1947-01-29, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: For the purpose of the Record, the Secretary General will file certificate from the physician of Defendant Oberheuser, showing her absence from the court today on account of sickness.

Counsel may proceed.

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Siegfried Handloser

DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser): Mr. President, Your Honors, the Defendant Handloser stands before you as the last highest-ranking medical officer of the German Wehrmacht.

The problem of this case is that he, who has not committed any individual offense of those which are the subject of the indictment, who has not issued any general decree or any specific order pertaining to the experiments under indictment here, is considered guilty by the Prosecution because offices which were subordinate to him in organizational or military respect, or medical officers who were members of such subordinate offices, were allegedly in some sort of connection with inadmissible experiments.

The fact that the Prosecution has not submitted a single document bearing the signature of Handloser, neither an order, nor a decree, nor a letter which was written by him or addressed to him, should, in view of the extensive field of duties of this defendant, suggest the supposition that there is no perceivably incriminating material against him.

The defendant will not try to minimize the importance of his high and responsible position; but the indictment obliges us to explain the framework of his position in such detail that the Tribunal can determine whether the crimes which were committed are in the field of that responsibility for which the Defendant Handloser has to answer according to law and justice.

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me a minute, Counsel, we are short one English translation. Excuse me, Doctor, you may go ahead.

Responsibility corresponds to the field of duties. Therefore, it is first of all necessary to clear up this field of duties, that is, the competence, the functions, and the duties of the defendant in his official positions. It must be examined whether the sphere in which the crimes alleged by the Prosecution were committed belonged to the field of duties of the defendant, whether he had the right to give orders or jurisdiction over the persons or offices primarily accused, and finally, whether in fact there was the possibility of preventing these crimes by virtue of knowledge of them.

Only if this can be answered in the affirmative does responsibility exist. This responsibility exists primarily toward the superior office, that is, that office from which the responsibility is derived. Moreover, a responsibility exists toward the law, the written law as well as the unwritten law of humanity.

The term responsibility, consequently has a dual character: 1), political or military responsibility; and 2), legal responsibility. Political and military responsibility need not be discussed before this Tribunal.

Legal responsibility presumes guilt. Therefore we must examine whether the facts forming the basis of the indictment actually took place because the Defendant Handloser was guilty of not having performed the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his functions.

The Prosecution charges the Defendant Handloser first, with having planned willfully and knowingly, together with the other defendants, war crimes and crimes against humanity, (fact of conspiracy); then it accuses him of having committed individual war crimes based on his special responsibility.

B) Count I): CONSPIRACY The Prosecution has stated that the case here on trial is one of the simplest and clearest cases for the facts of "conspiracy". I believe that the case of the Prosecution did not prove a "conspiracy", that is, a willful and knowing planning and collaboration of the persons sitting here in the dock as well as of the offices represented by these persons.

The Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a chart showing all offices which dealt with medical matters in Germany. Then it has alleged connections between these agencies, which doubtlessly did exist; but, from the fact that these connections were of a general and organizational nature, as must be the case in every other country between similar agencies under the jurisdiction of one central authority, it has drawn the conclusion that these connections must also have existed in those fields which form the subject of the indictment.

To me it seems to be essential to realize that the sphere of medical matters includes numerous fields which have not been mentioned at all by the Prosecution and whose field of activity has not been objected to by a single word. Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn for the present trial; that the activities of the German physicians and of the competent offices in these fields corresponded with the acknowledged rules of medical science.

Indictment and evidence have made quite particular facts the subject of a charge; namely: 1), Euthanasia and sterilization; with participation in which Professor Handloser was not charged, and 2); Experiments and investigations in various fields of research mainly on human beings in concentration camps. The relations between the defendants or the offices represented by them in fields which have nothing to do with the incriminating facts, cannot be considered as proof of conspiracy in those fields which are the subject of the indictment.

On the other hand; the indictment can be considered to be well founded in respect to this point with reference to the legal concept of complicity; only if — a) it is established that one or several defendants are connected causally and guiltily with the proved particular facts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and b), if this proved committing of crimes can be derived from a willful and knowing plan.

In regard to the question of conspiracy; which the Prosecution has dealt with as an independent count of the indictment, I refer in the legal respect to the statements of my colleague, Dr. Servatius, and to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, (transcript pages: 1646/6, 16499, 16501, 16502/3, 16533, 16534/5), a copy of which I submit as Exhibit HA 1). In respect to the facts; the Chief Prosecutor (page 115 of the record) and later on, during the session of 2 January 1947, Mr. McHaney, (page 989 of the record) called the meetings of the "Consulting Specialists" a "typical conference of conspirators." In order to prove to the Tribunal the error of this assumption, I have filed an application for evidence: to produce the printed reports on the meetings of the "Consulting Specialists" in the period between 1940 and 1944.

On the basis of yesterday's decision of the Tribunal, I shall, in order to supplement the excerpts from the printed reports of the meetings which have been submitted by the Prosecution, also submit extracts. It is of decisive importance for this count of the indictment, that the Tribunal know the purpose, the significance, and the contents of these meetings as thoroughly as possible. For this purpose I submit as basic Exhibit HA-2 an affidavit of the Defendant Handloser concerning: "Necessity and purpose of the meetings of the 'Consulting Specialists'." I have also, meanwhile, named as witnesses for the legal character of these meetings: a), Professor Dr. Wirth, and b), Professor Dr. Killian.

C. The Official Position of the Defendant Handloser.

In order to explain the competencies, functions, and duties of the Defendant Handloser, the following evidence is offered:

1) Extract from Army Regulation 21, Number 17-Army Physician (Exhibit HA-28).

2) Extract from Army Regulation, 21, Number 5-11-Medical Inspector of the Army. (Exhibit HA-28a).

which show the duties of the defendant as army physician and as Army medical Inspector.

3) Affidavit of the Defendant Handloser concerning: "Sphere of Work and Method of Work of the Administration of the Medical Services of the Army and the Wehrmacht" (Exhibit HA-29) In order to shorten the examination of the defendant on the witness stand, and, on the other hand, to orient the Tribunal thoroughly on the sphere of activities of the Defendant, it seems expedient to submit a detailed statement of his functions.

I shall read the affidavit only in part, in agreement with the Prosecution, and shall submit the affidavit officially for the notice of the Tribunal. In this phase of my case I shall also refer to the documents submitted by the Prosecution, dealing with the Fuehrer Decrees of 28 July 1942 (Document NO-080), 5 September 1943 (Document NO-081), and 7 August 1944 (Document NO-227), as well as to the official instructions for the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.

The following witnesses are to testify to the functions of the Defendant Handloser as well as to the official relations of Handloser's offices to the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht Branches and to the Waffen-SS:

A) the former chief of staff of Army Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt SCHMIDT-BRUECKEN,

B) the former chief of staff of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt W. WUERFLER,

C) the former Generalarzt in the Army Medical Inspectorate HARTLEBEN. In this connection I shall also submit affidavits of the co-defendants GENZKEN and MRUGOWSKY as Exhibits No. 16 and 17, for the connections between the defendant and the Waffen SS.

The Institution of the "Consulting Physicians".

The following documents are presented and witness named regarding the official position and the importance of the "Consulting Physicians" within the Medical Services:

1. The basis for the presentation of evidence will be the affidavit of the defendant Handloser.

The Institution of the 'Consulting Physicians', which I offer as Exhibit HA 18.

2. The copies of the Nos. 222, 226 to 234 of the Instructions for War Medicine, offered as Exhibit HA-19, contain the instructions relating to the group of "Consulting Physicians".

3. The aforementioned Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken, Dr. Wuerfler, and Dr. Hartleber will testify as witnesses with regard to the actual functions of the "Consulting Physicians".

4. The former Generalarzt and Consulting Internist of the Amy Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt Prof Dr. GUTZEIT, will also testify as witness on this subject.

5. Finally, I shall refer to the affidavit, Exhibit 6, not 20, of the former Generalarzt Dr. PENNER.

The Amy Medical Inspector; the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Research.

The defendant has enumerated in Document HA-29 the institutes subordinated to him in his capacity as Army Medical Inspector. The prosecution has not submitted that within any one of these institutes tests and experiments were conducted such as are the subject of the indictment.

It has merely been asserted that medical officers who served in or directed these institutes were allegedly in contact with offices which conducted such experiments.

Evidence is offered that this assumption of the prosecution is based on an error and also that the defendant Handloser in any case had no knowledge of any connections which these medical officers had with persons or institutions concerned with such experiments.

Documents of the prosecution regarding reports or a knowledge thereof have not been presented.

The following are named as witnesses for the correctness of the claim of the defendant Handloser:

a) the former Oberstabsarzt and commanding officer of the Army Mountain Medical School St. Johann, Dr. SCHAEFFER.

b) the former Oberstabsarzt and head of the research group in the Mountain Physiological Institute of the Army Mountain Medical School St. Johann, Dr. CREMER.

c) the former Oberstabsarzt and head of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow, Prof. Dr. EYER.

d) the former Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. LANG, in the Military Medical Academy, Berlin.

e) Dr. Bernhard SCHMIDT, former hygienist in the Army Medical Inspectorate.

Also the above-mentioned witnesses Schmidt-Bruecken, Wuerfler, and Hartleben.

It is evident from the Exhibits HA-16 and HA-17 that the defendant Handloser had nothing to do with the research carried on by the Waffen SS.

The prosecutor, in reading Document No.227 (page 152 of the record), overlooked the official note to I 2a and II, 2 contained in Document Book 1, page 19, which reads:

The Wehrmacht in this sense includes the Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe, the units of the Waffen SS attached to the Wehrmacht, and the organizations and groups employed within the framework of the Wehrmacht.

A relation to the institute for "Military Scientific Research" of the Waffen SS in the "Ahnenerbe" did not exist.

In this connection I offer an affidavit by the co-defendant SIEVERS as Exhibit 15, not 21. Handloser was neither a member of, nor in any other function connected with the "Ahnenerbe" and its organizations. The prosecution has not submitted evidence of this or of any official connection.

Neither were there personal or official relations between the defendant Handloser and the "Reich Research Council" or the later "Military Research Association" (Wehrforschungsgemeinschaft).

The list of the members of the board and heads of special branches, submitted by the prosecution, reveals that Handloser was not represented in these organizations. Circular Letter No. 5 of the planning board of the Reich Research Council, dated 7 September 1944, regarding the creation of a "Military Research Association" shows — see distribution list — that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not even notified.

It is evident from the affidavit of the defendant SCHROEDER, offered as Exhibit HA-22, as well as from the affidavit of the defendant BECKERFREYSUNG (Exhibit H-23) that the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service had no competence whatsoever as regards the research of the "Aviation Medicine Research Institute", and the research assignments issued by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

IV. The so-called Typhus Conference (Ding Diary Document No.-265.

In the extensive case of the Prosecution there is only one single assertion which affects the Defendant Handloser directly personally and brings him into relation with the unwarranted experiments of human beings. This is the alleged conference on 29 December 1941, which, as is stated by the Chief Prosecutor, allegedly laid the basis for the criminal typhus experiments on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald. It is the first entry in the so-called Ding Diary (Document No.265).

It reads:

Conference between Army Medical Inspector Generaloberstabt, Professor Dr. Handloser, Reich Health Leader, State Secretary, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti, President Professor Reiter of the Health Office, President Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch institute (Reich Institute for the Combatting of Infectious Diseases), and SS-Standartenfuehrer, Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, Berlin.

It is determined that it is necessary to examine the tolerance and effectiveness of typhus vaccines from chicken vitelline sacs. Since animal experiments do not allow for sufficient evaluation, experiments will have to be conducted on human beings.

The Defendant Handloser emphatically denies having taken part in such a conference. He asks me to emphasize that at the end of 1941, there were several conferences regarding the typhus epidemic in the East and the consequent threat to Germany.

He will testify on this subject personally under oath when called to the witness stand. He denies, however, that at that time at a conference in which he took part, a decision was reached, to conduct typhus experiments on human beings, and also that such a conference reveals a relation to research experiments of the SS in this field.

The Defendant Mrugowsky certifies in an affidavit (Exhibit HA-24) That the entry in the Ding-Diary of 29 December 1941 was forged or based on an error.

Furthermore, it is proved by an affidavit of Prof. Dr. Reiter (Exhibit HA-25) who is said to have taken part in this conference, that the entry of Dr. Ding is not correct. The witness Dr. Kogon was not questioned by the Prosecution on the alleged conference and the entry to that effect by Dr. Ding.

The Prosecution, therefore, in this point of decisive importance for the Defendant Handloser, relies upon the entry in the diary of a deceased person who did not take part personally in this alleged conference. The Prosecution subsequently, submitted, it is true, the Dietzsch affidavit Document No.1314. This affidavit states:

After the conclusion of the experiments, Dr. Ding drew up a record in May 1942, in which he put down in writing the results of the experiment I read these entries at about the same time and found among the files as Sheet No. 1, entries on a conference of physicians which was held in Berlin.....

At the meeting in November 1941, in which Professors Handloser, Schreiber, Gildemeister, Mrugowsky, Rose, and Dr. Ding took part, it was resolved to conduct vaccine experiments on human beings, after experiments with animals had failed to yield clear results."

Capo Dietzsch known to the Tribunal from the presentation of the Prosecution and from depositions made by witnesses, testifies on the alleged conference not from his own knowledge; for at that time — 29 December 1941 — he was not yet in the section of Dr. Ding, as he testifies himself. He relies, on the contrary, on the entry in the Ding diary. If, therefore, this testimony does not have an additional probative power, in comparison with the Ding entry, for the Prosecution case, it has considerable probative power in the defense of the Defendant Handloser, because it destroys completely the probative value of the first page of the Ding diary which has been submitted.

The defense counsel of the co-defendant Mrugowsky, my colleague Dr. Flemming, challenged the admissibility of the Ding diary as an exhibit. Although the Tribunal did not consider the objection justified concerning the entire document, nevertheless on basis of the testimony of Dr. Kogon and of the Dietzsch affidavit it must be considered as proved that the first page of the Ding diary, which is the important point in the Handloser case cannot be recognized as an exhibit.

1. Dr. Kogon testified that Dr. Ding dictated the entries in the diary for the first half of the year of 1942 all at one time. Dietzsch confirms this testimony and declares that this dictation took place about in May 1942.

2. When it was pointed out in cross-examination that the title of the diary, "Department for Typhus and Virus Research" which became possible only at the end of January 1943, cannot be explained, Dr. Kogon suggested the explanation that Dr. Ding had the first page of the diary re-written later on.

Dr. Kogan Meant that Dr. Ding had only the "heading" of the diary rewritten.

The Dietzsch affidavit shows that not only the "heading" but the entire first page was changed in its contents; for the date of the conference in the submitted text of the so-called Ding Diary is 29 December 1941, whereas Dietzsch speaks of a conference in November 1941. Furthermore, the participants in this conference are listed differently. Dietzsch mentions Schreiber, Rose and Ding as participants, who are not listed as participants in the submitted Ding diary.

For the purpose of refutation of the statements made in the Balachowsky affidavit, I quote; (Document No.484, No. 4):

In the Central Committee of this Department we see the following personalities:

Dr. Handloser, Inspector General of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Dr. Conti, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Poppendick, SS-Gruppenfuehrer, Dr. Genzken, SS-Gruppenfuehrer, I shall submit the affidavits of Mrugowsky (Exhibit HA-24) Genzken (Exhibit HA-26) and Poppendick, (Exhibit HA-25).According to these affidavits there was no committee or "central committee" in the Section for Typhus and Virus Research.

D. Count II, 6A of the Indictment: High-Altitude Experiments.

The Prosecution has charged the Defendant Handloser under this count, as well as under the counts which are still to be discussed, with "Special responsibility for and participation in these crimes."

In the documents submitted in the Prosecution case neither the name of Handloser nor any of his offices is mentioned. The experiments concern the Luftwaffe specifically. Since, according to the Prosecution, they lasted from March 1942 until about August 1942, and according to the Romberg affidavit (Document NO-476) they lasted approximately until the end of May, 1942.

Handloser as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service can not have had any connection with these experiments; much less can he have participated in them, since the office of Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was only created on 28 July, 1942 (Document NO-080) and, according to the Prosecution itself, the experiments must already have been concluded at that time.

The Prosecution has now attempted to prove a connection between the Army Medical Inspectorate and these experiments by quoting a remark contained in Document1581b-PS, which reads as follows:

Has the letter with the Cramer-Klett report arrived?

Following this the Prosecutor stated (page 233 of the record): The meaning of this remark is not quite clear. It is true that we find the name of Cramer mentioned in the freezing experiments, and, as I recall, we shall see that Cramer was an army doctor attached to the Institute in St. Johann. You will remember that this institute was under the authority of Dr. Handloser in his capacity as Army Medical Inspector", and quotation.

The Tribunal will certainly not have failed to observe that the Prosecution made no attempt to prove that the "Cramer-Klett" mentioned in Document 1581b-PS is identical with the "Dr. Cramer" mentioned in connection with the cold experiments. The great difference in the names proves the incorrectness of this argument of the prosecution.

It therefore ensues from the arguments and from the documents submitted by the Prosecution that the Defendant Handloser and the Army Medical Inspectorate are in no way connected with the high-altitude experiments.

Count II 6 B of the Indictment: Freezing Experiments.

The documents submitted by the prosecution on this subject do not mention the name of the Defendant Handloser or any of the offices under his supervision as having ordered or participated in the experiments conducted in the concentration camp of Dachau.

In this connection the Prosecution has only stated that medical officer of the Army (From the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann) participated in the Luftwaffe meeting on "Winter Hardship and Distress at Sea" of 26 and 27 October, 1942, during which Prof. Holzloehner held a lecture on freezing experiments (Document NO-401). The Prosecution has further more stated that Oberstabsarzt Dr. Cremer, of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann, is said to have discussed collaboration with Dr. Rascher after the Meeting in Nurnberg. (Documents NO-319, 1579-PS and NO-431) No letter or other document from Dr. Cremer or his office was presented, nor was any proof presented, that Dr. Cremer spoke with Dr. Rascher on official orders and that there was collaboration with the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann. But that would be necessary before one could conclusively claim participation of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann, which was under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Handloser.

As the final report on the freezing experiments at Dachau was presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS on 16 October 1942, (Document 1613-PS), the experiments were concluded before the participants in the Nurnberg conference could have heard about them.

Therefore, the Prosecution has presented no proof either of Handloser's "special responsibility" or of his participation or the participation of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann.

Therefore, the charge against the Defendant Handloser on this count is not proved.

By way of precaution, the witnesses already named, Dr. Cremer and Dr. Wuerfler, are called to testify: That there was absolutely not participation of medical officers of the Army Mountain Medical School at St Johann in the experiments which form the basis of the charge, and furthermore:

That even later on no collaboration was officially agreed upon or took place, finally:

That reports were never made to the defendant Handloser on unwarranted experiments at Dachau or about proposed collaboration with Dachau.

The Prosecutor has referred (page 148 of the record) to the Army Mountain Medical School of the OKH at St. Johann in connection with the freezing experiments.

The witness, Dr. Schaeffer and Dr. Cremer will testify that there was no connection between the freezing experiments at St. Johann, which are not mentioned in the Indictment, and the experiments under Indictment here.

Count I b C of the Indictment: Malaria Experiments Document Book 4 of the Prosecution which refers to this subject, contains no document that mentions the defendant Handloser, which is signed by him or addressed to him, nor have the witnesses who have testified on this matter said anything that could incriminate the defendant Handloser.

For want of any concrete incriminating assertion of the Prosecution against the Defendant Handloser, and the offices subordinated to him, it is impossible for me to offer evidence in his defense.

By way of Precaution: I present as Exhibit HA 3) an affidavit of professor Dr. Rodenwaldt, formerly "Consulting Hygienist" of the Army Medical Inspectorate, as proof of the fact that within the Army Medical Inspectorate experiments in this field on human beings were never ordered or conducted. The witness, Dr. Wuerfler will testify that reports about such happenings were not received.

Count II b D of the Indictment: Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments:

According to the Indictment, Lost (mustard) gas experiments were conducted on human beings during the period from 1939 to 1945 in Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler and other concentration camps, on behalf of the German Wehrmacht.

The documents presented by the Prosecution show the following:

1. There is no document showing an order to or participation of the Wehrmacht in experiments in concentration camps or on prisoners.

2. Prof. HIRT'S report about, and I quote: "Lost experiments conducted on behalf of the Wehrmacht" is not the report sent by HIRT in 1940 to his Generalarzt, but rather a report to the "Ahnenerbe" about the report which he had previously submitted. This is shown by the third paragraph from the end of the report in question.

3. From this report it can be seen that HIRT conducted the experiments, which were carried out on orders of his Generalarzt during an assignment back home — evidently during the first half of 1940 — only on animals, furthermore, on two cadets of the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. These experiments can not be the subject of this indictment.

4. When HIRT specifies on page 3 of his report, I quote: "These experiments could not be carried over to human beings, as the beginning of the offensive in France called me back to my unit," end of quote; this proves that in his report to his superior Generalarzt he could not report on experiments on human beings with the exception of the two cadets — on the other hand, the question remains open, whether the experiments planned but not carried out by HIRT were to be conducted on volunteers, which the two cadets doubtless were. Consequently this document lacks any probative force for the case under consideration, all the more as the defendant Handloser had been Army Medical Inspector only since January 1941, so that HIRT's report could not have been submitted to him in that capacity. The lost-experiments, dealt with in the document which has been submitted, have no connection with the Wehrmacht. The documents speak for themselves.

The Document NO-372, submitted by the Prosecution, (affidavit of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt) contains the following sentence, I quote;

Apart from Karl Brandt and the other above mentioned persons, Handloser and Rostock must also have known of these experiments.

end of quote. With regard to this affidavit, it must be said on principle testimony of witnesses, and affidavits should relate only fact based on personal knowledge.

The expression of an assumption, or a supposition without giving concrete facts on which the assumption, or supposition is based is inadmissible. The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt insofar as it is quoted does not relate such concrete facts, however.

I submit in evidence Document HA-4, an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, in which he declares:

I cannot submit any actual documentary proof of this assumption.

Exhibit HA-4.

"In general it must be said for this case and also for later cases that the words of the Indictment, "on behalf of the Wehrmacht", in themselves; that is, without concrete casual facts cannot prove the existence of punishable relation to the Defendant Handloser and his offices.

"During the war all medical investigations serve the "Wehrmacht, but in the same way they serve the wounded and sick soldiers who fell into German hands as prisoners of war, and furthermore they served the treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. The standards for the medical care given prisoners of war were regulated by the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime and the Agreement on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 13-15, "Health Care in the Camps' (appendix to the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime) and the 'Geneva Convention' for Improvement of the Lot of the Wounded and Sick of the Armies in the Field, which is known to the tribunal. This was also attached to the Regulation on Medical Services in War as a supplement; it was binding on all medical officers. I add a copy of the pertinent provision of the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime as Exhibit HA-5 and HA-5-a.

The affidavit of Dr. Penner, Exhibit HA-6, shows that the Defendant Handloser issued directives for the medical treatment of the population in the occupied territories.

Finally, a certified statement of the Swiss Colonel Dr. von Erlach on the care which the Defendant Handloser gave prisoners of war is also submitted as Exhibit HA-7. And I add that this morning I received a statement from the Swiss Colonel Dr. von Brunner to the same effect.

Sulfonamide Experiments: Disregarding the affidavit of Dr. Fischer, the documents submitted on this count do not contain any evidence that the Defendant Handloser or his offices participated in the experiments conducted by the Defendants Professor Dr. Gebhardt, Dr. Fischer, and Dr. Oberheuser in the concentration camp Ravensbruck.

The Defendant Dr. Fischer has testified in his affidavit of 21 October 1946 (Document No. NO-472), and I quote:

When the sulfonamide experiments began, Professor Gebhardt, my military and medical superior, told me that these experiments were conducted order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht and of the Chief of the State Medical Office...

On this point I submit the affidavits of Dr. Fischer and of Professor Dr. Gebhardt as Exhibits HA-8 and HA-9, which show the following:

a) Dr. Fischer states and I quote:

It is not correct when this affidavit says that Professor Gebhardt had told me that the experiments had to be conducted by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht. I did not make such a statement.

b) Professor Dr. Gebhardt states:

It is incorrect that I over told Dr. Fischer that these experiments were conducted by order of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht.

Dr. Fischer and Professor Gebhardt will also testify on the witness stand that the statement in Dr. Fischer's affidavit is incorrect, according to which the Defendant Handloser was present at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Hohenlychen mental hospital; furthermore the statement of Dr. Fischer in his affidavit of 21 November 1945, that Dr. Stumpfegger was from the 'High Command of the Army', will be changed to read that he was a member of the staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS.

An affidavit of Professor Dr. Frey, submitted as Exhibit HA-10 will confirm that the Defendant Handloser never ordered sulfonamide experiments which would have conflicted with medically acknowledged principles.

Concerning this count of the indictment, the prosecution has referred to the meeting of 'Consulting Specialists' of the Wehrmacht in May 1943, at which Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer spoke on their sulfonamide experiments.

The Defendant Handloser was present during this lecture. He cannot recollect the exact text of the lecture of Professor Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer. He will testify an the witness stand as to whether an uninitiated person could have realized from the statements made that the experiments on human beings conducted by Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer had been based on inadmissible experimental methods. Affidavits will be submitted by other auditors which answer this question in the negative. The affidavits which have been requested on the basis of written information have not yet been received.

In judging from the point of view of criminal law, it must be considered that the experiments had been concluded when the lecture was held.

Count II 6 F of the Indictment: Experiments concerning Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation: Everything said about Count II 6 E applies to this count, with the remark that the experiments in question had been concluded, according to the Dr. Oberheuser affidavit (Document No. NO-487) early in 1943. But I must add that a report on this subject was not made in May, 1943 at the meeting of consulting physicians.

Seawater Experiments: Document NO-442 (affidavit of Rudolf Brandt), Document NO-449 (Schroeder affidavit), then document NO474 (Schaefer affidavit) and Document NO-177 (record of meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944), and finally, Document NO-185 (Professor Schroeder's letter to Himmler of 7 June 1944) show that these were special experiments of the Luftwaffe and the Navy.

No documents or other evidence has been submitted which proves a relation of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to these experiments. The Prosecution has submitted only an affidavit of the defendant Schroeder (Document NO-449), which says that the Defendant Handloser know about the Medical research work conducted by the Luftwaffe.

This statement, which was given without any concrete reason for the assertion, has been corrected in an affidavit of the defendant Schroeder of 2 January 1947, Document HA-22. This states:

1. If the Luftwaffe gave research assignments in fields of aviation medicine, it did not need the permission of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.'

2. It is true that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and the Army Medical Inspector did not participate in the discussions on the seawater experiments, nor were they informed of the details of the execution of these experiments.

In this connection I also refer to the Becker-Freyseng affidavit, HA-23. This voids the Prosecutions' assertion of the Defendant Handloser's special responsibility for and participation in these experiments.

Experiments with Epidemic Jaundice: The name Handloser and the offices of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector are mentioned in none of the submitted documents, disregarding the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (Document NO371). The defendant Rudolf Brandt has stated in an affidavit of 21 December 1943, Exhibit HA-11, and I quote:

When I said in this affidavit, Handloser must have been informed of it, that is a supposition. I cannot give any facts which show or suggest knowledge of Professor Handloser.

In order to prove a responsibility of the Defendant Handloser in his capacity of Army Medical Inspector, the Prosecution has referred to a Stabsarzt Dohmen and has stated (record, page 777), that the latter was a member of the Army Medical Inspectorate while Handloser was Army Medical Inspector.

As a proof that this statement is not correct, the affidavit of Professor Dr. Gutzeit is submitted as Exhibit HA-12; this affidavit also corrects the other statements connected with the activity of Dr. Dohmen. Dr. Dohmen was a member of the Military Medical Academy, Training Group C, the commanding officer of which was Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber. This group was under the command of the commanding officer of the Military Medical Academy, which was an independent institute and, along with many other medical units, medical agencies and institutes, was subordinated to the Army Medical Inspectorate. The statement that Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber (Document NO-299) was subordinate to Handloser, which was also put forward at the meeting of 19 December 1946, is untrue as far as it suggests his immediate subordination to or membership in Handloser's agency as the Army Medical Inspector. Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber was, at that time, attached to the Military Medical Academy and was, therefore, subordinated to the Commanding Officer of the Academy.

Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber was also Plenipotentiary of the Reich Research Council for Epidemic Control, to which Handloser did not belong. For this reason Haagen asked Schreiber in a letter dated 12 June 1944 (Document NO-299) whether hepatitis research would in future be financed by the Reich Research Council or whether he ought to apply to the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe for further funds.

It was Schreiber, too, who was asked for the temporary assignment of Dr. Dohmen (Document NO-299) and who arranged with the Commanding Officer of the Military Academy for Dohmen's assignment (Documents NO-300 and NO-124). The Army Medical Inspectorate and Handloser were not responsible for this assignment, so that Handloser did not learn of these events.

There can, therefore, be no question of any direct participation of the Defendant Handloser, nor was Dohmen a medical officer, for whoso actions Handloser would have been responsible according to the Indictment 13.

Typhus Experiments: The assertion of the Prosecution that by taking part in the conference of 29 December 1941, the Defendant Handloser caused the typhus experiments to be performed on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald, has already been discussed.

In this connection, the Prosecution has assumed the existence of a connection between the institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow and the Army Medical Inspectorate, and referred in this connection to a visit of the head of the Cracow Institute Professor Eyer, and the hygienist of the Army Medical Inspectorate, the fact that there was no connection with the the typhus experiments on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald, and that the witnesses had no knowledge of the experiments charged here.

The witnesses will also testify that no reports were submitted to the Defendant Handloser which either prove his connection with the concentration camp Buchenwald or, in particular, his knowledge of the experiments on human beings carried out in this camp.

This applies to typhus experiments as well as to yellow fever experiments.

The witnesses Schmidt-Bruecken and Wuerfler will confirm this.

The Defendant, Handloser, has also named Professor Dr. Lang, former head of the Military Medical Academy, as a witness that the blood serum preserves mentioned in the Ding diary were not sent for testing in the concentration camp Buchenwald. With regard to the lice shipments for the purpose of infection of human beings with typhus mentioned in the Ding diary, Professor Eyer will confirm as a witness, the affidavit given by the Defendant, Hoven, which is offered as Exhibit HA-13, according to which these lice shipments did not emanate from the Cracow OKH Institute but from Dr. HASS in Lwow, and had nothing to do with the Army Medical Inspector or the Chief of the Wehrmacht Services.

The Defendant, Dr. Mrugowsky, will also as a witness testify to this.

The typhus experiments of Professor Haagen in Natzweiler have no connection with the Defendant, Handloser, or any of his offices, as is evident from the documents submitted by the Prosecution. The interrogation of the witness, Eyer, did not prove that reports from Prof. Haagen reached the Defendant, Handloser.

The Prosecution later submitted another affidavit by Rudolf Brandt of 14 November 1946. Herein the Defendant, Rudolf Brandt, testifies: I quote: SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Karl Brandt, Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Siegfried Handloser and other surely knew of Haagen's experiments on human experimental subjects.

In this connection an affidavit by Rudolf Brandt of 9 January 1947 is submitted as Exhibit HA-14 in which he deposes, and I quote:

This paragraph in my affidavit is not a factual deposition. I cannot give any concrete fact on which this opinion is based. I assumed on the basis of the explanation of the interrogator that it had been so.

Polygal experiments.

The Prosecution mentioned the Defendant, Handloser, on 22 January 1947 Record, page 1021) in dealing with the Polygal experiments.

In Document Book 11 offered in this connection, neither the Defendant, Handloser, nor any of his offices is mentioned. The Prosecutor in presenting the Ahnenerbe diary (Document 3546-PS) remarked with regard to the entry of 26 May: I quote: "This research institute was under the Defendant, Handloser, a fact so which we have referred earlier in the course of this trial."

This assertion is not correct. In Cracow there was the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH, which was under the Defendant, Handloser. The Prosecution itself calls the institute in question "Institute for German Eastern Research". I offer an affidavit by the Defendant, Sievers, as Exhibit HA-15 from which the incorrectness of the assertion of the Prosecutor is evident.

The Prosecution in the course of its case offered documents as evidence of preparation for bacterial warfare. It can be seen from the documents that the medical collaborator, Prof. Dr. Kliewe, a member of the "lightning red" working community, dealt only with protective measures against possible damage in case of bacteria warfare. His work and his reports referred to this matter. Prof. Kliewe was subordinated for this task to the Army Weapons Office. Evidence. The witness, Prof. Kliewe, who has been named by the Defendant, Blome.

In a trial in which the defendant is not charged with directly perpetrating, participating in or ordering a crime, it will be essential to understand correctly not only his sphere of office but also the actual management and the extent of his duties and, furthermore, his personality. Only thus will it be possible to decide whether credence should be given to his statement that he had no knowledge of the facts which the Prosecution alleges to be criminal as far as they touched his sphere of office.

As evidence on this point, I refer to the affidavits by Generalarzt Dr. Penner and the Swiss Colonel, Dr. von Erlach.

I shall further offer affidavits by Prof. Dr. Kurt Veit. (Exhibit HA-30) Dr. Stengele (Exhibit HA-31), the Prior of the Benedictins Abbey Maria Laach, Theodor Boglep (HA-32), Dr. W. Drexler (HA-33).

I have requested but not received an affidavit from Colonel Dr. Brunner and the Prelate, Dr. Kreutz, the head of the Catholic organizations. The affidavit of Brigadier General Dr. Bircher has not yet arrived.

Finally I offer a memorandum from the former Reich Student leader, Dr. Scheel, which shows the attitude of the Defendant, Handloser, toward the political influences of the Party on the young medical officers being trained at the universities. (Exhibit HA-34). These documents will make it clear that in accordance with the personality and the actions of the Defendant, Handloser, one may believe that he had no knowledge of criminal experiments and would not have tolerated any if they had come to his knowledge within the scope of his responsibility.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:45 o'clock this afternoon.

(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)