of\nduties, Professor Handloser was charged with the combination or\u2014as it\nwas generally called\u2014the coordination of all _common_ problems in the\nfield of the Armed Forces Medical Service. The task of coordination\ngiven Professor Handloser did not mean that thereby all common problems\nautomatically _came under his jurisdiction_. It was rather his duty to\nexamine _which_ part of the immense medical service was suitable for\ncoordination. Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler has aptly called this a \u201cprogram\nof future fields of endeavor\u201d. In this connection see also Professor\nSchroeder (_Tr. pp. 3557, 3558_). Whenever Handloser thought that a\ncertain department was suitable for coordination, he tried to reach an\nagreement with the medical chiefs of the branches of the armed forces;\nfor since he had no powers of command, the coordination could only take\nplace in conjunction with the medical chiefs. After coordination had\nbeen accomplished, he was empowered to issue \u201cdirectives\u201d in this field\nwhich did not have the character of an order. Hartleben replies to the\nquestion of my colleague Dr. Steinbauer:\n\n \u201cDirectives give general guiding principles, an order must be\n carried out to the letter.\u201d\n\nWuerfler expresses the same in the following manner:\n\n \u201cA superior has the authority to give orders. One can only speak\n of a right to issue directives where there exists no authority\n to give orders and no relationship of superiority.\u201d\n\nResearch is a field which by its nature is unsuitable for coordination.\nFor, while it is possible to alleviate personnel and material\ndeficiencies in the personnel and material fields of the medical service\nby coordination, or in other words to achieve a practical useful effect,\nsuch is not the case with respect to research. The prosecution also\nquestioned Professor Rostock regarding the problem of coordination in\nthe field of research and argued that through such a coordination, that\nis to say, such a concentration of research activities which were\ncarried on in various places, personnel and material could be allocated\nmore effectively. Professor Rostock has made some remarks on this\naccount which are of fundamental importance because they disprove the\nthesis of the prosecution with objectively convincing reasons. According\nto him, many conditions in the military and medical fields are suitable\nfor coordination, while research _cannot_ be coordinated. It is better\nfor the aim in view when _several_ scientists work on the _same_\nresearch subject, than if only one office were engaged in this activity.\nProfessor Rostock says quite rightly:\n\n \u201cIf someone were to say to me, give this matter all your\n attention, and the same thing is being worked on at this place\n and that, then, in all probability, I should have looked for\n reasons _why_ it was necessary for _both_ places to be doing the\n same thing.\u201d\n\nAnd again:\n\n \u201cI would regard it as an _absolute_ mistake to say to one\n scientist: You are not allowed to work on that any longer, the\n other one is working on that * * *.\u201d (_Tr. p. 3352._)\n\nWitness Hartleben, too, took the same point of view during\ncross-examination. (_Tr. p. 3217._) To the question of the prosecutor:\n\n \u201cWould it not have been the task of the Chief of the Armed\n Forces Medical Service to coordinate the separate research\n activities in the same field in order to make the most\n advantageous use of available personnel and material\u201d?\n\nhe replied:\n\n \u201cIn my opinion the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services\n must in such a case make an investigation; because it is after\n all the case in science and research that very often it becomes\n necessary to pursue many different ways in order to arrive at\n some aspired goal, and the case may occur\u2014and I can imagine it\n very well\u2014where it is desirable to have several scientists\n engaged on the same problem * * *.\u201d\n\nTherewith Rostock confirms the defense argument of Handloser on this\ncount. Summing up: The end aspired to by coordination\u2014saving of\npersonnel and material\u2014is incompatible with the very nature of\nsuccessful research. The order for the coordinating of personnel and\nmaterial can, therefore, never be applied to the field of research.\n\nQuite another thing is the creation of working groups within the same\nfield of research. The purpose of the creation of such a working group\nwas not to be a saving of personnel and material but mutual information\nand discussion in order to check how far the individual researchers had\nadvanced by different routes.\n\nSuch a measure proposes to counteract the exaggerated secrecy and\negotistical withholding of information often noticed in the field of\nresearch. Inventors and scholars regard their discoveries as\nrevolutionary. As prototypes of individualism they are intent on keeping\nthe details of their research secret even, or precisely, from other\nscholars who work in the same field. This fact is aptly characterized in\nthe document submitted by the prosecution. (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._) I\nquote from this letter of the former Chief of the Air Force Medical\nService, Dr. Hippke:\n\n \u201cThe difficulties exist in quite another field. They are\n questions involving the vanity of the individual scientists,\n each and every one of whom wants to obtain all the results of\n the research individually, and who often can only be brought to\n altruistic cooperative work with the greatest difficulties.\u201d\n\nThe Court will see from this that the creation of working groups in the\nfield of hepatitis research in accordance with the suggestion of Dr.\nSchreiber at the Breslau Hepatitis Conference in June 1944 had nothing\nto do with coordination, but that it left the number and the _activity_\nof the different scholars engaged in hepatitis research untouched. The\nChief of the Armed Forces Medical Service also had in his very limited\noffice staff no department for research. (_Tr. pp. 3218, 3224._) Only in\nthe service regulations which became effective on 1 September 1944\n(_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_), which however practically never went into\neffect. (_Tr. p. 3140_; _Handloser 29, Handloser Ex. 4_.) Under 14a one\nof the tasks of the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services was\nmentioned as being the taking of uniform measures in the field of\nmedical science, including the field of research and the fight against\ndisease. However, here, too, it was not a matter of the subordination of\nthe research institutions of the branches of the armed forces but of\nexamining a \u201cproblem\u201d _whether_ cooperative work in certain fields of\nresearch was feasible. Actually, due to developments since September\n1944, coordination in the field of research never took place. The\nresearch activities of the different branches of the armed forces as\nwell as of the Waffen SS were and remained independent. What is\nimportant in this trial in regard to Handloser\u2019s responsibility is the\nquestion _whether_ he as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services had\nany functions in the field of research and if so what they were. He\nhimself has stated and Generalarzt Dr. Hartleben, who had an\nauthoritative part in the drafting of the decree of 1942 (_NO-080, Pros.\nEx. 5_) and of its supplementary service regulations, has declared that\nthe research activities of the branches of the armed forces and of the\nWaffen SS did _not_ belong to the official department of the Chief of\nthe Armed Forces Medical Services. For the department of research of the\nAir Force Medical Inspection Service the aforementioned Air Force\nMedical Inspector Hippke has furnished convincing proof. The prosecution\nsubmitted a letter from Hippke of 6 March 1943 to SS Obergruppenfuehrer\nWolff (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108_) from which I quote\u2014\n\n \u201cYour opinion that I as _responsible head_ of all _research\n activities in medical science_ had objected to freezing\n experiments on human beings and had thereby obstructed the\n development is erroneous.\u201d\n\nFurthermore I call attention to Document NO-289, Prosecution Exhibit 72\nand Document 1612-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 79, which confirm the\nindependence of the air force research work, also to the affidavits of\nProfessor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng. (_Handloser 22, Handloser\nEx. 33_; _Handloser 23, Handloser Ex. 34_.)\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt is undisputed that _one_ connection existed between the two medical\nservices, viz, the one with _that_ part of the Medical Service of the\nWaffen SS which was connected with the Waffen SS divisions during\nmobilization at the front. It was under _those_ medical offices of the\narmy which corresponded to the respective superior military offices. The\ndivisions of the Waffen SS came under the corps commander of the army;\ncorrespondingly, the Medical Service of the Waffen SS divisions came\nunder the corps doctor; the medical service led via the army medical\nofficer [Armeearzt], the army group medical officer, and the army\nmedical chief [Heeresarzt] to the army medical inspector and above him,\nto the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service.\n\n_None_ of these offices, neither military nor medical, could interfere\nwith the essential \u201ccharacter,\u201d the appointment of personnel equipment\nmake up, organization, etc., of the division. The order pertained only\nto _mobilization_ at the front (tactical subordination). Beyond that,\n_all_ authority remained in the hands of the superior office of the\nWaffen SS, the Operational Main Office [Fuehrungshauptamt], Reich Leader\nSS (Himmler-Grawitz).\n\nThe mobilization of the medical units, of the field hospital ambulances\nand hospital trains, i. e., of the various units of the division medical\nofficer SS, were handled by him in accordance with instructions from the\ndivision. Higher orders in regard to the care of SS wounded and sick\nwere given to the SS division medical officer via the army corps medical\nofficer by the army medical chief. In the ordinary course of medical\nmatters, even the army medical officer was not included with the\nexception of casualty report service. The Army Medical Inspector and the\nChief of the Armed Forces Medical Service had practically no occasion to\ninterfere. That only happened when some _special event_ was reported to\nthe higher offices.\n\nThe Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service had the power only for the\nlength of time of subordination to the armed forces to delegate\nauthority, by request of the army medical chief through the Army Medical\nInspector, to the army or corps medical officer to make personnel or\nmaterial adjustments within his department.\n\n_With the exception of the fighting divisions_, the Chief of the Armed\nForces Medical Services had no authority over _any_ other unit or\nestablishment of the Waffen SS, any more than over Dr. Genzken as Chief\nof the Waffen SS Medical Service beyond the limit of the front\ndivisions. In summing up, then, it is to be noted that the relationship\nbetween the armed forces medical offices and those of the Waffen SS was\nlimited in time and practice to the medically necessary tactical\nsubordination and to the medical service during combat operations. This\ngoes to prove that Professor Handloser did not have any influence on the\nmedical organization of the Waffen SS, that is to say, on the entire\nrange of affairs and provinces of the medical service and the health\nservice. This applies especially to medical research and the\ninstitutions created for that purpose. This has been proved (_a_) by the\naffidavit of Professor Handloser on the diagram of the Medical Service\nof the Armed Forces; (_b_) by the affidavit of Professor Mrugowsky\n(_Handloser 17, Handloser Ex. 5_); (_c_) by the affidavit of Dr. Genzken\n(_Handloser 16, Handloser Ex. 6_); (_d_) by the official footnote in the\nservice instructions of 1944 (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_); (_e_) by the\naffidavit of Professor Gebhardt (_Tr. p. 4191_); (_f_) by the expert\ntestimony of Hartleben, and (_g_) by the testimony of Wuerfler (_Tr. pp.\n3132, 3140, 3142_).\n\nThe contention of the prosecution that Professor Handloser as Chief of\nthe Armed Forces Medical Service had the _supervision_ of the medical\nservice of the Waffen SS is thereby refuted.\n\nThis also invalidates the basic thesis of the prosecution on which is\nfounded the indictment of Professor Handloser, since it has been proved\nthat the Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Services had, in the field of\nmedical research, neither commanding authority nor supervisory powers\noutside of the scope of military medical inspection.\n\nWhat has been stated here for the time of the decree of 1942\u20141 August\n1942 until 31 August 1944\u2014applies equally to the time beginning 1\nSeptember 1944. The decree of 7 August 1944 (_NO-227, Pros. Ex. 11_)\nrepresented an extension of the original development toward\ncoordination, without accomplishing the subordination of the medical\nchiefs of the branches of the armed forces as requested by the Chief of\nthe Armed Forces Medical Services. What actually was accomplished was a\nchange in the advisory authority he had held up to then, into commanding\nauthority in the sphere of the technical duties to the Chief of the\nArmed Forces Medical Services.\n\nProfessor Handloser has testified under oath (_Handloser 29, Handloser\nEx. 4_) and witness Hartleben confirmed the same in his statements that,\nas has already been pointed out above, nothing was changed as far as the\nfield of research of the branches of the armed forces and of the Waffen\nSS was concerned. The aim of centralizing the widely separated\ninstitutions was wrecked, except in those cases which were solely\nconditioned by the war after 1 September 1944, particularly also owing\nto the fact which was brought out in the testimony that in the meantime\nother offices had taken over the management of the research work in the\nvarious fields (1) Reich Research Council, (2) Office for Science and\nResearch, and (3) Society for Military Research.\n\nIn conclusion and by way of precaution, I also wish to mention the\nfollowing for the consideration of the Tribunal in connection with the\nproblem of the commanding authority of Handloser as Chief of the Armed\nForces Medical Services:\n\n_Supposing_ for a moment that Professor Handloser had had the power of\ncommand, there is nothing that speaks more convincingly for his\n_exoneration_ than the fact that the prosecution has not produced one\nsingle document (no order, no regulation, no letter) from which could be\ndeduced that he had made use of his commanding authority in the sense of\nordering the performance of an illegal experiment.\n\nIn view of the length of time for which he had held the position as\nChief of the Armed Forces Medical Services from August 1942 until May\n1944, this fact is of _decisive_ importance.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n GENZKEN_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Position and activities_\n\nThe witness Juettner states the following about his position and his\nactivities (_Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16_): \u201cDr. Genzken\u2019s position as\nChief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS was the position of a\nsuperior officer of the medical units of the Waffen SS. He was\nexclusively responsible for their training, the formation of new units\nand their equipment. He had to find substitutes for casualties in the\nfighting units.\u201d\n\nThe Waffen SS itself was newly created in the summer of 1940. At that\ntime it was composed of approximately 580,000 men. (_Tr. p. 3792 ff._)\nIn addition to that there were about 320,000 casualties, so that there\nwas a total strength of approximately 900,000 men. The official medical\ncare of the whole Waffen SS was in the hands of the defendant Dr.\nGenzken. At the beginning, the medical personnel of the Waffen SS was\nabout 800 men and at the end approximately 30,000 men. At the beginning,\ntwo hospitals were available to the Waffen SS and at the end of the war,\nsixty. Six hygiene institutes grew out of a single one in Berlin, etc.\n\nApart from that, the whole extensive medical organization during the war\nhad to be built up by Dr. Genzken from nothing and under the\nparticularly difficult circumstances caused by war which are\nsufficiently well known to the high Tribunal. The medical inspectorates\nof the three Wehrmacht branches could refer back to long years of\nexperience, in the case of army and navy even tens of years. This was\nnot the case in the young arm of the Waffen SS.\n\nFor this reason alone it is obvious that the scientific research and\nplanning was not included in Dr. Genzken\u2019s sphere of work, as he\nrepeatedly emphasized during his presentation of evidence and as he\nunderlined by the presentation of affidavits. (_Genzken 3, Genzken Ex.\n12_; _Genzken 5, Genzken Ex. 13_; _Genzken 6, Genzken Ex. 10_; _Genzken\n8, Genzken Ex. 11_; _Genzken 9, Genzken Ex. 9_; _Genzken 15, Genzken Ex.\n16_.)\n\nBut Dr. Genzken did not even have the time to concern himself seriously\nwith scientific matters. That was only natural. His most pressing\nworries were to organize newly the medical services of the Waffen SS as\nregards personnel and material and to look after it continuously. His\nposition brought with it a considerable responsibility in the whole\nprovince of medical services of the Waffen SS by establishing new\nmedical units, equipping of new hospitals so that he had no time left\nfor any other work. It has become absolutely clear during this trial\nthat scientific research and planning was the task of the Reich\nPhysician SS. May I point out in this connection that all the\nexperiments which were discussed in this trial can be traced back almost\nwithout exception to Himmler\u2019s and Grawitz\u2019 own initiative. Whether they\nwere high altitude and cooling experiments or typhus and sulfanilamide\nexperiments, all of them were started by one of Himmler\u2019s or Grawitz\u2019\norders. This fact is still more underlined by Document 002-PS,\nProsecution Exhibit 39. It is, as it says there literally, concerned\nwith the taking over of research work by the Reich Physician SS,\nGrawitz. The latter had asked at the end of 1942 that 53 officers be\nallotted to him for scientific research work. In the whole document,\nwhich consists of several reports of the Reich Ministry of Finance and\nthe Reich Physician, the scientific research work in the whole of the\nmedical sphere is mentioned again and again as directed and ordered by\nthe Reich Physician. Even though the application was rejected, later on\nthe lack of typhus vaccine gave, for example, Dr. Grawitz the\nopportunity to establish, with Himmler\u2019s authorization, an experimental\nstation for typhus research in the Buchenwald concentration camp as his\nfirst own scientific institute.\n\nGrawitz has also frequently emphasized to the defendant Mrugowsky that\nhe alone was competent for the research and planning tasks in the\nmedical branch within the SS, and that Dr. Genzken had nothing to do\nwith it. (_Genzken 1, Genzken Ex. 3._)\n\nThat Dr. Genzken was never interested in the activity and the sphere of\nwork of the Reich Physician, nor even tried to be given these tasks,\nfollows from the fact that in 1941 Himmler chose Dr. Genzken to became\nGrawitz\u2019 successor. When Genzken\u2019s superior officer, the Chief of the SS\nOperational Main Office [Fuehrungshauptamt] Juettner, informed him about\nthis request, he at once rejected it energetically, as he preferred to\nremain in the medical service of the troops and as he thought himself\nnot suitable for scientific research. (_Genzken 15, Genzken Ex. 16._)\n\nDr. Genzken during his interrogation gave the Court a detailed\ndescription of the entire staff available to him for the completion of\nhis duties. He expressly pointed out that in the entire organization of\nhis medical office, no office for scientific research and planning was\nscheduled, and that therefore, in fact no such office actually existed.\n(_Tr. p. 3796._) This fact is also emphasized by the fact that in the\nMedical Office of the Waffen SS no group of \u201cconsulting physicians\u201d\nexisted as specialists for the various specialized branches of medical\nscience. (_Genzken 18, Genzken Ex. 17._)\n\nFurther, at the end of August 1943, important changes in the form of the\norganization were effected by order of Himmler, so that by way of a\nclinical and organizational concentration of the entire medical services\nof the SS, Dr. Genzken had to turn over his entire pharmaceutical\nequipment and hygiene institutes, as well as four office chiefs to the\noffice of the Reich Physician SS and Police. Thereby these institutes\nwere under the sole supervision and responsibility of the Reich\nPhysician from this time onwards.\n\nIt must be emphasized that Dr. Genzken himself never was in the\nforeground as a scientist.\n\nDuring the First World War he was in the navy and concerned with the\norganization of the medical services for submarines, then he was for 15\nyears a general practitioner in a small town, was then occupied with\norganizational duties in the Reichswehr Ministry, and then with similar\nduties in the Waffen SS; he never held a chair or a professorship and\ndid not have the honorary title of \u201cProfessor\u201d.\n\nAs in the course of the trial the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was\noften connected with the experiments, may I be allowed to point out the\nfollowing:\n\nThe Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was the only one in the home\ncountry. It was not only available for the hygienic problems of the\nWaffen SS, but also for all other organizations of the SS and therewith\nalso for the Reich Physician for his scientific researches. During the\ndispute between Grawitz and Dr. Genzken before the Chief of the SS\nOperational Main Office, the fields of authority between the two were\nagain clearly defined and it was expressly pointed out that the\ninstitutes and the research equipment were to remain available to the\nReich Physician for his research work (_Tr. p. 3789_; _Genzken 3,\nGenzken Ex. 12_.).\n\nThe Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS was, for budgetary reasons,\nsubordinate organizationally to the Medical Office of the Waffen SS and\ntherewith to the defendant Dr. Genzken. Despite this, however, Genzken\ndid not have complete and sole authority over the Institute.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT\n BLOME_\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhat connection have all these facts (concerning deterioration of the\nstandard of the German medical profession) with the defendant Dr. Blome?\nHe was never Chief of the German Medical Service nor was he in charge of\nhigher education. He was merely the deputy of the Reich Chief Physician,\nand as such his only legitimate task was to direct the medical\nprofessional associations. Then again he only served in this capacity as\nthe deputy of Dr. Conti (who has been frequently mentioned here), and he\nhad to work within the limits imposed by Dr. Conti. If the prosecution\nintends to be fair, it may hold Dr. Conti responsible for the abuses and\nmismanagement which occurred. It was he who, as Under Secretary in the\nReich Ministry of the Interior, was in charge of the whole federal\npublic health system. He, therefore, was the actual Reich Chief\nPhysician, not Dr. Blome who would never have been indicted at all if\nDr. Conti had not committed suicide and a deputy had not been needed,\neven after his death, to represent him in the dock. From the very\nbeginning Dr. Blome had nothing to do with medical studies. He was only\nconcerned with the doctors after they had completed their studies and\ntraining and were subjected to the disciplinary authority of the Reich\nChamber of Physicians as licensed physicians. If the medical training\nwas no good, if medical officers were released with insufficient\nscientific knowledge or with bad or wrong professional ethics, then the\nprofessor may be considered responsible for this if their teaching did\nnot reach the required goal. On the other hand perhaps the heads of the\nclinics were responsible. Perhaps they did not imbue their practitioners\nand assistants with the proper professional ethics. Whatever the case\nmay have been, one should not merely look around for a scapegoat to\nshoulder the moral responsibility.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAfter all Blome was not consulted in 1935 when the Nuremberg laws\nagainst Jewish citizens were enacted, nor in 1938 and the years\nfollowing when Jewish doctors were gradually prevented from practicing.\nBlome is in no way responsible for this. These laws were promulgated by\nthe Reich, that is, by the supreme national authority. They were ordered\nby Reich law and they not only affected the medical profession but also\napplied to all independent professions and to the entire economic life.\nThey destroyed the economic existence of the Jewish doctor as well as\nthat of the Jewish attorney, author, and businessman. The medical\nprofessional organization was not asked at the time whether it agreed to\nthese measures\u2014as a matter of fact, it was only subsequently informed\nof the Reich laws enacted and consequently was confronted with\naccomplished facts. If these laws and government orders were crimes\nagainst humanity, very well, then the statesmen and the ministers who\nintroduced such laws can be held responsible for them, also the\nReichstag deputies who enacted such laws, and the government agencies\nwhich published these laws and regarded them as generally binding. But\nit would be unfair today to try to impose the moral guilt for this\ndevelopment upon a man who was always a mere subordinate executive agent\nwith no independent authority to give orders; a man who always fought\nagainst the manifestations of radicalism and tried wherever possible to\nhave the federal laws enforced without harshness. This, for instance, is\nproved by the affidavit of Dr. Strakosch (_Blome 22, Blome Ex. 21_) who\nhimself had two Jewish grandparents and who owed the defendant Blome the\npreservation of his economic existence and who can confirm from his own\nexperience that Blome was never one of the fanatical and ruthless types\nof the Hitler regime. Dr. Strakosch confirmed that Blome always intended\nto act as a mitigating influence and that Blome was purely an idealist\nand not an opportunist in his political convictions.\n\n-----\n\n[139] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[140] 66 Supreme Court 340 (1946).\n\n[141] Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. IV, pp. 3-4, London,\n1948.\n\n[142] Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, vol. IV, p. 2, London,\n1948.\n\n[143] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 306, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[144] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July; 1947,\npp. 10797-10817.\n\n[145] Final Plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1946,\npp. 10942-10971.\n\n[146] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947,\npp. 10850-10873.\n\n[147] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[148] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 288, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n\n C. Responsibility of Subordinates for Acts Carried Out Under Superior\n Orders\n\n a. Introduction\n\nArticle II 4 (b) of Control Council Law No. 10 states that\u2014\u201cThe fact\nthat any person acted pursuant to the order of his government or of a\nsuperior does not free him from responsibility for a crime, but may be\nconsidered in mitigation.\u201d The defendants argued, however, that superior\norders freed them from criminal responsibility entirely. They also\nargued that superior orders to engage in the conduct alleged as criminal\nconstitute a mitigating circumstance.\n\nExtracts from the closing statement of the prosecution on the same point\nappears on pages 957 to 958. A summation of the evidence on this point\nby the defense has been taken from the final pleas on behalf of the\ndefendants Brack and Fischer. It appears below on pages 959 to 970. This\nargumentation is followed by two sections from the testimony of\ndefendants on pages 970 to 974, extracts from the examination of\ndefendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring, and an extract from the\ncross-examination of defendant Rose.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[149]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe defense of Handloser is a general denial. He says in effect that: I\nwas a soldier. I was in charge of the medical administration of the\nWehrmacht, but had no power and no right to issue orders, and that\nwhatever may have happened, I am not responsible for it. It is\ninteresting to note that this defense is very similar to that put\nforward by Field Marshal Keitel[150] in this courtroom approximately a\nyear ago. He was represented by the same defense counsel. Keitel also\nsaid that he could not issue orders. We have already discussed in some\ndetail the position of Handloser, and it has been established beyond a\nshadow of a doubt that he was the supreme authority in the military\nmedical services. We need not stop to consider the practical difference\nbetween an order and a directive. We have pointed out that the\nopportunity and power to control the participation of the military\nmedical services in these crimes was his. The evidence shows that\nHandloser was connected with a number of criminal medical experiments\nincluding the typhus and other vaccine experiments both in Buchenwald\nand Natzweiler, and the freezing, sulfanilamide, jaundice, gas, and the\ngas oedema experiments, among others.\n\n * * * * *\n\nRudolf Brandt also pleads superior orders in mitigation. There is no\nevidence that Himmler _ordered_ Brandt to participate in any crime.\nBrandt did so willfully. There is no evidence that Brandt retained his\nposition out of fear. He flourished in it. Nothing would have been\neasier for him than to be replaced by request or feigned inefficiency.\nBrandt was not a soldier on the field of battle. His activities were far\nremoved from the confusion of the front lines. He did not act in the\nspontaneous heat of passion; he had full time to consider and reflect\nupon his course of action. He continued in his position from 1933 until\nhis arrest by the Allies in 1945, no less than 12 years. This fact alone\nremoves any basis for mitigation. Moreover, assuming that Brandt was\nordered to commit the criminal acts which are the subject of this trial,\nwhen there is no fear of reprisal for disobedience, obedience represents\na voluntary participation in the crime. Such is the case with Rudolf\nBrandt. Finally the doctrine of superior orders cannot be considered in\nmitigation where such malignant and numerous crimes have been\ncontinuously and ruthlessly committed over a period of many years.\n\nWhat has been said with respect to Brandt applies equally to the\ndefendant Fischer who also pleads superior orders. He knew at the time\nhe performed these experiments that he was committing a crime. He knew\nthe pain, disfigurement, disability, and risk of death to which his\nexperimental victims would be subjected. He could have refused to\nparticipate in the experiments without any fear of consequences. This he\nadmitted in saying, \u201cIt was not fear of a death sentence or anything\nlike that, but the choice confronting me was to be obedient or\ndisobedient during war, and thereby set an example, an example of\ndisobedience.\u201d (_Tr. p. 4374._) Such an admission removes any basis for\nmitigation. A soldier is always faced with the alternative of obeying or\ndisobeying an order. If he knows the order is criminal, it is surely a\nhollow excuse to say it must be obeyed for the sake of obedience alone.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n BRACK_[151]\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe treatment of the question of responsibility for euthanasia in this\nroom encounters great difficulties insofar as there is not only\nconsiderable ignorance of certain peculiarities of the German position\nin constitutional matters, but above all a great difference between the\nthinking of continental European and of transatlantic jurists on matters\nof constitutional statutory law. Law and morals have for centuries been\nsharply differentiated on the European continent in juristic and above\nall in legislative thinking in contrast to the states across the ocean.\nThis historical fact must be taken into consideration, for only then can\nthe realization be reached that in a question of _German_ constitutional\nlaw only that development can be decisive which legal training has had\nin Germany in deviations from the constitutional law of the Weimar\nRepublic, since the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 and the Head of the\nState Law of 1 August 1934.\n\nWith these laws Hitler was given all authority as head of the state and\nchief of the government, in full recognition of the Fuehrer principle\nwhich had been in operation for over a year, with approval by the\nplebiscite of 19 August 1934.\n\nFrom this time on Hitler incorporated the will of the people, and the\nresulting functions. He had thus become the Supreme Legislator of the\nReich. A concluding resolution of the Reichstag was only the\nconfirmation of his primary declaration of his will.\n\nAmong the independent promulgations of laws, which were represented as\ndirect emanations of his authority, the declarations of Hitler\u2019s will\nwhich were at first called \u201cdecrees\u201d and later uniformly \u201cFuehrer\ndecrees\u201d assumed the most important role. In them the distinction, still\ncustomary under the Weimar constitution, between legislative and\nexecutive is overcome, as Hitler proclaimed in his Reichstag speech of\n30 January 1937 in the words: \u201cThere is only one legislative power and\none executive.\u201d\n\nTherefore the decrees united material law with organizational measures\nand administrative directives, especially insofar as they were addressed\nonly to a group of persons gathered together in a certain community.\nProclamation in the Reich Law Gazette [Reichsgesetzblatt], countersigned\nby the competent departmental minister, and later the competent\nchancellery chief, no longer played a decisive role in 1937. The Fuehrer\nprinciple was already in full operation at this time. It no longer\ntolerated the dependence of the authority to promulgate original laws\nwhich was granted to the Fuehrer by the plebiscite of 1934 on the\nobservance of formal regulations. The only decisive thing that remained\nwas the fact of the proclamation of the will of the Fuehrer, not its\nform. Hitler\u2019s Decree of 1 September 1939 concerning euthanasia,\naddressed to Brandt and Bouhler, was therefore in form a legally quite\nacceptable act of government of the head of the state.\n\nMy conclusions from the examination of the development in legal history\nof the Fuehrer principle in the Third Reich agrees with the testimony of\nthe witnesses Lammers,[152] Engert, and Best. This testimony is\nunderlined by the standpoint of the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner\nand by Schlegelberger as representatives of supreme Reich authorities,\nas transmitted to us by Lammers and Engert. Finally, it is affirmed by\nUniversity Professor Dr. Hermann Jahrreiss, who a few days ago dealt\nwith the questions arising in this connection in great detail and\nexhaustively in the Justice Case before Military Tribunal III.[153] I\nmay ask the Tribunal in judging this legal question to consider these\nstatements.\n\nBrack was convinced of the legality of this decree on the basis not only\nof juridical but also other effective indications of much more\nsignificant independent steps taken by Hitler in domestic and foreign\npolicy.\n\nBrack\u2019s conviction, that of a nonjurist, of the legality of the Fuehrer\nDecree, based on the explanations and information of his juristic\nassociates and the concurring or at least nondissenting statements of\nthe highest representatives of the Reich justice authorities at the\nmeeting of General Public Prosecutors on 23 April 1941, can therefore\nnot be doubted. (_Brack 36, Brack Ex. 36._)\n\nEven if one denies the legal validity to the Hitler Decree, though I\nregard it as valid, Brack committed a legal error at least as far as the\nparticular legal position of Hitler within the state is concerned, under\nwhich decree otherwise illegal activities are to be excused. This legal\nerror is sufficient to abolish his guilt or at least the grave guilt of\ndeliberate intent. According to the German law valid at the time, at any\nrate, this is the case. According to that, a so-called error outside of\ncriminal law\u2014which is indeed the error about the legal validity of the\ndecree of 1 September 1939\u2014excludes the unlawful character which is an\nessential of the term \u201cdeliberate intent\u201d.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n FISCHER_[154]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Acts committed under orders and in relation to a specific military\n position_\n\nThe defendant Fischer participated in the experiments for testing the\neffect of sulfanilamide upon orders of his medical and military superior\nKarl Gebhardt. It is recognized in the penal code of all civilized\nnations that action upon orders represents a reason of exemption from\nguilt, even if the order itself is contrary to law, but binding for the\nsubordinate. In examining this legal question, one proceeds from the\nprinciple that the court disregards the reasons of justification and\nexemption from guilt put forward by me in the case of the defendant Karl\nGebhardt and considers that both the order given to the defendant Karl\nGebhardt himself, as also the passing on of this order to the defendant\nFritz Fischer, are contrary to law.\n\nThe adherence to a binding order, even though it be contrary to law, on\nthe part of the subordinate creates for him a _reason of exemption from\nguilt and, therefore, renders him also exempt from punishment_. This\nquestion is disputed only insofar as some consider the action of the\nsubordinate not only excused but even \u201cjustified.\u201d Further examination\nof this question at issue seems, however, not necessary in these\nproceedings, since the result is the same in both cases, namely, the\nperpetrator\u2019s exemption from punishment.\n\nThe _decisive question_ in the case on hand therefore is whether and to\nwhat extent the \u201corder\u201d for the sulfanilamide experiments was _binding_\nfor the persons carrying it out.\n\nIn view of the fact that, in principle, the law in force at the time is\napplicable, as the defendants lived under this law and it was binding\nfor them, the question is, therefore, to be examined within the\nframework of Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code. According to\nthis provision, a subordinate who obeys is liable to be \u201cpunished as an\naccessory if it is known to him that the order given by the superior\nconcerned an act which has for its purpose to commit a general or\nmilitary crime or offense.\u201d\n\nHowever, it is not correct, as is sometimes accepted, that Article 47 of\nthe German Military Code itself settles the question in how far military\norders are either binding or not binding. This is a question of public\nand administrative law. But it must always concern an \u201corder regarding\nservice matters,\u201d the same as in other military conditions, that is to\nsay, something which \u201cpertains to military service.\u201d These assumptions\nare immediately present both in the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt\nand in that of the defendant Fritz Fischer. Both were medical officers\nof the Waffen SS, therefore a unit of the German Wehrmacht in which\nespecially the principle of obedience was strongly pronounced. Karl\nGebhardt was Fritz Fischer\u2019s immediate superior; in matters of duty, his\norder to assist with the medical experiments to be undertaken was a\nbinding order for the young medical officer Fischer.\n\nIn the investigation of the legal questions resulting from these\ncircumstances, we will separate the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt,\nwhere the \u201corder\u201d was issued from a very high authority, namely, from\nthe Head of the State and the Commander in Chief of the Wehrmacht, from\nthe case of the defendant Fritz Fischer, in which there is a question of\nan especially close relationship to his immediate military superior.\nLater, I will return especially to the general questions of public law\nconcerning the command of the Fuehrer.\n\nThe evidence has shown that the order for testing the effectiveness of\nsulfanilamide emanated from the highest authority, namely, from the\nCommander in Chief of the Wehrmacht personally. The reasons of\njustification of the probable acceptance of the wartime state of\nemergency and the balancing of interests, as discussed fully already in\nthe investigation of the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt, gain\nimportance independently first in the person of the defendant Fritz\nFischer. But they have influence, of course, on the legality or\nillegality of the order. The investigation of this question has shown\nthat the given order as such was _legal_. Even if one would not want to\ntake this for granted, however, for a subordinate even an illegal order\nof _a binding_ nature is of moment.\n\nArticle 47 of the German Military Penal Code, as already observed, lets\nthe punishment of the subordinate stand, if \u201cit was known\u201d to the latter\nthat the order of the superior \u201cconcerned an act which had for its\npurpose to commit a general or military crime or offense.\u201d In all other\ncases the punishment touches _only_ the commanding superior.\n\nJust as in most military courts of other armies, the judicial practice\nconcerning Article 47 of the German Military Penal Code also shows the\ntendency to a vast limitation of the penal responsibility of the\nsubordinate. That this tendency has grown from the purpose \u201cof\nguaranteeing the performance of the duty of obedience obligatory to the\nsubordinate, in the interest of military discipline and the Wehrmacht\u2019s\nconstant readiness for battle,\u201d changes nothing in the fact as such.\nHere it is a matter of evaluating the _legal position at the time the\nact was committed_.\n\nArticle 47 of the German Military Penal Code establishes a penal\nresponsibility on the part of the subordinate only if it was _known_ to\nhim that the order concerned an act _the purpose_ of which was a crime\nor an offense. German judicial practice demands in addition a _definite\nknowledge_ on the part of the acting subordinate; accordingly, cases of\nmere doubt (conditional intent) or mere obligation to know (negligence)\nare expressly excluded. Neither is the idea satisfactory that the\nperformance of the order resulted objectively in the committing of a\ncrime or an offense. On the contrary, the superior must have _intended_\nthis and this fact must have been _known_ to the subordinate.\n\nIn applying these principles, there cannot be any doubt that these\nsuppositions were not fulfilled either in the case of the defendant Karl\nGebhardt, or in the case of the defendant Fritz Fischer\u2014to say nothing\nat all of the defendant Herta Oberheuser. Both of these defendants\nregarded the order given them by the Head of the State as a measure of\nwar which was conditioned by special circumstances caused by the war\nitself, and by means of which a question should be answered which was of\ndecisive importance not only for the wounded, but beyond that, should\nfurnish a contribution in the struggle for the foundations of life of\nthe German people and for the existence of the Reich. Both defendants\nwere convinced at that time that the order given them should have any\nother _purpose_ but the committing of a punishable act.\n\nThen, in regard to the particular position of the defendant Fritz\nFischer, the meaning of an order of the _immediate military superior_ is\nto be investigated. At the beginning of the experiments, the defendant\nFritz Fischer had the rank of a first lieutenant. He took part in the\nexperiments at the direct command of his military and medical superior\nwho held the rank of general. In view of the surpassing authority of the\ndefendant Karl Gebhardt, as surgeon and Chief of the Hohenlychen Clinic\nand in view of his high military position, a refusal was completely out\nof the question.\n\nOn principle, no other points of view but those already discussed apply\nhere either. Whether the order is a direct or an indirect one offers no\nreason for difference. In the case of the defendant Fritz Fischer,\nhowever, the following is still to be considered: whether it _was known,\netc._, to the subordinate is always to be especially examined according\nto the _special circumstances of the moment_. At the same time, of\ncourse, a decisive part is played by the fact that the order for these\nexperiments was given to the defendant Fritz Fischer, not by a military\nsuperior who would not have been in a position or duly qualified to give\nan _expert_ decision of this question, but by a person who not only\noccupied a high military rank, but beyond that had just that particular\nexperience in the sphere in which the experiments were to be carried\nout. The defendant Karl Gebhardt was not only a recognized and leading\nGerman surgeon, but he had also as consulting surgeon to the Waffen SS\nand as chief of a surgical reserve combat unit acquired special\nexperience in the sphere of combat surgery and in the treatment of the\nbacteriological infection of wounds. The reason for this order given to\nthe defendant Fritz Fischer by his chief must have affected him all the\nmore convincingly, as it coincided exactly with the experience which the\ndefendant Fritz Fischer himself had gained as medical officer with the\nFirst SS Armored Division in Russia.\n\nIn addition, there was the special framework in which all this took\nplace. Fritz Fischer had been released from the combat unit on account\nof serious illness and had been ordered to the Hohenlychen Clinic. He\nwas under the immediate impression of hard experience at the front. In\nHohenlychen he found himself in a clinic which operated in peacetime\nconditions under the energetic direction of a man extraordinarily gifted\nin organizational and scientific matters. Every building, every\ninstallation of this recognized model institute, the numerous clinical\ninnovations and modern methods of treatment, every one of the many\nsuccessful treatments of Hohenlychen was inseparably bound up with the\nname of the chief physician Karl Gebhardt and gave unconditional and\nunlimited value to his word and his authority in his entire environment.\n\nFor all these reasons, the defendant Fritz Fischer could have had no\ndoubt at all but that the performance of the order given him was from\nthe medical standpoint a requisite and permissible war measure.\nPrecisely the open carrying-out of the individual experimental measures,\nwith the exclusion of every duty of secrecy, as well as the report of\nthe results which was provided for in advance and also executed before a\ncritical forum of the highest military physicians, were especially\nsuited to nip in the bud any distrust of the justification of these\nexperiments in the mind of the defendant Fritz Fischer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nAs Fritz Fischer strictly adhered to the part-orders given to him and\ndid not show any initiative of his own, it excludes him moreover from\nany responsibility concerning questions which were outside his sphere of\naction. It is impossible to make Fritz Fischer responsible for questions\nconnected with the legal and medical preparation of the directives for\nthe experiments and the cosmetic after-treatment. Apart from this\nviewpoint, the special conditions of _public law_ which existed in\nGermany at the time of the action ought to be mentioned. They were\nexplained by Professor Jahrreiss in his opening speech before the\nInternational Military Tribunal in the proceedings against Hermann\nGoering and others.[155] Professor Jahrreiss thereby represented the\nfollowing point of view:\n\n \u201cState orders, whether they lay down rules or decide individual\n cases, can always be measured against the existing written and\n unwritten law, but also against the rules of international law,\n morals, and religion. Someone, even if only the conscience of\n the person giving the orders, is always asking: Has the person\n giving the order ordered something which he had no right to\n order? Or has he formed and published his order by an\n inadmissible procedure? But an unavoidable problem for all\n governmental systems lies in this: Should or can it grant the\n members of its hierarchy, its officials and officers, the\n right\u2014or even impose on them the duty\u2014to examine at any time\n any order which demands obedience from them, to determine\n whether it is lawful, and to decide accordingly whether to obey\n or refuse? _No governmental system which has appeared in history\n to date has given an affirmative answer to this question._ Only\n certain members of the hierarchy were ever granted this right;\n and they were not granted it without limits. This was also the\n case, for instance, under the extremely democratic constitution\n of the German Reich during the Weimar Republic and is so today\n under the occupation rule of the four great powers over Germany.\n\n \u201c_In as far as such a right of examinations is not granted to\n members of the hierarchy, the order has legal force for them._\n\n \u201cAll constitutional law, that of modern states as well, knows\n acts of state which must be respected by the authorities even\n when they are defective. Certain acts of laying down rules,\n certain decisions on individual cases which have received legal\n force, are valid even when the person giving the order has\n exceeded his competence or has made a mistake in form.\n\n \u201cIf only because the process of going back to a still higher\n order must finally come to an end, orders must exist under every\n government that are binding on the members of the hierarchy\n under all circumstances and are therefore law where the\n officials are concerned, even if outsiders may see that they are\n defective as regard content or form * * *.\n\n \u201c* * * The result of the development in the Reich of Hitler was\n at any rate that Hitler became the supreme legislator as well as\n the supreme author of individual orders. It was not least of all\n under the impression of the surprising successes, or what were\n considered successes in Germany and abroad, above all during the\n course of this war, that he became this. Perhaps the German\n people are\u2014even though with great differences between north and\n south, west and east\u2014particularly easily subjected to actual\n power, particularly easily led by orders, particularly used to\n the idea of a superior. Thus the whole process may have been\n made easier.\n\n \u201cFinally the only thing that was not quite clear was Hitler\u2019s\n relationship to the judiciary. For, even in Hitler-Germany, it\n was not possible to kill the idea that it was essential to allow\n justice to be exercised by independent courts, at least in\n matters which concern the wide masses in their everyday life. Up\n to the highest group of Party officials\u2014this has been shown by\n some of the speeches of the Reich Justice Leader, the defendant\n Dr. Frank, which were submitted here\u2014there was resistance,\n which was actually not very successful, when justice in civil\n and ordinary criminal cases was also to be forced into the \u201c_sic\n jubeo_\u201d of the one man. But, apart from the judiciary, which was\n actually also tottering, absolute monocracy was complete. The\n Reichstag\u2019s pompous declaration about Hitler\u2019s legal position,\n dated 26 April 1942, was actually only the statement of what had\n become practice long before.\n\n \u201cThe Fuehrer\u2019s orders were law already a considerable time\n before this Second World War.\n\n \u201cIn this state order of his, the German Reich was treated as a\n partner by the other states, and this in the whole field of\n politics. In this connection I do not wish to stress the way (so\n impressive to the German people and so fatal to all opposition)\n in which this took place in 1936 at the Olympic Games, a show\n which Hitler could not order the delegations of foreign nations\n to attend, as he ordered Germans to the Nuernberg Party Rally in\n the case of his state-shows. I should like rather only to point\n out that the governments of the greatest nations in the world\n considered the word of this \u201calmighty\u201d man the final decision,\n incontestably valid for every German, and based their decisions\n on major questions on the fact that Hitler\u2019s order was\n incontestably valid. To mention only the most striking cases,\n this fact was relied upon when the British Prime Minister,\n Neville Chamberlain, after the Munich Conference, displayed the\n famous peace paper when he landed at Croydon. This fact was\n adhered to when people went to war against the Reich as the\n barbarous despotism of this one man.\n\n \u201cNo political system has yet pleased all people who live under\n it or who feel its effects abroad. The German political system\n in the Hitler era displeased a particularly large and\n ever-increasing number of people at home and abroad.\n\n \u201cBut that does not in any way alter the fact that it existed,\n not lastly because of the recognition from abroad and because of\n its effectiveness, which caused a British Prime Minister to make\n the now world-famous statement at a critical period, that\n democracies need two years longer than the totalitarian\n governments to attain a certain goal. Only one who has lived as\n if expelled from among his own people, amidst blindly believing\n masses who idolized this man as infallible, knows how firmly\n Hitler\u2019s power was anchored in the anonymous and innumerable\n following who believed him capable only of doing what was good\n and right. They did not know him personally, he was for them\n what propaganda made of him, but this he was so uncompromisingly\n that everybody who saw him from close-to and saw otherwise, knew\n clearly that resistance was absolutely useless and, in the eyes\n of other people, was not even martyrdom.\n\n \u201cWould it therefore not be a self-contradictory proceeding if\n _both_ the following assertions were to be realized at the same\n time in the rules of this trial? * * *\n\n \u201c* * * The functionaries had neither the right nor the duty to\n examine the orders of the monocrat to determine their legality.\n For them these orders could not be illegal at all, with one\n exception which will be discussed later\u2014an exception which, if\n carefully examined, is seen to be only an apparent one\u2014namely\n with the exception of cases in which the monocrat placed\n himself, according to the indisputable values of our times,\n outside every human order, and in which a real question of right\n or wrong was not put at all and thus a real examination was not\n demanded.\n\n \u201cHitler\u2019s will was the ultimate authority for their\n considerations on what to do and what not to do. The Fuehrer\u2019s\n order cut off every discussion. Therefore, a person who, as a\n functionary of the hierarchy refers to an order of the\n Fuehrer\u2019s, is not trying to provide a ground for being exempted\n from punishment for an illegal action, but he denies the\n assertion that his conduct is illegal; for the order which he\n complied with was legally unassailable.\n\n \u201cOnly a person who has understood this can have a conception of\n the difficult inner struggles which so many German officials had\n to fight out in these years in face of many a decree or\n resolution of Hitler\u2019s. For them such cases were not a question\n of a conflict between right and wrong: Disputes about legality\n sank into insignificance. For them the problem was one of\n legitimacy; as time went on, human and divine law opposed each\n other ever more strongly and more frequently.\n\n \u201cTherefore, whatever the Charter understands by the orders which\n it sets aside as a ground for exemption from punishment, can the\n Fuehrer\u2019s order be meant by this? Can it come within the meaning\n of this rule? Must one not accept this order for what it was\n according to the interior German constitution as it had\n developed, a constitution which had been explicitly or\n implicitly recognized by the community of states? * * *\n\n \u201c* * * The one supreme will became, quite simply, technically\n indispensable. It became the mechanical connecting link for the\n whole. A functionary who met with objections or even resistance\n to one of his orders from other functionaries only needed to\n refer to an order of the Fuehrer\u2019s to get his way. For this\n reason many, very many, among those Germans who felt Hitler\u2019s\n regime to be intolerable, who indeed hated him like the devil,\n looked ahead only with the greatest anxiety to the time when\n this man would disappear from the scene; for what would happen\n when this connecting link disappeared? It was a vicious circle.\n\n \u201cI repeat: _An order of the Fuehrer\u2019s was binding\u2014and indeed\n legally binding\u2014on the person to whom it was given, even if the\n directive was contrary to international law or to other\n traditional values._\u201d\n\nSo much for the statements of Professor Jahrreiss before the\nInternational Military Tribunal. The development presented here seems to\nbe particularly relevant for the case of the defendant Fischer, since he\nhimself in the witness box described his attitude towards the Fuehrer\u2019s\ncommand in a way which, because of his very youth, his idealistic\nconception of life and duty and his manly confession, was particularly\nconvincing.\n\nIt is true that in the face of all this, reference will be made to\nArticle 8 of the Charter for the International Military Tribunal which\nreads: \u201cThe fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his\nGovernment or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but\nmay be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines\nthat justice so requires.\u201d\n\nAccordingly, Law No. 10 of the Control Council, Article II, paragraph 4\nreads\u2014\n\n \u201c(_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the orders of\n his government or of a superior does not free him from\n responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in\n mitigation.\u201d\n\nIn the face of this objection the following is to be pointed out:\n\nAt the time of their actions the defendants were subject to _German_ law\naccording to which the degree of their responsibility was determined\nand, even today, must justly be referred back to _that moment_. The\nfollowing should be emphasized, however, in case the Tribunal should not\napply the legal provisions in force at the time of the act, but should\nbase its judgment on Law No. 10 of the Control Council, though it\nrepresents a manifest violation of the prohibition of retroactive\napplication of penal laws.\n\nEven from the above-named provision of the Law of the Control Council,\nthe principle cannot be derived that every command of a superior should,\nunder the aspect of Penal Law, be _irrelevant_ under all circumstances.\nThis also applies to the problem of the exemption from responsibility\nand exemption from penalty. The provision only states that the existence\nof such a command _in itself_ does not exempt one from the\nresponsibility for a crime; it does not, however, preclude by any means\nthat in connection with other facts it may be relevant for this problem\nas well.\n\n_The guiding legal_ aspect underlying these deliberations is contained\nin the concept of the so-called conflict of duties which has been\nrepeatedly mentioned before. This aspect does not coincide _eo ipso_\nwith the \u201c_objective_\u201d principle of balancing interests, as discussed in\nexamining the case of the defendant Karl Gebhardt. In addition one must\ninsist on consideration of the \u201c_subjective_\u201d position of the person\ncommitting the act.\n\nIn other words, in order to arrive at a _just_ appreciation of the case,\nthe _personal situation of the person committing the act at the moment\nof its being committed_ will have to be weighed up as well. This applies\nparticularly to the personal situation into which the person committing\nthe act has been put by reason of a higher command which is binding for\nhim and influences him. _Besides_ the general \u201cobjective\u201d principles of\nbalancing interests, such a special \u201csubjective\u201d state of coercion can\nand must therefore be considered in his favor also. A \u201ccommand\u201d can,\ntherefore, according to the concrete situation, shift the boundaries of\nculpability further in his favor.\n\nReinhardt Frank, the great German criminologist, has with regard to the\nproblem of the so-called conflict of duties established the maxim, \u201cIn\nas far as the conflict of duties has not been expressly regulated the\nmaxim should prevail that the higher, the more significant, the more\nimportant duty is to be fulfilled at the expense of the less high one\nand that, therefore, omission to fulfill the latter one is not contrary\nto law.\u201d\n\nWith good reason it has always been emphasized that in such a situation\nof conflict of diversified duties the decision is, in the end, not to be\nfound in positive law, but it is of an _ethical nature_. That is why, in\nsuch a situation, a certain leeway must be left to the personal\nconscience; it is not possible here to arrive at everything through the\ncoarse means of an outward penal provision. This completely \u201cpersonal\u201d\ncharacter of genuine ethical conflicts has also been fully recognized\nand emphasized in the authoritative philosophical literature. Nicholai\nHartmann, Ethics (2d Edition, 1935, pp. 421-422) says for instance, with\nregard to genuine conflicts of values:\n\n \u201cIt is a fateful error to believe that such problems can be\n solved on principle in theory. There are border-line cases in\n which the conflict in conscience is grave enough to require a\n different solution according to the particular ethos of the\n person. For it lies in the very nature of such conflicts that\n values are balanced, and that it is not possible to emerge from\n them without becoming guilty. Accordingly, a man in this\n situation cannot help making a decision. A person faced with\n this serious conflict, incurring such a measure of\n responsibility, ought to decide this\u2014\n\n \u201c_To follow the dictates of his conscience to the best of his\n ability, that is, according to his own live sense of the level\n of values and accept the consequences._\u201d\n\nNo further argument should be needed for demonstrating that just from an\n_ethical_ point of view measuring of such _personal_ decisions by\nstandards of _penal law_ is out of the question.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\n Extracts from the testimony of defendant Karl Brandt 970\n Extract from the testimony of defendant Rose 973\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[156]\n\n_EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nJUDGE SEBRING: * * * Witness, for the sake of clarification, let us\nassume that it would have been highly important to the Wehrmacht to\nascertain, as a matter of fact, how long a human being could withstand\nexposure to cold before succumbing to the effects of it. Do you\nunderstand that? Let\u2019s assume secondly that human subjects were selected\nfor such freezing experiments without their consent. Let\u2019s assume\nthirdly that such involuntary human subjects were subjected to the\nexperiments and died as a direct or indirect result thereof. Now, would\nyou be good enough to inform the Tribunal what your view of such an\nexperiment is\u2014either from the legal or from the ethical point of view?\n\nDEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: I must repeat once more, in order to make sure\nthat I understood you correctly. When assigning the experiment the\nfollowing things are assumed: highest military necessity, involuntary\nnature of the experiment, and the danger of the experiment with eventual\nfatality. In this case I am of the opinion that, when considering the\ncircumstances of the situation of the war, this state institution which\nhas laid down the importance in the interest of the state at the same\ntime takes the responsibility away from the physician if such an\nexperiment ends fatally and such a responsibility has to be taken by the\nstate.\n\nQ. Now, does it take away that responsibility from the physician, in\nyour view, or does it share that responsibility jointly with the\nphysician, in your view?\n\nA. In my view, this responsibility is taken away from the physician\nbecause, from that moment on, the physician is merely an instrument\nmaybe in the same sense as in the case of an officer who receives an\norder at the front and leads a group of three or four soldiers into a\nposition where they are certain to meet death. That position, if I apply\nit to German conditions during the war, is in principle the same. I\ndon\u2019t believe that the physician as such, from his ethical and moral\nfeelings, would carry out such an experiment without this assurance of\nthe authoritarian state which gives him a formal and legal assurance on\none side and, on the other side, gives him the order for the execution.\nNaturally, in this case, it is a theoretical question since I cannot\nsurvey the position in the case of the freezing experiment. I don\u2019t know\nhow this assurance was given and how the order was given. Basically, I\nwant to differentiate between the order for an experiment which arises\nfrom medical needs as such and where, under the circumstances, the state\nonly has a secondary interest on the basis of medical initiatives, and I\nwould differentiate between the reverse state of affairs where the state\nuses medical activities.\n\nQ. The Tribunal has one further question of interest.\n\nIn your view, would an order which authorized or directed a subordinate\nmedical officer or subordinate medical group to carry on a certain\nmedical experiment\u2014let us assume for the moment this freezing\nexperiment\u2014we have then a general order, let us assume, directing a\ncertain institute to carry on freezing experiments without delineating\nor specifying in detail the exact course of those experiments. Would you\nconceive that such an order would authorize the medical officer to whom\nthe order was addressed to select subjects involuntarily and subject\nthem to experiments, the execution of which that officer absolutely knew\nor should have known would likely result in death to the subject?\n\nA. May I have your last sentence repeated, please? This question is\nextremely difficult to answer. The order given in such a case has to be\ntaken into consideration. May I, perhaps, answer with an example of such\nan order. If Himmler gives an order to a Dr. \u201cX\u201d and tells him to carry\nout a certain experiment, then it is possible that Dr. \u201cX\u201d did not wish\nto comply with this order. In such a case, however, Dr. \u201cX\u201d will not\nhave overlooked the importance of the experiment itself, the same way as\nthe lieutenant who received a certain military order\u2014and we are here\nconcerned with a military order\u2014does not overlook that he would have to\nhold out with a group of eight men at a bridgehead and that this would\nend in his death. In spite of that, this officer with his eight men to\nwhom he passed this order on would meet their death at that position. So\nthis physician \u201cX\u201d who received this order from Himmler would under the\ncircumstances have to carry out an experiment without being able to\njudge the validity of the reasons which prompted a central agency.\n\nIf a physician had not carried out that experiment, he would have got\ninto a position where he would be called to account if he had not\ncarried out that experiment. In this case, and there we have to consider\nthe authoritarian nature of our state, the personal feeling and the\nfeeling of a special professional, ethical obligation has to subordinate\nitself to the totalitarian nature of the war.\n\nI must say once more, these are theoretical assumptions which I am\nexpressing here. At the same time I could express how difficult such\ndecisions are if I refer to an example which recently was quoted here,\nand I mean the eight hundred inmates in a prison in America who were\ninfected with malaria. I don\u2019t want to refer to this example in order to\njustify the experiments which are under indictment here, but I want to\nexpress that the question of the importance of an experiment is, and\nremains, basically of decisive importance. Even there a certain number\nof fatalities had to be expected from the start when infecting eight\nhundred people with malaria.\n\nThe voluntary attitude which an inmate adopts and with which an inmate\nmakes himself available is a relatively voluntary agreement. I don\u2019t\nthink it would be the same if one were to receive a voluntary agreement\nfrom people who are present here. One has to consider the nature of the\nvoluntary agreement. In my opinion, this round figure of eight hundred\nspeaks against the voluntary agreement of all. I would assume that if it\nwas seven hundred and thirty-five or seven hundred and forty, it would\nbe different, but the round figure of eight hundred seems to indicate\nthat there was a certain order for the experiment before the beginning\nof the experiment, and these experiments, too, were directed from the\npoint of view of a superior state interest, and this superior state\ninterest, at the same time, takes over the responsibility for the result\nof the experiment with reference to the experimental subject. For\nresponsibility in a medical sense cannot be assumed at all since even a\nnegative series of experiments speaks against the urgency and necessity\nof these experiments; and particularly when answering the question about\nvoluntary or involuntary, dangerous or nondangerous natures, it is very\ndifficult and almost impossible to say basically with reference to\nexperiments that experiments on human beings, taking all these things\ninto consideration, are a crime or are not a crime. The question can\nonly be judged when over and above the expected result experiments are\nstill continued. If a result has been established and further\nexperiments on human beings are then carried out, they are not\nimportant, and the experiment which is not important is only a\ndilettante experiment. In that case I would from the start assume the\nword \u201ccriminal,\u201d but when dealing with important experiments, it is\nnecessary to take into consideration all the circumstances which played\na part at that time; that is to say, the important experiments, from the\nmoment a result is achieved, become unimportant. From that moment on, in\nmy opinion, the experiment is criminal. Therefore, that when speaking\nabout human experiments at all, one must put the results at the disposal\nof the state\u2014not only to one state but internationally\u2014so that\nexperiments which are carried out in Russia and which had shown results\nwould not be continued in other countries.\n\nWith reference to freezing experiments, I can only say that in a certain\nform, without saying \u201ccriminal\u201d or \u201cnot criminal,\u201d they showed their\nvalue. The indication for that is that the results in the American Air\nForce were considered as something extraordinary and helped the American\nAir Force to gain years, and I think that these experiments would also\nbe of use in mines, where a number of fatalities occur because of\nfreezing. If you consider the freezing experiments in that light, the\nvictims in effect are tragic and are to be regretted, but with reference\nto subsequent periods these victims are a real sacrifice, for hundreds,\nor maybe thousands of people might save or prolong their lives because\nof it.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Dr. Brandt, is it not true that in any military organization, even\none of an authoritarian state, there comes a point beyond which the\nofficer receiving an order subjects himself to individual\nresponsibility, at least in the eyes of civilized society, for carrying\nout any military orders, particularly if the order is unlawful or\ntranscends the limit of extreme military necessity?\n\nA. There was a general law stating that an officer does not have to\ncarry out an order which he realizes is a crime, but the question with\nreference to these various experiments is whether the man concerned can\nrealize that what he is doing is a crime. If he can realize it, then, in\nmy opinion, he cannot comply with the order.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[157]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: And you suggested and asked him [defendant Mrugowsky] to\ncarry out experiments with Copenhagen vaccine in the typhus experiments\nin Buchenwald, didn\u2019t you?\n\nDEFENDANT ROSE: I was asking whether there was still a possibility of\ncarrying out such a series of experiments. That is quite understandable,\nconsidering the situation, because one can see from my report of 29 May\n1943, that this seemed to constitute a considerable advance on the\nexperiments already made on animals. I knew that such experiments had\nbeen carried out earlier, although I basically objected to these\nexperiments. This institution had been set up in Germany and was\napproved by the state and covered by the state. At that moment I was in\na position which might correspond to that of a lawyer who is, perhaps, a\nbasic opponent of capital punishment. On occasions when he is dealing\nwith leading members of the government or with lawyers during public\ncongresses or meetings, he will do everything in his power to maintain\nhis opinion on the subject and have it put into effect. If, however, he\ndoes not succeed, he stays in his profession and in his environment in\nspite of this. Under certain circumstances he may perhaps even be forced\nto pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is basically an\nopponent of the principle. Of course, it does not go as far as this in\nmy case. I am only in touch with people of whom I assume that they\nsomehow are included in the official channels of such an institution,\nwhich I disapprove of basically, and which I want to see removed.\n\nQ. Professor, six persons died in this experiment with the Copenhagen\nvaccine, didn\u2019t they?\n\nA. Yes. They were six people who were furnished by the Reich Criminal\nPolice Office through ordinary channels as determined by competent\nagencies.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[149] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[150] Defendant before International Military Tribunal. See Trial of the\nMajor War Criminals, Vols. I-XLII, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[151] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947,\npp. 11220-11244.\n\n[152] Defendant in case of United States _vs._ Ernst von Weizsaecker, et\nal. See Vols. XII, XIII, XIV.\n\n[153] United States _vs._ Josef Altstoetter, et al. See Vol. III.\n\n[154] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947,\npp. 10922-10941.\n\n[155] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. XVII, pp. 458-494,\nNuremberg, 1948.\n\n[156] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4,\n5, 6, 7 Feb. 1947, pp. 2301-2661.\n\n[157] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,\n22, 23, 24, 25 Apr. 1947, pp. 6081-6484.\n\n\n D. Status of Occupied Poland Under International Law\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThe defense argued that Poland lost its sovereignty as a result of the\ncomplete occupation of Polish territory and the cessation of Polish\nmilitary resistance in September 1939 and held that in consequence\nGermany could treat Polish nationals according to German law. An extract\nfrom the closing statement of the prosecution on this point appears on\npage 975. The argument, that international law concerning belligerent\noccupation was thus not applicable to the treatment of Polish nationals,\nappears in the extracts from the final plea for defendant Gebhardt on\npages 976 to 979.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[158]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn the case of some of the defendants, and this is especially true with\nrespect to Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser in connection with the\nsulfanilamide experiments, it is to be expected that the argument will\nbe made that crimes against Polish, and perhaps also Czech nationals, do\nnot constitute war crimes within the meaning of Control Council Law No.\n10. This argument is based upon the proposition that Germany was no\nlonger bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories\noccupied during the war because Germany had completely subjugated those\ncountries and incorporated them into the German Reich, and therefore\nGermany had the authority to deal with the occupied countries as though\nthey were part of Germany. Thus, the defense placed in evidence the\nRusso-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939 as well\nas certain German decrees concerning the administration of occupied\nPoland. (_Gebhardt 14, Gebhardt Ex. 13_; _Gebhardt 15, Gebhardt Ex. 14_;\n_Gebhardt 16, Gebhardt Ex. 15_.) Without stopping to argue the point\nthat that part of Poland administered by the so-called General\nGovernment, from which the Polish subjects for the sulfanilamide\nexperiments came, was never incorporated into the Reich, it will be\nsufficient to point out that this argument was disposed of by the\nInternational Military Tribunal. In its judgment, the following was\nsaid:[159]\n\n \u201cIn the view of the Tribunal, it is unnecessary in this case to\n decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is\n upon military conquest, has any application where the\n subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The\n doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there\n was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied\n countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the\n doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after 1\n September 1939.\u201d\n\nThe argument also has no validity with respect to Czech nationals. The\nInternational Military Tribunal said that:\n\n \u201cAs to war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a\n sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the\n Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.\u201d[160]\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT\n GEBHARDT_[161]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _The Legal Status of the Experimental Subjects_\n\n\u201cInmates of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp who had been sentenced\nto death by German courts martial in the General Government as members\nof the Polish Resistance Movement were employed as experimental subjects\n(in the sulfanilamide experiments).\u201d The witnesses questioned in Court\nand all experimental subjects from whom the prosecution has submitted\naffidavits have openly professed their membership of the Resistance\nMovement and it must be added that some of them exercised relatively\nimportant functions in the Resistance Movement. If the legal status of\nthe experimental subjects at the time of their activity in the\nResistance Movement is examined, the result will be as follows:\n\nLEGAL STATUS OF POLAND\n\nThe former Polish State ceased to exist as an independent subject from\nthe point of view of international law at the latest on 28 September\n1939. After the entire area of the former Polish State had been occupied\nby the German armies and the troops of the Soviet Union, and the Polish\nGovernment had gone into Romanian territory under pressure of the\ninvasion of the Red Army on 17 September 1939, the two occupational\npowers decided to carry out a plan previously agreed upon which was to\nsettle all matters concerning the territory of the former Polish State\nwithout interference by any other powers. This was brought about by the\nGerman-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Pact of 28 September 1939.\n(_Gebhardt 14, Gebhardt Ex. 13._) I refer to the contents of the pact\nfor particulars. It was on this day, at the very latest, that Poland\nceased to exist as a sovereign state and as bearer of rights and duties.\nDue to war, the former Polish State ceased to exist as a state and\ntherewith as a subject from the point of view of international law.\n\nThe territory of the former Polish State, insofar as it fell within the\nsphere of Soviet interests, became part of the U. S. S. R., to which it\nstill belongs today.\n\nThe Polish territory, which fell into the German sphere of interests and\nwhich is designated in detail in the Supplementary Protocol to the\nGerman-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Pact, became either part of the\nGerman Reich or\u2014and this concerned the larger part of the area\u2014was\nmade into an independent borderland of the German Reich under the\ndesignation General Government. The constitutional laws governing this\nterritory were based on the Decree for the Administration of the\nOccupied Polish Territory issued on 12 October 1939 by the Fuehrer and\nReich Chancellor. I have presented the decree to the Tribunal as\nDocument Gebhardt 15, Gebhardt Exhibit 14. Article 4 of this decree\nstates that Polish law was to continue to be valid insofar as it was not\nat variance with the taking over of the administration by the German\nReich. Article 5 gives the Governor General the right to issue laws by\nordinance for the territory under his administration.\n\nCorresponding to the generally acknowledged principles of international\nlaw the ordinances issued by the Governor General were binding for the\npopulation of this territory. This is especially true of the Ordinance\nfor Combating Deeds of Violence in the General Government, which was\nissued on 31 October 1939 (Ordinance Gazette for the General Government,\npage 10), and which also laid the foundation for the competence of the\ncourts martial. This ordinance had become necessary because the military\ngovernment, which had been active until 26 October 1939, ceased to exist\nwhen the Fuehrer Decree of 12 October 1939 became valid.\n\nIn this connection, the following reply must be made to the objection of\nthe prosecution in their final plea on the morning of the 14th.\n\nFirst: No Polish Government was in existence when these experimental\nsubjects were working for the Resistance Movement in 1940 and 1941. The\nPolish Government had ceased to exist as an independent subject under\ninternational law. The government in exile in London under General\nSikorski and the government in Lublin were only subsequently recognized\nby the Western Allies.\n\nSecond: When the experimental subjects were working for the Resistance\nMovement in 1940, no Polish Army in combat existed.\n\nThird: The prosecution seems to have endeavored to express that this\nMilitary Tribunal should not primarily apply territorial penal law but\nthe principles of international law. For this very reason the\nprosecution pointed out that the jurisdiction and the judicial authority\nwithin the General Government were the consequence of an aggressive war\nand could not, therefore, be legally recognized. This concept does not\napply. It must first be pointed out that the principles of international\nlaw, which have the function to regulate legal issues during war, make\nno distinction between an aggressive war, a defensive war, or a\njustified war. This is particularly stated in the Fourth Hague\nConvention of 1907, the so-called Hague Land Warfare Convention.\n\nThe objection of the prosecution is not justified for another reason.\nThe evidence before the IMT showed that the attack on Poland was carried\nout by Germany in at least the same manner as it was carried out by the\nU.S.S.R., and that this becomes quite evident from the contents of the\nGerman-Soviet secret treaty of 23 August 1939. Nevertheless the U.S.A.\ndid not hesitate to recognize the territorial claims made by the\nU.S.S.R. in the area of the former Polish State. This recognition took\nplace _de facto_ as well as _de jure_ during the Yalta Conference in\nFebruary 1945 and the Potsdam Conference on 2 August 1945.\n\nThe prosecution cannot therefore object today to this state of affairs\nas far as the legal issues arising from this attack are concerned.\n\nThe Ordinance for Combating Acts of Violence in the General Government\nand the introduction of the courts martial connected with it would, by\nthe way, have been permissible, even if though the former Polish State\nhad not ceased to exist as a subject in the realm of international law.\nMilitary occupation of foreign states (_occupatio bellica_), too, gives\nthe occupying power the right to take all the measures necessary for the\nmaintenance of order and safety. It is a generally acknowledged legal\nconception that in this case the occupying power takes over the power of\nthe conquered state, not as its deputy, but rather by authority of its\nown laws guaranteed by international law. The right is expressly\nacknowledged in the third section of the Hague Convention for Land\nWarfare [Section III, Annex to the Convention]. There can be no doubt\nthat the introduction of courts martial is one of these rights of the\noccupying power. In fact it seems inconceivable that an occupying power\nshould not be allowed to take measures for the effective combating of a\nresistance movement, whose sole and openly admitted purpose it was to\nundermine and destroy the authority of the occupying power and the\nsafety of the occupation troops. The right to do this can be contested\neven less in our case, since with the outbreak of the German-Soviet war,\nthe territory of the former General Government became the largest\nmilitary transit area which has ever existed in the history of war. The\nmethods by which the Polish Resistance Movement tried to attain its\ngoals do not need to be examined here in detail. It is sufficient to\npoint out that the Resistance Movement was in a position to interfere to\na considerable extent with German Army reinforcements against the Red\nArmy; this interference took the form of blasting of bridges,\ntransmission of important military information, etc. The Polish women\nused for the sulfanilamide experiments were members of this Resistance\nMovement and they supported it wherever they could. However much we\nrespect the courage and patriotism of these women, we cannot refrain\nfrom emphasizing the fact that they violated laws which at that time\nwere binding for them. This violation gave the occupation power the\nright to impose adequate punishment upon them. It seems unthinkable that\nthe members of a resistance movement such as the Polish one would not\nhave been sentenced to death during the war for their resistance\nactivities by any other state which found itself in a position similar\nto that of Germany at that time. Latest developments show that the\noccupation powers in Germany now do not hesitate to impose the most\nsevere penalties in similar cases.\n\nFor example, the American Military Government for Germany in its\nOrdinance No. 1, which was issued to insure the safety of the Allied\nArmed Forces and to reestablish public order in the territory occupied\nby them, lists, among others, the following acts as crimes punishable by\ndeath:\n\n Communication of information which may be dangerous to the\n security or property of the Allied Forces, or unauthorized\n possession of such information without promptly reporting it;\n and unauthorized communication by code or cipher;\n\n Interference with transportation or communication or the\n operation of any public service or utility;\n\n Any other violation of the laws of war or act in aid of the\n enemy or endangering the security of the Allied Forces.\n\nA comparison of these regulations with the contents of the court martial\nregulations of the Governor General for the Occupied Polish Territories,\npresented in Document Book II for the defendant Gebhardt, shows clearly\nthat here generally the same facts were declared to be punishable with\nthe death sentence.\n\nIn order to exclude any doubts with regard to the legal status of the\nexperimental subjects, it may be pointed out in conclusion that the\nmembers of the Polish Resistance Movements, at least when the prisoners\nbelonged to these movements, did not fulfill the conditions of Article I\nof the Hague Convention for Land Warfare of 1907 [Section I, Chapter I,\nAnnex to the Convention] concerning militia and voluntary corps not\naffiliated with the army and having a certain military organization. The\nPolish Resistance Movement at that time (1) had no leader who was\nostensibly at its head and responsible for the conduct of the members;\n(2) it wore no particular badge recognizable from a distance; (3) it did\nnot wear its arms openly; and finally, (4) in its conduct of war it\ndisregarded the laws and practices of war. In view of these facts the\nmembers of the Resistance Movement could not have been treated as\nprisoners of war even if at that time a Polish Army had still been in\nthe field. In view of the fact that the prisoners in question were women\nserving in the communications and espionage branches of the Resistance\nMovement, this possibility was eliminated from the very beginning.\n\n * * * * *\n\n-----\n\n[158] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[159] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 254, Nuremberg, 1947.\n\n[160] [Ibid.]\n\n[161] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947,\npp. 10874-10911.\n\n\n E. Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects\n\n a. Introduction\n\nThere was considerable contention in the case as to whether an inmate of\na German concentration camp could give his voluntary consent to\nparticipate in medical experiments. The prosecution argumentation on\nthis point appears in the opening statement on pages 27-74 and in the\nclosing statement. The applicable extract from the closing statement of\nthe prosecution appears below on pages 980 to 983. Selections from the\ndefense argumentation on this point have been taken from the closing\nbrief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea for the\ndefendant Ruff. These appear below on pages 983 to 992. The following\nselections from the testimony have been taken from the evidence on this\npoint: Extracts from the direct examination of the prosecution witness\nDr. Eugen Kogon, and extracts from the cross-examination and redirect\nexamination of the prosecution\u2019s expert witness Dr. Andrew C. Ivy. These\nextracts appear below on pages 993 to 1004.\n\n b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution\n\n _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE\n PROSECUTION_[162]\n\n * * * * *\n\n* * * It is the most fundamental tenet of medical ethics and human\ndecency that the subjects volunteer for the experiment after being\ninformed of its nature and hazards. This is a clear dividing line\nbetween the criminal and what may be noncriminal. If the experimental\nsubjects cannot be said to have volunteered, then the inquiry need\nproceed no further. Such is the simplicity of this case.\n\nWhat then is a volunteer? If one has a fertile imagination, suppositious\ncases might be put which would require a somewhat refined judgment. No\nsuch problem faces this Tribunal. The proof is overwhelming that there\nwas never the slightest pretext of using volunteers. It was for the very\nreason that volunteers could not be expected to undergo the murderous\nexperiments which are the subject of this trial that these defendants\nturned to the inexhaustible pool of miserable and oppressed prisoners in\nthe concentration camps. Can anyone seriously believe that Poles, Jews,\nand Russians, or even Germans, voluntarily submitted themselves to the\ntortures of the decompression chamber and freezing basin in Dachau, the\npoison gas chamber in Natzweiler, or the sterilization X-ray machines of\nAuschwitz? Is it to be held that the Polish girls in Ravensbrueck gave\ntheir unfettered consent to be mutilated and killed for the glory of the\nThird Reich? Was the miserable gypsy who assaulted the defendant\nBeiglboeck in this very courtroom a voluntary participant in the\nsea-water experiments? Did the hundreds of victims of the murderous\ntyphus stations in Buchenwald and Natzweiler by any stretch of the\nimagination consent to those experiments? The preponderance of the proof\nleaves no doubt whatever as to the answer to these questions. The\ntestimony of experimental subjects, eyewitnesses, and the documents of\nthe defendant\u2019s own making, establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that\nthese experimental subjects were nonvolunteers in every sense of the\nword.\n\nThis fact is not seriously denied by the defendants. Most of them who\nperformed the experiments themselves have admitted that they never so\nmuch as asked the subjects whether they were volunteering for the\nexperiments. As to the legal and moral necessity for consent, the\ndefendants pay theoretical lip service, while at the same time leaving\nthe back door ajar for a hasty retreat. Thus, it is said that the\ntotalitarian \u201cState\u201d assumed the responsibility for the designation of\nthe experimental subjects, and under such circumstances the men who\nplanned, ordered, performed, or otherwise participated in the experiment\ncannot be held criminally responsible even though nonvolunteers were\ntortured and killed as a result. This was perhaps brought out most\nclearly as a result of questions put to the defendant Karl Brandt by the\nTribunal. When asked his view of an experiment, which was assumed to\nhave been of highest military necessity and of an involuntary character\nwith resultant deaths, Brandt replied:\n\n \u201cIn this case I am of the opinion that, considering the\n circumstances of the situation of the war, this state\n institution, which has laid down the importance of the interest\n of the state, at the same time takes the responsibility away\n from the physician if such an experiment ends fatally, and such\n responsibility must then be borne by the state.\u201d (_Tr. p.\n 2567._)\n\nFurther questioning elicited the opinion that the only man possibly\nresponsible in this suppositious case was Himmler, who had the power of\nlife and death over concentration camp inmates, even though the\nexperiment may have been ordered, for example, by the Chief of the\nMedical Service of the Luftwaffe and executed by doctors subordinated to\nhim. Most of the other defendants took a similar position, that they had\nno responsibility in the selection of the experimental subjects.\n\nThis defense is, in the view of the prosecution, completely spurious.\nThe use of involuntary subjects in a medical experiment is a crime, and\nif it results in death it is the crime of murder. Any party to the\nexperiment is guilty of murder and that guilt cannot be escaped by\nhaving a third person supply the victims. The person planning, ordering,\nsupporting, or executing the experiment is under a duty, both moral and\nlegal, to see to it that the experiment is properly performed. This duty\ncannot be delegated. It is surely incumbent on the doctor performing the\nexperiment to satisfy himself that the subjects volunteered after having\nbeen informed of the nature and hazards of the experiment. If they are\nnot volunteers, it is his duty to report to his superiors and\ndiscontinue the experiment. These defendants have competed with each\nother in feigning complete ignorance about the consent of the\nexperimental victims. They knew, as the evidence proves, that the\nmiserable inmates did not volunteer to be tortured and killed. But even\nassuming the impossible, that they did not know, it is their damnation\nnot their exoneration. Knowledge could have been obtained by the simple\nexpedient of asking the subjects. The duty of inquiry could not be\nclearer and cannot be avoided by such lame excuses as \u201cI understood they\nwere volunteers,\u201d or, \u201cHimmler assured me they were volunteers.\u201d\n\nIn this connection, it should never be lost sight of that these\nexperiments were performed in concentration camps on concentration camp\ninmates. However little, some of these defendants say they knew of the\nlawless jungles which were concentration camps, where violent death,\ntorture, and starvation made up the daily life of the inmates, they at\nleast knew that they were places of terror where all persons opposed to\nthe Nazi government were imprisoned without trial, where Jews and Poles\nand other so-called \u201cracial inferiors\u201d were incarcerated for no crime\nwhatever, unless their race or religion be a crime. These simple facts\nwere known during the war to people all over the world. How much greater\nthen was the duty of these defendants to determine very carefully the\nvoluntary character of these experimental subjects who were so\nconveniently available. True it is that these defendants are not charged\nwith responsibility for the manifold complex of crimes which made up the\nconcentration camp system. But it cannot be held that they could enter\nthe gates of the Inferno and say in effect: \u201cBring forward the subjects.\nI see no evil; I hear no evil; I speak no evil.\u201d They asked no\nquestions. They did not inquire of the inmates as to such details as\nconsent, nationality, whether a trial had been held, what crime had been\ncommitted, and the like. They did not because they knew that the\nwretched inmates did not volunteer for their experiments and were not\nexpected to volunteer. They embraced the Nazi doctrines and the Nazi way\nof life. The things these defendants did were the result of the noxious\nmerger of German militarism and Nazi racial objectives. When, in the\nface of a critical shortage of typhus vaccines to protect the Wehrmacht\nin its Eastern invasions, Handloser and his cohorts decided that animal\nexperimentation was too slow, the inmates of Buchenwald were sacrificed\nby the hundreds to test new vaccines. When Schroeder wanted to determine\nthe limit of human tolerance of sea-water, he trod the path well-worn by\nthe Luftwaffe to Dachau and got forty gypsies. These defendants with\ntheir eyes open used the oppressed and persecuted victims of the Nazi\nregime to wring from their wretched and unwilling bodies a drop of\nscientific information at a cost of death, torture, mutilation, and\npermanent disability. For these palpable crimes justice demands stern\nretribution.\n\n * * * * *\n\n c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR\n DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Voluntary Participation_\n\nExperiments on persons who offer themselves voluntarily have always been\nconsidered admissible. In literary works care is always taken _to note\nthis voluntariness_; where it is not mentioned, one may conclude that it\nwas nonexistent.\n\nThe interest taken in the voluntariness of the person experimented upon\nhas various reasons.\n\nFirst of all the compulsory experiment\u2014in contrast to the voluntary\nexperiment\u2014means an additional, very heavy mental strain, for the\nexperimenter since the health and life of a human being may be at stake\nand the future existence of the person experimented upon may be\nimperiled.\n\nBut the experimenter has not only a purely human interest in having the\nperson to be experimented upon offer himself with a certain\nvoluntariness; in many cases he must absolutely depend on the\n_cooperation of the person experimented on_; he needs truthful\ninformation about observations made during the experiment, which cannot\notherwise be carried out properly. Compare for instance the\nhigh-altitude and sea-water experiments.\n\nFinally there may exist the wish to be protected against _claims for\ndamages_ and to prevent the _uncovering_ of legal provisions, as well as\nto guard against the possible _political odium_ that might result from\nhaving given orders for a forced experiment.\n\nHowever, one look at the literature shows that the notion of\n_voluntariness_ is _strongly suspect_, and every critical reader will in\nmost cases associate himself with such suspicions.\n\nThe subjection to an experiment which is dangerous or even only painful\nor temporarily onerous must be based on a special motive.\n\n_Ethical reasons_ alone can give rise to voluntariness strictly speaking\nonly in the case of the researcher himself, that is in self-experiments,\nand in the case of persons who for ethical reasons consciously wish to\nsupport by their cooperation the aims of the researcher.\n\n * * * * *\n\nHowever, if a declaration of voluntariness is made for reasons of\n_inexperience_, _thoughtlessness_, or _distress_, then it is unethical.\nInto this category fall cases where persons are induced to undergo\nexperiments through promise of money or other advantages, while they do\nnot foresee the meaning of the experiments. These are the weak, who,\nunprotected, are made to serve the interests of humanity. Compare with\nthis the case of the use of immigrants for experiments.\n(_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) The _category_ here of\nparticular interest is that of _prisoners_ who offer themselves\nvoluntarily.\n\nFirst of all, one cannot assume that the _ethical level in a\npenitentiary_ is so high above that of free men that here a great number\nof prisoners would offer themselves for participation in an experiment\nvoluntarily only for purely ethical reasons. On the contrary, one can\nsay that _all prisoners_ are living under a certain _compulsion_. They\nexpect from their participation in the experiment an improvement of\ntheir position or fear a worsening in case of refusal. Even though the\nregulations about the treatment of prisoners may be fixed, in practice\nthere remains in this particular world a very wide scope for the\npunishment of prisoners with measures which, as experience shows, may\nhit the prisoner much more severely and more grievously than the\nsentence of the judge itself.\n\nIf the motive of the prisoner for his \u201cvoluntary offer\u201d is merely a\ngeneral _and vague hope_, in any direction, then there is no genuine\ndeclaration of voluntariness, but the consent is merely the off-shoot of\nhis condition of constraint.\n\nTwo things have to be considered with regard to the prisoner\u2019s\ndeclaration of voluntary consent; the _risk_ which he undergoes and the\n_advantage_ that is offered him. One can only give one\u2019s consent to\nsomething of which one knows the full _meaning_ and _importance_. The\nprisoner must therefore have been fully informed of the possible\nconsequences. Here only lies the real problem of \u201cvoluntariness.\u201d It is\nnot enough that the person to be experimented upon knows that, for\ninstance, a malaria experiment is to be made; he must also know just how\nthe particular person is to be used. The first easy series of\nexperiments cannot be compared with the daring final experiments. Who is\ngoing to offer himself for the ultimate experiment necessary if the\nother persons to be experimented on get off more lightly? What was the\nnature of the consent?\n\nProfessor Ivy as expert witness has said nothing about this problem.\n\nAs a matter of fact a person to be experimented on can hardly estimate\nthe risk, and the recruiting officer will not be inclined to give a\nfrightful description of what may happen. Professor Ivy, who has\nrecruited volunteers himself, does not consider experiments to be an\nevil. If you add that the \u201cvolunteer prisoner\u201d has to forego all claims\nin case of injury to his health, then the consent of the prisoner cannot\nbe considered as valid.\n\nOn the other hand the prisoner must know the advantage promised him as\nhis _compensation_ must be in suitable relation to the severity of the\nexperiment and the reward must be assured to the prisoner. If the\nadvantage is strikingly disproportionate to the risk and given as an act\nof grace without claim after the conclusion of the experiment, then\nthere is no voluntary experiment; it remains a forced experiment.\n\nOnly if both basic conditions are fully met will it be possible for the\nprisoner to make a free decision. He may then allow his possible death\nto be included in the bargain in order to gain the chance of shortening\nthe time of his imprisonment by years.\n\nSuch a case is depicted in the well known pellagra experiments, where\nwith the collaboration of attorneys as defense counsellors, the\nconditions were agreed upon by the prison administration. (_Karl Brandt\n47, Karl Brandt Ex. 54_; _Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59_.)\n\nThis is the _classical case of a voluntary experiment in prison_. It\nwill not always be possible or necessary to fix the advantage in the\nsame manner; the official promise of the prison institute may be\nsufficient to exclude an arbitrary denial of the promise. Examples for\nthat are the leprosy experiments on a person condemned to death, and the\ncontinuous experiments in the penitentiary Bilibid. (_Becker-Freyseng\n60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._)\n\nThese experiments must, be considered admissible as _experiments where a\nchance is given_.\n\nThe examples from medical literature, however, show that these general\nconditions for voluntariness were not always fulfilled. So we refer only\nto the experiments in the penitentiary San Quentin with streptococci on\n25 convicts in 1946. (_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._)\n\nAccordingly, even experiments carried out on persons without their\nconsent must be considered admissible.\n\n _Involuntariness_\n\nThere are some examples of experiments carried out abroad which were\ncarried out as _compulsory experiments_ on prisoners _without_ their\n_consent_. As an example may be mentioned the poisoning experiment\ncarried out in _Manila_ on 11 prisoners sentenced to death.\n(_Becker-Freyseng 60a, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 59._) The persons subjected\nto experiments were executed immediately after as part of the\nexperiment. The _malaria experiment_ carried out on 800 prisoners has to\nbe mentioned too. According to an explicit statement in the press, no\nadvantages were granted them in return. (_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex.\n1._)\n\nThe method described by the witness Ivy was introduced later on as a\npractice of the administration.\n\nIt is evident that in these cases no declarations of voluntariness could\nhave been made because no criminal who is sentenced to death will make\nhimself available first for experiments _where he has no chance_, unless\nthere is some hope of a favor shown to him. But in the case of poisoning\nexperiments there was _no question of commutation of the sentence_\nbecause the purpose of the experiment was the study of the effect of\npoison on corpses. Thus, execution was included as part of the\nexperiment.\n\nConcerning the malaria experiments the press notice explicitly said that\n_no privileges of any kind_ were granted, thereby referring to the task\nof the prisoners, as \u201csocial parasites\u201d, to help fight the mosquitoes as\nequal social parasites.\n\nOne must conclude that compulsory experiments are admissible, but one\n_cannot_ draw the conclusion that the state is authorized to use the\nprisoners at random for any experiment whatever by way of punishment.\n\n_The gravity of the experiment_ must stand in a _certain proportion_ to\nthe gravity of the crime. The expiation must be such as can be expected.\nThis very idea of the reasonableness of the demand is expressed in the\nmalaria experiment mentioned where reference is made to the socially\nnegative attitude of the persons subjected to experiments, thus applying\nthe idea of _expiation_.\n\nThe same fundamental idea might have led to the resolution to use\nconscientious objectors for the experiments. It seems that here\n_expiation_ has been demanded from the same point of view of a _socially\ninimical attitude_. It does not seem unfair if a _conscientious\nobjector_, as a deserter, is subjected to experiments if he adopts this\nattitude only in wartime and if this attitude helps him to escape behind\nprison walls, thus withdrawing from dangers which the soldier at the\nfront has to bear for the sake of the community. For the soldier, this\ndanger may consist in a dangerous epidemic disease, to which he is\nexposed in wartime especially.\n\nThe idea of compulsory experiments in the sense of an experiment of\nexpiation has been proposed as an _expiation measure_ with regard _to\nprisoners of war and political prisoners_ and has not been objected to\neven by the public. So the less ethically orientated opinion of the day\nfrequently expresses the view that experiments on criminals should be\ncarried out for the purpose of expiation.\n\nEven in the press these opinions have their representatives. So among\nothers a reference appeared in the London paper \u201cThe People\u201d of 3 March\n1946 (_Karl Brandt 114_[163]) There the following is said: \u201cPeople\nbelieve that all these men (the defendants at the International Military\nTribunal) will die. It is the opinion of many that they ought to have\ndied months ago and ought to have been shot three days after arrest by\ncourt-martial sentence. Others are of the opinion that they should\n_expiate their crimes_ by being subjected to cancer, leprosy, and\ntuberculosis experiments.\u201d\n\nIt is significant in this excerpt that it is a well-known English\nauthor, Llewellyn who passes it on, and he does not adopt a disapproving\nattitude to it.\n\nAccordingly, it can be ascertained that such experiments of expiation on\n_political opponents, prisoners of war, and civilians_ can be looked\nupon as _reasonable_ and admissible, if these persons, as convicted\n_criminals_, are subject to _punishment_ and if the law relating to the\nserving of sentences permits experiments of that kind.\n\nThe _Geneva Convention_ in Article 46 provides for a restriction only\ninsofar as no punishments may be inflicted on prisoners of war apart\nfrom those that are admissible for members of the army of one\u2019s own\ncountry; the same must be applied to civilians.\n\nIn comparison with this, no restrictions exist with regard to the\nexecution of punishment in cases of _criminal_ offenses. Therefore the\npenal execution law, admissible in each state, can be applied.\n\nIf therefore compulsory experiments for expiation can be carried out on\nan American citizen, they could be applied in the same way to a German\nprisoner of war, assuming that the latter has been sentenced under penal\nlaw. In accordance with this, the same must be admissible in the\nexecution of German penal law if the _foreign prisoner_ has been legally\nsentenced to punishment.\n\nThe foreign criminal is not in a better position than the subject of\none\u2019s own country.\n\nThe compulsory experiment must have its limits.\n\nHere one must distinguish between responsibility for the _arrangement of\nthe experiment_ and for its _conduct_. In both cases the physician can\nhave a share in it. The _decision for the conduct_ of experiments on\nhuman beings can come from two sides, different in character. The demand\ncan result from urgency in the interests of the community and can be\nvindicated by _the state_. During the war, experiments can be demanded\nby the _armed forces_ in case of epidemics to be expected, such as\nmalaria, typhus, and the like.\n\nOn the other hand the suggestion can come from the _research side_\nitself, which perceives a possibility of combating an evident state of\ndistress, through the progress of medical science, and also demands\nexperiments for the sake of the community.\n\nThe decision concerning the necessity for such experiments is a\n_decision of usefulness taken by the state_, consequently a _political_\ndecision, signifying a balancing of expenditure and of success to be\nexpected or hoped for.\n\nThere are different kinds of questions which have to be decided; first\nof all there are economic questions to be solved by the competent\nauthorities; i. e., financial questions, supply of specialists,\nlaboratories and so on.\n\nResponsible for it are offices with means and possibilities available,\nwhich can dispose of them according to their own judgment. These offices\nare divided further according to their special interest in individual\nspecial spheres, such as air navigation, _Wehrmacht_, and the like.\n\n_No decisions_ can be made by an authority _without any means at its\ndisposal_; this is valid for instance for the office \u201cScience and\nResearch\u201d of the defendant Karl Brandt, which fulfilled only a recording\nand coordinating function within certain medical spheres. Evidently the\nactivity of the _Reich Research Council_ was chiefly that of an organ of\ncontrol and had to eliminate superfluous research during the war by\nrefusal of subsidies in order to help the small number of specialists\nand material by allotment of priority ratings and financial means. This\nwas the task of the Reich Research Council and in the medical sphere\nthis part of its general regulating activity was very small.\n\nThese offices had _no power of decision as to whether experiments on\nhuman beings_ could be made or not, and they could not have it. The\noffice which regulated the _infliction of punishment_ and disposed of\nhuman beings subjected to experiments was the only office to take\ndecisions. This corresponds to what is known about the conduct of\nexperiments on human beings abroad, where the decision was also taken by\nadministrative offices.\n\nThe _authority for the infliction of punishments_, as the authoritative\noffice of the state, makes its _independent_ decision while _politically\nbalancing_ the _necessity_ for arranging experiments in the interests of\nthe community against what can be expected of the condemned. Applied to\nGerman conditions during the war it means the following:\n\nIf the condemned are under the control of the authorities of justice\ncompetent for the execution of sentences, the responsibility rests upon\nthe _Reich Minister of Justice_; if the execution of sentences is\ncarried out by the _Reich Leader SS and the Chief of Police_ in the\nconcentration camps, the latter has to be responsible for it.\n\nIn this situation _the responsibility of a physician_ can be of value\nfor a decision only so far as he gives a false _expert opinion_ about\nthe prospects of the experiment.\n\nThe government has to make the final decision about the admissibility of\nexperiments on human beings; the government only has to decide whether\nexperiments on human beings are necessary in order to combat dangers and\ninjury to health, as it is responsible for everything pertaining to\nhealth. In connection with this compare the regulation of the French\nGovernment in 1858 for the purpose of clearing up the question\nconcerning the treatment of secondary syphilis and the experiments made\non human beings. (_Karl Brandt 48, Karl Brandt Ex. 55._)\n\nIn war time, the decision is also conditioned by considerations\nconcerning _the preservation of the state_, which are _dependent on war\nconditions_. Epidemic diseases can have a decisive influence on the\nresult of the war and might in the end be of a greater importance than\nbattles, as for instance the plague during the siege of Athens, or\ntyphus during the advance of Napoleon into Russia. Biological warfare is\nthe result and was prepared intensively by the enemies of Germany, as\nthe foreign press openly informed us.\n\nIn the same way as the state demands the _death_ of its best men as\nsoldiers, it is entitled to order the death of the condemned in its\n_battle_ against epidemics and diseases. _No antique sacrifices to gods\nand demons_ are demanded any longer, only a _well considered expiation_\nas a help for the community and indeed exclusively in its interest.\n\nThe actual _responsibility_ of the physician lies in the _conduct of the\nexperiment itself_. The experiment has to be conducted by the physician,\nbut the _political responsibility for it rests upon_ the state, while\nthe physician is responsible for its conduct.\n\nIf the physician considers that an experiment is not feasible it can\nbecome a _crime_ and the physician has to refuse to carry it out.\n\nIn carrying out the experiment every attention must be paid to all\n_regulations_ of medical practice concerning _medical research_ at the\ntime.\n\nAll possible preliminary _experiments conducted on models_ have to be\nmade before experiments on human beings are started. That means that\npreliminary experiments in laboratories, experiments on animals and so\non, have to be conducted. In case of need even experiments carried out\non the researcher\u2019s own person belong to the preliminary experiments.\n\nGenerally, responsibility for the _extent of the experiments_ rests upon\nthe physician. In the arrangement of the experiments the number of the\npersons selected for experiments must be as great as necessary in the\ninterests of the result of the experiment, but in the interests of the\npersons selected for the experiment the number must be as small as\npossible.\n\nThe conduct of the _experiment_ must be _correct_ and _excesses_ which\ncould increase its danger _have to be avoided_.\n\nFinally, the _experiment must be stopped_ by the physician if it is\nevident that the expected result is attained or most probably will not\nbe attained.\n\nThe _assignment of persons_ needed for an experiment in the course of\ninfliction of punishment can take place only at the instigation of the\nexecutory office in whose custody the prisoner is held.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIt has been pointed out that many persons used for experiments were\n_foreigners_, and that this fact should have prevented experiments on\nthem. In this connection the following reference is made:\n\nIt is a fact that strong resistance movements in the West, and\nespecially in the East, waged a total partisan war against the German\ntroops and caused bloody sacrifices. International law does not object\nto capital punishment for participants in illegal combat and illicit\nsudden attacks against members of the occupation army. If, therefore,\ninstead of the permissible execution of capital punishment, mitigation\nthrough an attempt at expiation occurs, special consideration should be\ngiven to this fact.\n\nThe reproach that no experiments should have been made on _political\nprisoners_ contradicts the fact that the political opponent, in all\ncountries and at all times, has in most cases been punished more\nseverely than the criminal, namely on the basis of criminal law\ngoverning treason, espionage, and contravention of war measures, i. e.,\npolitical orders. Reference is hereby made to the fact that every\noccupation army threatens capital punishment for many, otherwise\ninsignificant, offenses.\n\n * * * * *\n\n _EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR\n DEFENDANT RUFF_[164]\n\n * * * * *\n\n _Prisoners as voluntary experimented subjects_\n\nThe question has repeatedly come up in this trial whether or not the\nexperimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments by\nRuff-Romberg were volunteers, although the people were in _detention_,\nthat is to say, indisputably under duress.\n\nThe expert Professor Dr. Leibbrandt has held to his one-sided opinion in\nthis respect too, and has advocated the theory that prisoners can never\nbe regarded as volunteers. This opinion is doubtlessly false; in other\ntimes, the expert perhaps would not have supported it. For the\nadministration of justice in other cases also accepts legally binding\nstatements of prisoners, and does not think of declaring them legally\nineffective, only for the reason that the prisoner in consequence of his\nimprisonment finds himself in an embarrassing situation, and therefore\nnot completely master of his own free will.\n\nOne surely is not mistaken in supposing that none of the defendants,\neven if he has ever such great experience as a medical man, at that time\nthought without exception of all the possibilities which we have to\nconsider now, when for many months we have had to search for the legal\nbasis of the whole problem of human experiments, and have had to think\nof all eventualities. According to his sentiment, at that time each\nphysician and research man said to himself: If the experimental subject\nagrees to the experiment, everything is all right. For this always\nappeared to the physicians to be the highest principle: An experiment is\nlegal if the experimental subject agrees to it, provided that the\nphysician observes the necessary care when performing the experiment. As\nproved here by this trial, there exists in no country a written law\nregulating the legal conditions of experiments on humans. On the other\nside, however, the human experiment is such a far-reaching and often\nsuch an indispensable matter that one might speak of an unwritten law,\nwhich generally and tacitly is accepted and acknowledged by the whole\nworld. Counsel for some of the defendants have demonstrated to the\nTribunal in their document books the opinion of the whole world on this\nunwritten law, in the most varying degrees, from the absolutely harmless\nto the absolutely deadly experiment, and has certainly thereby compiled\nvaluable material which is suitable for forming the basis of a\ncodification of this unwritten medical law and to show safe future roads\nfor the development of justice in this sphere. Lacking a written law,\nthe physician and research man even today can only recognize the\nconventional legal concept as a rule for his conduct as expressed in\ninternational medical literature.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWhen reading this international literature, however, there cannot be any\ndoubt that the volunteering of the experimental subjects warrants in\nevery case the legality of human experiments, and that, therefore, the\nmore sentimental attitude of our research workers was right when,\nbecause of their knowledge of international literature, they made the\nquestion of the legality of human experiments depend in the first place\non the voluntariness of the experimental subjects.\n\nAs far as one can see, international medical literature up to date\nnowhere represents the opinion that the consent of a prisoner is\nineffective because, by reason of his imprisonment, he had no free will.\nOn the contrary, in many cases it has taken an important step forward,\nand had frequently, without meeting any opposition, reported on\nexperiments performed on prisoners whose consent was not regarded as\nessential. Many experiments, some of which were reported on here in\nCourt, and some of which are described in the documents submitted by the\ndefense, demonstrate clearly that obviously the opinion prevails\neverywhere that in the case of prisoners, in particular those who have\nbeen sentenced to death, the consent of the prisoner to the experiment\ncan be replaced by the permission of the authorities, even in the case\nof experiments which were very dangerous and where fatalities occurred\nin more or less large numbers. The published reports also talk about the\nnumber of deaths in the experiments described, some slightly camouflaged\nbut to a large extent openly, without the research worker or the reader\nrealizing that murderous actions were being reported, because otherwise\nthe reaction would have been a completely different one.\n\nThe question becomes particularly acute if these experiments were\ncarried out in a totalitarian state or during a total war. It is not the\npoint in this connection whether a dictatorial regime is desirable or\nshould be rejected, nor whether a war as such appears to be criminal\n(for example because it will be judged as an aggressive war later on);\nthe attitude that, under such exceptional conditions as exist in a\ndictatorship or total war, even life-endangering experiments on human\nbeings may perhaps be more justified than under normal conditions is\nobviously based on the thought that the state governed by dictatorship\ncan and will ask for greater sacrifices, from criminals too, especially\nduring total war.\n\nAs a matter of fact the following thought appears to have occurred to\nmany a defendant during this trial: During a total war the state asks\neverybody to be ready at any time to serve at the front, and during the\naerial war every woman and every child at home is exposed daily and\nevery hour to mortal danger; many a citizen would therefore think it\nunsatisfactory if a criminal, who is burdened with heavy guilt or may\neven have committed a crime punishable with death, remains free from all\ndanger, in other words is in a better position than the upright citizen.\n\nIt appears now that many an experimental subject who was used at that\ntime for experiments was of the same opinion, because the witness Karl\nWolff stated on oath that the prisoners to whom he spoke in Dachau said,\nthat \u201cthey would contribute voluntarily to Germany\u2019s war effort and show\na sign of their actual good will.\u201d (_Ruff 21, Ruff Ex. 20._) The same\nideas were also stated by various defendants during their interrogation.\n\n * * * * *\n\n d. Evidence\n\n _Testimony_\n Page\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 993\n Extracts from the testimony of prosecution expert witness Dr. 994\n Andrew C. Ivy\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS\n EUGEN KOGON[165]\n\n_DIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. MCHANEY: Before we go into the details of the typhus experiments, I\nwould like to ask you if you know anything about the manner in which\nsubjects were selected for the experiments which you have mentioned and\nwhich took place in Buchenwald?\n\nWITNESS KOGON: The selection of experimental subjects was not the same\nat different times. In the very first period the inmates of the camp\nwere called upon to volunteer. They were told that it was a harmless\naffair; that the people would get additional food. After one or two\nexperiments it became impossible to get any volunteers whatever. From\nthen on, Doctor Ding asked the camp physician or the SS camp commandant\nto select the suitable persons for the experiments. He had no special\ndirectives for this. The camp administration chose people arbitrarily\nfrom among the prisoners, whether they were criminals, or political\nprisoners, or homosexuals. Intrigue among the prisoners themselves also\nplayed a role in the selection, and occasionally people came for whom\nthere was no special reason, but they came into the experiments. From\nthe fall of 1943, approximately, the camp leaders did not want to keep\nthe responsibility for the selection of experimental subjects. Doctor\nDing himself no longer wished to have verbal instructions from Mrugowsky\nto carry out the experiments, but he demanded written orders. For this\npurpose he approached Mrugowsky with the request that the Reich Leader\nSS should appoint his own people for the experiments. SS Gruppenfuehrer\nNebe of the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin then, according to a\ndirective from Himmler which I saw, ordered that only those people were\nto be used who had at least a ten-year sentence to work out. Then, the\nofficials of the Reich Criminal Police Office in Berlin twice selected\n110 and 99 people in Buchenwald, who were made available for the\nexperiments. They were exclusively criminals with a previous record. In\nthe last period, people were selected from various concentration camps\nand prisons in Germany. Transports came to Buchenwald with these people.\nIn addition to this, political prisoners from the camp itself were\nalmost always included in these series of experiments, either because\nthey were inconvenient to the SS in some way or because they were\nvictims of camp intrigues.\n\nQ. Were all of these experimental subjects condemned to death, who were\nexperimented on in Block 46?\n\nA. I do not know of a single case in which anyone came to the\nexperimental station in Block 46 because he had been condemned to death.\nOnce in the case of four Russian prisoners of war, it was claimed that\nthey were to be shot, but there was no judgment, no sentence. They\nbelonged to the category of Russian prisoners of war, of whom about\n9,500 were shot, hanged, or strangled in Buchenwald.\n\nQ. Were any special considerations or favors granted to the experimental\nsubjects who survived these experiments?\n\nA. During the first two or three weeks before the experiments were\ncarried out, the experimental subjects received better food in order to\nget them into the condition of a normal German soldier. Apart from that,\nnone of the prisoners who survived received any advantages, and they\nwere never promised any such thing.\n\nQ. Was an effort made to pick experimental subjects who were in good\nphysical health, that is, comparable to a Wehrmacht soldier?\n\nA. The condition did exist, and as far as was compatible with the other\nconditions of selection, it was fulfilled.\n\n * * * * *\n\nQ. Mr. Kogon, at the conclusion of yesterday\u2019s session you had explained\nto us the manner in which experimental subjects were selected for the\nmedical experiments in the Buchenwald camp. Will you tell the Tribunal\nwhether any non-German nationals were experimented on?\n\nA. Among the experimental subjects who had been selected for Block 46,\nthere were not only Germans but also Poles, Russians, and Frenchmen,\nparticularly during the last years.\n\nQ. Were there any prisoners of war experimented on in Block 46 to your\nknowledge?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS\n DR. ANDREW C. IVY[166]\n\n_CROSS-EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nDR. SERVATIUS (Attorney for defendant Karl Brandt):\n\nWitness, yesterday you testified that voluntary consent is the first\nprerequisite for human experimentation. Previously you had said that you\nyourself had been reluctant to apply for volunteers. Is that so?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: No.\n\nQ. Didn\u2019t you say just now that you didn\u2019t want to ask your students to\nvolunteer but left that to other agencies so that your authority might\nnot constitute some form of coercion?\n\nA. Yes, that is insofar as my personal direct request to the individual\nis concerned, I thought, because of my position as a professor, it might\nunduly influence the student to say yes.\n\nQ. You were probably of the opinion that your authority might persuade\nhim to do something that he otherwise would not do.\n\nA. Yes\u2014through individual contact.\n\nQ. I say, Professor, don\u2019t you know that in general the volunteer aspect\nof the person\u2019s consent has been under suspicion?\n\nA. I don\u2019t understand that question. Will you repeat it?\n\nQ. Is it not so that in medical circles and also in public circles these\ndeclarations of voluntary consent are regarded with a certain amount of\nsuspicion; that it is doubted whether the person actually did volunteer?\n\nA. Can you be more specific?\n\nQ. In your commission you probably debated how the volunteers should be\ncontacted; is that not so?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. On this occasion was there no discussion of the question that you\nshould assure yourself that no coercion was being exercised, or that the\nparticular situation in which the person found himself who applied was\nbeing exploited?\n\nA. Yes. I was concerned with that question.\n\nQ. There were discussions about that?\n\nA. Not necessarily with others, but there was always consideration of\nthat in my own mind.\n\nQ. Witness, a number of documents were submitted yesterday, Friday, from\nwhich it was to be seen that volunteers did volunteer, for instance\neight hundred or more prisoners applied for a malaria experiment[167];\nand there was a radio report; all of these persons had a motive for\nvolunteering. What are the motives of a prisoner that persuade him to\nvolunteer?\n\nA. These prisoners said they volunteered in order to help people who\nmight have malaria.\n\nQ. In this report the individual persons were asked, five or six of them\nwere\u2014one says that he volunteered because he is condemned to life\nimprisonment, and he has applied to oblige the army. Another says that\nhe is doing it because his brother is a soldier at the front and has\nmalaria. And another one says\u2014two of my brothers in the army had\nmalaria; and a third one says in the last war\u2014\n\nMR. HARDY: Dr. Servatius refers to Document NO-3450, Prosecution Exhibit\n519 for identification, and I request that he supply the passages so\nthat Dr. Ivy can properly testify.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: Witness, from this radio report I shall read the answers\nof the experimental subjects to you. One Mr. Quail says: \u201cI expect,\nCaptain Jones, that these men have many reasons for their volunteering\nfor this war.\u201d\n\n CAPTAIN JONES: \u201cYes, they have. Many have sons and brothers in\n the armed services, others have other patriotic motives, but I\n am not the one to tell about them.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cI get the point.\u201d\n\n CAPTAIN JONES: \u201cWith the permission of Warden Rangen we are\n going to talk to several of these volunteers right now. Here is\n a man who is older than some of the others. What is your name?\u201d\n\n JOHNSON: \u201cI am George Johnson, number so and so.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cJohnson, I have heard you have a pretty high fever as a\n result of these tests.\u201d\n\n JOHNSON: \u201cThat is right; at one time my temperature was 108\n degrees.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201c108 degrees, and you are here to tell the story.\u201d\n\n JONES: \u201cWhat was your main reason for volunteering for these\n tests?\u201d\n\n JOHNSON: \u201cI served in the U. S. Army during the First World War,\n and here, by going through with these tests, I helped some of my\n buddies in the war just ended.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cThanks, Johnson. Now, here is Charles Eirtz, number so\n and so.\u201d\n\n EIRTZ: \u201cMy brother was killed in the crossing of the Saar\n [Sarre] River; that made up my mind for me; we weren\u2019t being\n shot at here; it was the least we could do.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cAnd here is George Storm; George Storm, number so and\n so.\u201d\n\n STORM: \u201cTwo of my brothers in the service caught malaria. If I\n can help the Army, I can help my brothers.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cHere is a man who is one of the many inmate nurses\n helping out in the war. What is your name?\u201d\n\n LEOPOLD: \u201cNathan Leopold, number so and so. I was a malaria\n volunteer, and now I am acting as a nurse.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cHow do most of the patients react under these tests?\u201d\n\n LEOPOLD: \u201cAll the men are good soldiers; their morale is high.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cNow, two inmates who are no strangers to malaria.\u201d\n\n WALKER: \u201cMy name is George Walker, number so and so, and my\n nephew is a malaria patient in an Army hospital.\u201d\n\n MCCORMACK: \u201cI am James McCormack, number so and so. My brother\n is in the Army, too. If these tests will help cure him of\n malaria, it will all be worth while.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cMedical officers are particularly interested in this\n next case. Your name?\u201d\n\n NORMAN: \u201cAl Norman, number so and so.\u201d\n\n QUALL: \u201cWhy is your case unusual, Norman?\u201d\n\n NORMAN: \u201cBecause I have had five relapses since I first\n contracted malaria; that is the highest number any patient had.\u201d\n\nI shall stop reading. I believe this gives the general impression. Is it\ncorrect that all of them are giving idealistic reasons as the motive?\n\nMR. HARDY: Prior to the question I suggest that the document be handed\nto Dr. Ivy, if he wishes to refer to other sections of it in his answer.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: I shall do so immediately; however, I have one question\nfirst. Are these not all idealistic points of view as the person\u2019s\nmotive?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Yes. On the basis of my discussions with people who\nobserved these experiments at Stateville, Illinois, the idealistic\nmotivation of this group was very high. As a matter of fact, the effect\nof this public service rendered by these prisoners is being followed up\nto see whether or not it has special reformative value, and up to the\npresent time this question indicates that this public service has been\nof great reformative value, in that the incidence of return to\ncriminality under parole is markedly decreased.\n\nQ. Do you know Nathan Leopold, or do you know who he is?\n\nA. Yes.\n\nQ. Is it true that he was condemned to fifteen years in the penitentiary\nfor murder?\n\nA. To much more than that.\n\nQ. Do you think he is the right person to give an opinion regarding the\nhigh morale status of the inmates of a penitentiary?\n\nA. He can never expect to get out of the penitentiary, and I see no\nreason why he should not express himself, without any duress or\ncoercion, accurately and as he feels.\n\nQ. I will show you this report, and please ascertain if you have any\nremarks to make about it.\n\nA. No, I have none.\n\nQ. The idealistic points of view are associated with the state of war,\nare they not, aside from the last one?\n\nA. No, I do not agree, because if any coercion were brought to bear upon\nthese prisoners to serve in medical experiments, that would soon\u2014within\na week\u2014come to the attention of the newspaper reporters and would\nappear on the front page of every paper\u2014most every paper in the United\nStates.\n\nQ. I should like to tell you again what Jones says here. He says:\n\u201cOthers have patriotic motives * * * many have sons and brothers in the\narmed services.\u201d Captain Jones gives that as the main reason. And then\nother individuals are brought up who make statements in the same sense\nto the same effect. Is that not so?\n\nA. I believe that is entirely reasonable; because an individual is a\nprisoner in a penitentiary is no reason why he should not be patriotic\nor love his country.\n\nQ. Perhaps you will admit that no one would give that as his motive for\nhelping before a German de-Nazification court, namely, that he wanted to\nhelp the army.\n\nA. I did not get the question. Will you please repeat it?\n\nQ. Never mind. Now, Witness, of the experiments we have here, none of\nthese volunteers were outside the penitentiary; now, why did not persons\noutside the penitentiary volunteer in the malaria experiments:\nbusinessmen or teachers, for example? Because we must assume that not\nonly inmates of penitentiaries have ideals.\n\nA. As I explained yesterday, conscientious objectors were used, and\nprisoners were used, instead of teachers and businessmen because those\nindividuals had no other duties to perform. Their time was fully\navailable for purposes of experimentation.\n\nQ. Is it not an evil to carry out experiments?\n\nA. No.\n\nQ. You don\u2019t think so?\n\nA. It is not an evil to carry out experiments.\n\nQ. But isn\u2019t it an evil to have to go through an experiment as an\nexperimental subject?\n\nA. I should say not. I have served myself as an experimental subject\nmany times, and I do not consider it an evil.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you think it is very unpleasant to become infected with\nmalaria, to have fevers, and other undesirable symptoms of that sort?\n\nA. Yes. It is unpleasant, but not an evil.\n\nQ. Perhaps we don\u2019t understand each other. You don\u2019t want to say it is a\npleasure to have malaria?\n\nA. No. It is not a pleasure.\n\nQ. Is it not a very unpleasant and serious disease that lasts for many\nyears?\n\nA. It is unpleasant, yes.\n\nQ. If all these persons apply for idealistic reasons, why are they\noffered recompense?\n\nA. I suppose it is to serve as a small reward for the unpleasantness of\nthe experience.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you believe that the money was the motive for many of them\u2014a\nhundred dollars?\n\nA. That is rather small. From the point of view of prisoners in the\npenitentiary in the United States, a hundred dollars isn\u2019t much money.\n\nQ. For a prisoner that would be quite a lot of money, it seems to me,\nfor someone at liberty it is not so much.\n\nA. No. Our prisoners in the penitentiary in the United States, when they\nwork in factories in the prisons, receive pecuniary compensation for\nthat work.\n\nQ. I believe that is so throughout the world.\n\nA. That is put in a trust fund for them to use when they get out.\n\nQ. Do you think that the money is sufficient recompense or compensation\nfor what the experimental subject has to go through?\n\nA. I should not consider it so, and I don\u2019t believe that any of the\nprisoners did. As a matter of fact, I was told that some of them would\nnot accept the money.\n\nQ. If one declares oneself to be a volunteer, must one not weigh the\nadvantages against the disadvantages?\n\nA. I believe so.\n\nQ. The disadvantage here is the risk of a serious disease, the advantage\nis fifty or a hundred dollars.\n\nA. I should say the advantage is being able to serve for the good of\nhumanity.\n\nQ. For what reason was the money not paid immediately, but in two\npayments? So far as I remember from a document yesterday, the hundred\ndollars was paid as follows: fifty dollars after the first month, and\nthe other fifty after one year. In other words, a prisoner has to do his\njob first. Now, why was that so?\n\nA. I presume that that is just the common way of doing business in the\nUnited States when an agreement is involved. I presume the lawyers had\nsomething to do with that.\n\nQ. Was the reason not this: that the prisoner would lose his enthusiasm\nfor the experiment and would cease to cooperate? Could that have been\nthe reason for being a little circumspect in the payment?\n\nA. I doubt that.\n\nQ. Do you know of a case where the experimental subject did not wish to\ncontinue the experiment?\n\nA. That has not been my experience. And according to the response that I\ngot to that question when I put it to Dr. Irving, he said that no one\nexpressed a desire to withdraw at any time.\n\nQ. Professor, I have seen a document on experiments in hunger that were\ncarried out on conscientious objectors. That appeared in a periodical.\nIt is described how these conscientious objectors went through\nconsiderable unpleasantness and did not want to continue the experiment.\nThey kept their promise only at great effort. Is that known to you?\n\nMR. HARDY: I suggest that counsel refer to the document that he is\ntalking about at this time and make it available for Dr. Ivy, or make\nthe facts available, the particular data, so that Dr. Ivy will be fully\naware of the circumstances.\n\nPRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel have a document which he can make\navailable? Then he will use it.\n\nDR. SERVATIUS: I have only one copy in English here. (Presented to\nwitness.) I shall have to find the passage I am referring to.\n\nI can\u2019t seem to find it. This is a long document and somewhere there is\nthe statement that the experimental subjects have to summon all their\nforces to remain in the experiment. However, I shall drop the subject\nfor the moment. Witness, is there not another inducement that persuades\nprisoners to volunteer for experiments? Is not the prospect of pardon or\nother advantages the reason for applying?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: When these malaria experiments started, that prospect\nwas not held out to the prisoners, hence the possibility of a reduction\nin sentence, in being placed on parole sooner than otherwise, was not a\nprospect. However, since some of these malaria experiments have been\nterminated, a reduction of sentences in addition to that allowed for\nordinary \u201cgood behavior\u201d has been granted by the parole board. For that\nreason Governor Green of the State of Illinois appointed a committee\nwith me as chairman to consider this question which you have in mind:\nHow much reduction of sentence can be allowed in such instances so that\nthe reduction in sentence will not be great enough to exert undue\ninfluence or constitute duress in obtaining volunteers? I have my\nconclusions ready and can read them to you, if you desire to hear them.\n\nQ. Please do so. May I ask when this committee was formed?\n\nA. The formation of the committee, according to the best of my\nrecollection, occurred in December 1946, when the prisoners with\nindeterminate sentences were up for consideration for parole. This was\nthe first time the question of reduction in sentence came up.\n\nQ. One more question, Witness. Did the formation of this committee have\nanything to do with the fact that this trial is going on, or with the\nfact that this malaria case was published in Life magazine and that it\nwas explicitly stated that the experimental subjects were receiving no\ncompensation, no pardon, reduction of sentence? Is there any connection\nbetween those things?\n\nA. There is no connection between the appointment of this committee and\nthis trial, for this reason, that there is a division of opinion\nregarding the work that the parole boards do. Some believe that the\nparole boards are too soft; others believe that they are too hard. If a\nreduction in sentence were too great, parole boards would be criticized\nin the newspapers. Obviously the parole board wants to act on the basis\nof the best opinion on medical ethics that they can obtain. Accordingly,\nthis committee was appointed.\n\nQ. Would you please be so good as to read what you intended before?\n\nA. There are two conclusions:\n\n \u201cConclusion 1: The service of prisoners as subjects in medical\n experiments should be rewarded in addition to the ordinary time\n allowed for good conduct, industry, fidelity, and courage, but\n the excess time rewarded should not be so great as to exert\n undue influence in obtaining the consent of the prisoners. To\n give an excessive reward would be contrary to the ethics of\n medicine and would debase and jeopardize a method for doing\n good. Thus the amount of reduction of sentence in prison should\n be determined by the forbearance required by the experiment and\n the character of the prisoner. It is believed that a 100 percent\n increase in ordinary good time during the duration of the\n experiments would not be excessive in those experiments\n requiring the maximum forbearance.\n\n \u201cConclusion 2: A prisoner incapable of becoming a law-abiding\n citizen should be told in advance, if he desires to serve as a\n subject in a medical experiment, not to expect any reduction in\n sentence. A prisoner who perpetrated an atrocious crime, even\n though capable of becoming a law-abiding citizen, should be told\n in advance, if he desires to serve as a subject in a medical\n experiment, not to expect any drastic reduction in sentence.\u201d\n\nI might explain, when I used the expression \u201creduction in sentence in\nprison,\u201d that that implies that when the prisoner is released on parole,\nhe is still under supervision, observation, or sentence outside of\nprison. He is subject to arrest and return to prison at any time; so\nwhen we say reduction of sentence in prison, we do not mean that there\nis an actual reduction of sentence prescribed by the court. That is the\nlaw in the State of Illinois.\n\nQ. Witness, if the experimental subjects are prisoners, are they told\nabout this policy ahead of time?\n\nA. They will obviously have to be told of this policy from now on, since\nthe matter has come up for the first time.\n\nQ. Yesterday a prosecution document was shown to you. That was Document\nNO-3968, Prosecution Exhibit 517, Department of Justice, Bureau of\nPrisons, a document from Texas. This was in no document book but was put\nin only yesterday. I shall have this shown to you immediately. This is a\nform from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, a statement of\nvoluntary consent and it says here the following:\n\n \u201cI agree to cooperate to the fullest extent with the physicians\n conducting the study during an over-all observation period of\n approximately 18 months. I understand that at the conclusion of\n the observation period, I am to be furnished with an appropriate\n Certificate of Merit and a statement of my voluntary cooperation\n in the study and the fact that I have thus rendered voluntarily\n an outstanding service to humanity will be placed in my official\n record.\u201d\n\nIs that not a rather extensive promise which might induce a prisoner to\napply without having a purely idealistic motive?\n\nA. A Certificate of Merit is an attractive little certificate that the\nprisoner could have framed and he could hang on the wall of his prison\ncell. After he was released, he could take it home and show it to his\nfriends, and I think it might serve as an incentive to prevent the\nprevious wrongdoer from going into the ways of wrongdoing again.\n\nQ. Do you not think that it has a very practical usefulness? Do you not\nthink that it would lead the police to treat one a little more\nleniently?\n\nA. I doubt it, although I can\u2019t testify regarding what the police might\ndo.\n\nQ. Don\u2019t you think that it would be of some aid when looking for a job\nafter his release?\n\nA. When a prisoner is released on parole, before he is released, a job\nis found for him.\n\n * * * * *\n\n_REDIRECT EXAMINATION_\n\n * * * * *\n\nMR. HARDY: Now, Doctor, concerning your testimony regarding the\nconscientious objectors, I have a few points which may tend to clarify\nthis situation in the minds of defense counsel. Would you tell us how a\nperson is classified as a conscientious objector?\n\nWITNESS DR. IVY: Well, first, everyone within a certain age group in the\nUnited States had to register.\n\nQ. Register for the draft?\n\nA. For the draft or selective service.\n\nQ. That is, conscription into the United States Armed Forces?\n\nA. Yes. Then at some time later the actual draft occurred. The\nconscientious objector could announce that he was a conscientious\nobjector to serving in battle or serving with the military organization\nat the time of registration or at the time of induction or being\ndrafted.\n\nQ. And after he registered his objections to participating in any manner\nin the Army, was he then allowed to return to his home, or was he asked\nto cooperate in matters which did not involve things of a military\nnature?\n\nA. No. He was assigned to the Civilian Public Service Agency and asked\nif he wanted to cooperate by rendering public service.\n\nQ. And that public service was work as orderly in a hospital and work in\nvarious libraries, perhaps, and other public institutions?\n\nA. Yes, or forest fire prevention, and cleaning up the woods.\n\nQ. Was this man, this conscientious objector, in confinement?\n\nA. They were only placed under confinement when they would not cooperate\nin any way.\n\nQ. Was there a national committee to take care of the interests of the\nobjectors?\n\nA. Yes. As a general rule the conscientious objectors were supervised by\na civilian religious group, such as the Quakers or the Mennonites.\n\nQ. Was the conscientious objector under any duty to volunteer for\nmedical experiments?\n\nA. None whatsoever.\n\nQ. However, he was under obligation to work in various libraries or\nforest fire prevention, etc., if requested to by the committee?\n\nA. Yes. It was necessary for him to render some sort of public service.\n\nQ. Then you determined that you needed experimental subjects. How did it\nhappen that you decided that conscientious objectors might be made\navailable to you?\n\nA. As I recall, the National Research Council, in view of the fact that\nthe medical students and dental students were mustered into the Army and\ncould no longer serve as subjects in experiments in universities and\nmedical school laboratories, took the matter up with the Director of the\nCivilian Public Service, who then decided that the conscientious\nobjectors might be allowed to volunteer for such work in connection with\nmedical schools and research institutes.\n\nQ. And by that token you were permitted to approach conscientious\nobjectors to ask them whether or not they would volunteer for medical\nexperiments?\n\nA. I or the investigator did not approach the conscientious objectors\ndirectly. We requested that a certain number of volunteers be allowed or\nsent to us through the Director of the Civilian Public Service Agency.\n\nQ. And those conscientious objectors were sent to your university\nlaboratories?\n\nA. Yes. That is correct.\n\nQ. While they were at your laboratory were they living in the\ndormitories at the university?\n\nA. Yes, in the dormitories or in the hospitals.\n\nQ. Were they under any surveillance at all?\n\nA. One person in the group was appointed as a leader, supervisor of the\ngroup, and it was his duty to see that the men carried out their\ninstructions properly and on time.\n\nQ. Was it possible for any one of these objectors to receive leave or to\nhave week end liberty?\n\nA. It was not in most experiments.\n\nQ. Well, assume for the moment that you were not going to use the\nexperimental subject for a period of two or three weeks. Was he in such\na position that he could not go on leave or go to the city or was he\nsupposed to remain at your university at all times?\n\nA. No. He could leave for certain periods of time, varying in length\nfrom a few hours to a few days, depending upon the nature of the\nexperiment. If it were a dietary experiment, then he had to eat at the\ndiet table all the time.\n\nQ. Then he actually had freedom of locomotion, in contradistinction to a\nprisoner in an institution or penitentiary?\n\nA. Yes.\n\n * * * * *\n\n * * * * *\n\n[Further materials from the record in the Medical Case appear in Volume\nII. See Contents, p. VI, this volume.]\n\n-----\n\n[162] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July\n1947, pp. 10718-10796.\n\n[163] Document rejected by the Tribunal.\n\n[164] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 1947,\npp. 11154-11176.\n\n[165] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 6, 7, 8\nJan. 1947, pp. 1150-1290.\n\n[166] Vice President of the University of Illinois in charge of the\nCollege of Medicine, Dentistry, Pharmacy, and Nursing, and distinguished\nprofessor of physiology at the Graduate School of the University of\nIllinois.\n\nComplete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13, 14,\n16 June 1947, pp. 9029-9324.\n\n[167] Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt refers to experiments\ncarried out in the United States during World War II.\n\n\n\n\n TRANSCRIBER NOTES\n\nPunctuation and spelling has been maintained except where obvious\nprinter errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for\nperiods. American spelling occurs throughout the document. Multiple\noccurrences of the following spellings which differ and are found\nthroughout this volume are as follows:\n\n court martial court-martial\n blood letting blood-letting\n border line border-line\n front line front-line\n cross examination cross-examination\n long continued long-continued\n Jewish Bolshevik Jewish-Bolshevik\n concentration camp concentration-camp\n peace time peacetime\n Fraeulein Frau\n Frankfurt/Main Frankfurt-on-Main\n\nAlthough some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb\ntenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the\ntribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations\nbetween the German, English, Russian and French documents presented in\nthe trial(s). This volume had no German, Polish, Russian or other\neastern European diacritics, only French diacritics. As a result,\nGoering and Fuehrer are spelled without umlauts throughout.\n\nAn attempt has been made to produce this ebook in a format as close as\npossible to the original document's presentation and layout.\n\nSome illustrations were moved to facilitate page layout.\n\n[The end of _Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military\nTribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (Oct 1946-Apr 1949) (Vol.\n1)_, by Anonymous.]","title":"Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume I","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":419988}