1947-01-29, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 29 January 1947)

BY THE PRESIDENT:

The Secretary General will note for the record that the Defendant's, Karl Brandt, Counsel, Dr. Servatius, has been excused from attendance at this afternoon's session. Dr. Servatius, Counsel for the Defendant Brandt, has made his opening statement this morning.

Counsel may proceed.

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Paul Rostock

BY DR. HANS PRIBILIA (Defense Counsel for Defendant Paul Rostock):

Mr. President, Members of the Court: In submitting evidence in defense of Professor Paul Rostock, counsel can start from the fact that Prof. Rostock himself performed no criminal experiments on human beings. Nor has anything been presented by the Prosecution from which it might be inferred that he either ordered or suggested such experiments. In order to give a true picture of the activity which Prof. Rostock really exercised during the war, the defense will begin their submission of evidence by giving a brief description of Rostock's professional activity in various branches of medicine. This is necessary in order to make it clear along what lines Rostock used by far the better part of his energy and interest in the years from 1939 to 1945. Such a description will reveal that his activity as head of the surgical university clinic of Berlin, Ziegelstrasse, his activity as an advisory surgeon of an Army, his work as the sole editor of the Central Journal for Surgery or Zentralblatt Fuer Chirurgie with which he combined since 1942 the duties as Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Berlin, engaged his time and energy to such an extent that his activity on behalf of Carl Brandt's office, which was added to his other work not until the last year of the war, could of necessity not exceed a limited scale. As far as can be recognized at this stage, the Prosecution does not present any charge against the Professor of Surgery of Berlin University, except for the latter short period, and only in respect to this subsidiary activity. For the whole duration of the war, up to the end of 1943, he is merely reproached, together with 350 other advisory army doctors, to have been present at a meeting where among many others Gebhardt and Fisher gave also lectures.

The question as to how far this can legally constitute a charge on those present at these lectures will be dealt with in detail when counsel submit evidence on behalf of the defendant Handloser, and counsel for Rostock will also refer to this subject in their defense so far as it is necessary.

Furthermore, a detailed description will be given of what the scientific and research section with the Commissioner General for Health, which originate in the Winter, 1943, to 1944 under Rostock, did in practice do and what it did not do, Counsel will endeavor to show that although the attempt was made by Rostock's office during those last chaotic years of war to gather some information on the work done in the various research institutes, the information made thereupon available to his office was such that it did not enable Rostock's office to be aware of the fact that objectionable experiments on human subjects were performed in German Research Institutes.

Now that Prosecution evidence has established the fact that various research orders involving experiments on human subjects were actually given by a very different organization namely the Reich Research Council, it is obvious that the associations of the defendant Rostock with the Reich Research Council, which are alleged by the Prosecution, must be the subject of detailed evidence. Counsel for Rostock attach decisive importance to the clearing up of this point, and their argument is that the Reich Research Council was under the direction of its president, whose instructions were carried out by the secretaries and the heads of the different branches, and that the defendant Rostock was not a member in any of these latter organs of the Reich Research Council.

The so-called governing body or Praesidialrat, in which Rostock was not received as a member until the last year of the war, and only as Brandt's deputy, had, as will be proved, neither knowledge of, nor influence on, such research orders. It was a purely representative institution which did not exercise any real functions.

The possibilities for Rostock's counsel to submit evidence are comparatively limited. To their regret, counsel are not in a position to submit the files of the division headed by Rostock in order to give the Tribunal a comprehensive idea of the work which was actually performed in this division. The complete files of his division were taken by Rostock to Bad Liebensein. Rostock was interrogated after his capture in May or June, 1945, by the 7th Army Interrogation Center at Augsburg Barenkeller, and in the course of his interrogation, he also indicated the precise location of the files of his office. Subsequently some American officers came to Bad Liebenstein and took these files along with them. The part of these papers which is most important as evidence for the defense, was the correspondence with the various German research institutes, as well as what was called the Research Card Index, summarizing all the information communicated to Rostock's office by other agencies. Rostock has request that this Research card index be submitted as evidence, and the Tribunal has approved this request. But unfortunately, counsel for his defense are not yet in a position to say whether they will actually receive these files for inspection, and whether they will thus be able to submit extracts as evidence in defense of their client.

It may perhaps be noted in this connection that in this trial the Prosecution have presented their documentary evidence in a manner which can only be called exemplary. Particularly those among the defense counsels who had to work their way through mountains of documents in the first Nurnberg Trial have highly appreciated that the document books were submitted in a well ordered and timely fashion. This encourages them to hope that it has not escaped the attention of the Tribunal that up to this date the Prosecution has not presented one single document as evidence against the defendants which bears the signature of Rostock or is addressed to him.

In connection with this question of evidence, I think it my duty as a defense counsel to ask the Tribunal to give its attention to the fundamental question of how evidence in defense of the accused should be made available to their counsel. The Military Tribunal Number One is the first American tribunal of supreme rank before which a number of further trials of great importance are to be opened in this defeated country. But while in your own country, prosecution and defense are very largely given equal possibilities to gather and submit documents, circumstances are different in this case as a consequence of Germany's unconditional surrender. Never before in history has a modern state been so completely and so absolutely in the hands of the victors. Thus all existing archives and files of German offices and agencies are in the possession of the Allies. These documents have been collected in large document centers, where they are currently studied and analyzed. They are available to the prosecution in their search for documentary evidence against the defendants. Contrary to German law, American law provides that the prosecution only present evidence against the defendant. It would only be just and fair if by a decision of principle made by the Military Tribunal Number One counsel for the defense would be given access to these documents to a larger extent than has been possible until now. It appears that it is not sufficient for counsel to be authorized to receive a certain document which is already known, but, on the contrary, the search for documents in defense of the accused should be rendered possible by giving counsel access to the whole of the papers and files available in each particular case. If it should be considered undesirable to give German counsel this freedom, American lawyers might be attached to the German defense counsels and given the right to search for defense documents in the document centers on behalf of the defense counsels. I believe that Rostock's case is one of these where Tribunal would very quickly reach a just appreciation of his position if the comparatively small, strictly limited and complete files of his small office covering the latter's activities of hardly eighteen months, could be submitted as evidence.

Under these circumstances, the documentary evidence to be submitted by Rostock's counsel would be limited to a few documents. Counsel will present two charts indicating the time relation of the human experiments, which are the subject of the indictment, to the general duties of the defendant Rostock. These charts will show that by far the greater part of the experiments were performed long before Rostock's short subsidiary activity with the scientific and research office, so that for this reason alone, there can be no question of his having had any knowledge or responsibility. Furthermore, a few affidavits of members of his office will be presented. The other evidence submit by the defense counsel will be direct and oral. Counsel will be in by questioning the defendant Prof. Rostock in the witness stand. Among Rostock's assistants in his office, the most important witness whose hearing has been authorized, Herr Christensen, has been located and will be taken to Nurnberg. He has exact knowledge of the whole activity of Rostock within the science and research office, as well as of the correspondence with other agencies and he is, furthermore, the man who summarized the information on the research work in the research card index, which was mentioned a moment ago. Another witness, whose hearing was authorized by the Tribunal, is Head Nurse Margarethe Baldow. Here whereabouts are also known, and her transfer to Nurnberg has been ordered. From 1936 to 1945, she acted as head nurse in Rostock's clinic. She has knowledge of his activities during practically every single day of these years, and she is, in particular, in a position to give the Tribunal a picture of how much of Rostock's work during the last 18 months of the war, which alone are of interest to the Tribunal, was taken up by his duties in his clinic, and how little time he was able to devote to Brandt's office. The last defense witness for Paul Rostock authorized by the Tribunal, Rudolf Mentzel is the principal secretary or Hauptgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Reich Research Council. He is one of those who are best in a position to explain the complicated group of questions connected with the Reich Research Council and its competence and acting assistants, and he will be able to confirm in particular that Rostock never took an active part in business connected with the Reich Council.

The cross examination of the witness Eyer has established that the information given in Document NO 883, Exhibit 314, which seemed to constitute a charge against Rostock, was essentially due to a mistake. One or two affidavits from co-defendants will make it clear that their own references to Rostock's name in some records of their interrogations were not made out of their own knowledge, but rather from mere assumptions.

This would bring the submission of defense evidence on behalf of the defendant Rostock to a conclusion unless additional questions are raised in the further course of the proceedings.

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Oskar Schroeder

BY DR. MARX (Counsel for the defendant Schroder):

DR. MARX: Mr. President, and the Tribunal, the Prosecution regards Professor Dr. Schroeder as being also involved, together with the rest of the defendants, in a common criminal plan which during the period from September 1939 to April 1945 had as its aim the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, you have given us the German Document, it is not the English translation.

(The Secretary General gave the Tribunal the English Document.)

THE PRESIDENT: I suggest that the defense counsel start his argument again. We now have the English translation.

DR. MARX: The prosecution regards Professor Dr. Schroeder as being also involved, together the rest of the defendants in a common criminal plan which during the period from September 1939 to April 1945 had as its aim the commission of war crimes and crime against humanity.

Within the framework of this criminal plan, the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder is also said to have had knowledge of cruel and tormenting experiments on living human beings or at least to have tolerated them and not to have undertaken anything stop them, and in one case even to have ordered them himself. Furthermore, he is charged with special responsibility in view of high position in the medical service of the Luftwaffe.

It is a general principle of the international criminal law and seems to be of decisive significance especially judicially examined in this trial, whether a defendant, like Professor Dr. Schroeder in this case, appears to be at all capable, according to his character and his entire personality, of participating in a criminal plan with an indefinite number of other men and of declaring himself from the very beginning to be in agreement with the undertaking of a number of criminal actions not yet known to him.

With what type of personality are we dealing in the person of the defendant and former Generaloberstabstarzt of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Schroeder.

All the strivings of this man were devoted to quiet, serious life work and professional work, moved by Christian spirit. His conception of his profession as a physician was always to help, to serve, and to cure the sick. His active cooperation in a leading position in the erection and outfitting of hospitals and field hospitals was in accordance with this conception; in doing so, he rendered his services without discrimination, to Catholics as well as to Protestants, as will be proved by the defense by submission of relevant confirmations and by witnesses.

Therefore, Professor Dr. Schroeder could not bring himself to join the Party or one of its subsidiary organizations; he rejected everything that limited personal liberty, and he never made any secret of his rejection of the brutal methods of the Party an the Nazi government, so that his friends frequently had serious fears for his freedom, yes, even for his live.

The defendant was furthermore of such a character that he was ready to sacrifice even his official position and his office for his conviction.

The defense will prove by means of witnesses that at the time when he took the official position as Chief Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe, in the beginning of 1944, he stated quite openly to members of his family as well as to his subordinated that he would immediately resign from his office at any time, if he should be required to do anything which he could not reconcile with his conscience.

It is obvious that a man with such aims and of such qualities of character would never be willing to lend his hand to a criminal project.

As a further essential aspect showing that Professor Dr. Schroeder must have been informed about the criminal experiments on human beings which are the subject of this trial, the prosecution cites his alleged position as second highest medical officer in the Luftwaffe and deduces from this circumstance, moreover, a special responsibility of this defendant.

The defense will, on the other hand, prove that Schroeder we by no means the second highest medical officer in the Luftwaffe; this will eliminate the further possible supposition that he was therefore the deputy of the Chief Medical Officer. Had the latter been true, a necessary consequence would have been that in case the Chief Medical Officer was unavailable, he would have had to be informed about the latter's current duties.

The Senior Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe was next in line after the Chief Medical Officer at the time, was a Generalstabsarzt resident in Berlin, whom Chief Medical Officer Dr. Hippke also always appointed as his deputy.

In the period from 1 February 1940 until 31 December 1943, Professor Dr. Schroeder himself, as Air Fleet Physician 2, did not have any close contact with the central office in Berlin.

If it appears already from the above description of the philosophy of life and of profession of the defendant that is impossible that he should have declared himself to be in agreement with criminal projects or that he should have joined a group of men with criminal aims, then the contemplation of the composition of the defendants' dock shows further that there is no homogeneity of the defendants among themselves.

There exist, rather, between the defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder and a large number of co-defendants the most pronounced ideological contrasts as well as insurmountable contrasts in the conception of the medical profession and of the ethical obligations of the physician. The defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder would never have agreed to lend his hand to any kind of experiments on living human beings, whose course he was unable to direct and where it would have been impossible for him to eliminate from the outset injuries to the health of the experimental subjects or even danger to their lives by by appropriate instructions.

In addition to this, Schroeder was personally closely acquainted with only very few of the defendants, who, like him, were medical officers of the Army or the Luftwaffe. Some of the other physicians he was more or less acquainted with in a purely professional way; the majority of the defendants, however, he knew only by name, not even personally or through official contacts.

It is clear that under those circumstances one cannot speak of any kind of common activity or of action according to a common aim.

Furthermore, the prosecution concludes from the fact that during the time in question about four so-called "Consultation Meetings" took place, in which representatives of the highest medical offices of the Wehrmacht, of the Reich Physicians' Leaders office, as well as all Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht participated, that these gatherings formed a part of the criminal planning, which then took effect in the experiments on human beings in the concentration camps.

In regard to this point, the defense will prove that the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder participated in only one of these meetings in 1944 at Hohenlychen, and that at this meeting he was interested merely in his specialty.

Now, as to the details in regard to the question of experiments on human beings, there is the following to be said:

1) The defense will prove that, with the exception of the experiments to make sea water potable, Schroeder did not know about or participate in any of the experiments listed in the indictment.

2) That, on the contrary, he heard for the first time of the crimes which are being charged only after the end of the war, about October-November 1945 as a prisoner of war in England, through press and radio.

3) That in the period from 1 February 1940 until 31 December 1943 he was continuously employed as leading medical officer of Air Fleet 2 and physically far distant from the central office in Berlin, without any close contact with the Medical Inspectorate.

The prosecution furthermore charges Professor Dr. Schroeder with special responsibility for experiments conducted in the framework or research assignments.

1) Concerning the effect of the sulfonamides Professor Dr. Gebhardt and his assistants Dr. Fischer and Dr. Hertha Oberheuser conducted experiments on this matter.

Outside of the unproven assertion that as second highest officer in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe Prof. Dr. Schroeder must have known about the experiments, the prosecution does not submit any evidence whatsoever in support of its contention. The prosecution can only refer to an affidavit by the co-defendant Fischer, which, however, since it is based on an error on this point, will be rectified The defense will demonstrate that Professor Dr. Schroeder did not know anything about these experiments.

He heard about them for the first time through the indictment which was served upon him.

2) Concerning the question of Yellow Fever, Typhus, and Hepatitis.

The executing physician in the three last-named assignments was Professor Dr. Haagen in Strasbourg.

First of all, the prosecution submits that, as Oberstabsarzt of the Reserve of the Luftwaffe and as Consulting Hygienist of Air Fleet Center or The Reich, Fleet Center, Prof. Dr. Haagen was officially subordinated to the Medical Inspectorate.

The defense will likewise prove that the Medical Inspectorate had nothing to do with the activity of Haagen here in question. The Consulting Specialist insofar as they were directors of well-known clinics and scientific institutes, retained, in addition to their activity in the Wehrmacht, the direction of their civilian institutions, since generally they were indispensable there.

It was the duty of the medical offices in charge, together with the Consulting Physicians, to find a solution of this double position which was satisfactory for both spheres of duty.

In doing so, one thing had been established on principle, the Consulting Physician bore the full responsibility toward the civilian supervising agency for his activity in the civilian sector. This activity was in no way subordinate to the supervisory duty of his superior military medical offices.

1) It is apparent already from the documents submitted by the prosecution that Prof. Haagen was given two quite distinct types of orders, because of his previously demonstrated double position. Haagen was Oberstabsarzt in the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe, but on the other hand his main position was as ordinary Professor for Hygiene and Director of the Hygiene Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg. Haagen used, this latter position, without the chief medical officer's knowledge -which aid not violate his duties — to obtain research assignments independently of the Luftwaffe and in addition to the orders already given by tne Luftwaffe, assignments in the same fields, but with entirely different aims.

2) As early as 1941 and 1942 Haagen had received "Research Assignments"from the Luftwaffe, which, however, are more properly described as "Assignments for the production of vaccines", for the production of influenza, yellow fever, and typhus vaccines; according to the status of the production at the time and the consumption of money, he asked for additional means and for extension of the time limit of the assignment. The experiments required for this were exclusively experiments with animals and pure laboratory work; they did not call for experiments on human beings, in any case. The vaccines could be used for protection against yellow fever or typhus without danger to the health and life of human beings after having; been tested in the laboratory on animals. These assignments given out by the Luftwaffe were, in accordance with their contents, given out openly; they did not need the protection of secrecy.

In contrast to this were the research assignments which Haagen received from the Reich Research Council in connection with the Institute for Military Scientific Research in his capacity as director of the Strasbourg Hygiene Institute.

These orders were not open; they were sent as "Top Secret" under the protection of strictest secrecy.

1) In the framework of these assignments under the protection of secrecy, Haagen undoubtedly undertook experiments in concentration camps.

The defense will prove that the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder did not have any knowledge of these experiments. This is evident from the following:

a) All of the requests for prisoners and the entire correspondence on this matter marked "Top Secret" went either directly to the Institute for Military Scientific Research and to the Reich Research Council or via Professor Hirt of Strasbourg, who had been included in the work and who, as confidential agent of the Ahnenerbe Society and agent of the co-defendant Sievers, was located in Strasbourg, to the Main Administrative Office of the SS in Berlin.

b) Due to the secrecy imposed on this work, Haagen was obliged to maintain absolute secrecy about this work toward all persons who had nothing to do with that work. Thus, of course, there was no reason to inform the Chief Medical Officer, since the production assignments of the Luftwaffe had no connection with these research assignments to Haagen.

c) The defense will prove, by means of excerpts from the correspondence of Haagen, that this correspondence was carried on by him in his capacity as Director of the Hygiene Institute and not as Consulting Hygienist of the Luftwaffe.

d) The ignorance of the office of the Chief Medical Officer regarding Haagen's experiments on human brings is evident from the inquiry addressed to Haagen by the Chief of Staff of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Oberstarzt Dr. Kahnt, in June 1944 regarding the cases of typhus which had occurred in the Natzweiler camp. Such an inquiry would never have been made if the office of the Chief Medical Officer had known that Natzweiler was a concentration camp, since all matters concerning concentration camps were handled by the SS as its exclusive domain, and it refused even to report epidemics among concentration camp inmates to other offices, e.g. the Wehrmacht, as was usually required between military and civilian offices — Health Officials, Health Offices, etc.

The only conclusion that remains is, therefore, that even Oberstarzt KAHNT as Chief of Staff did not know that Natzweiler was a concentration camp, but assumed that it was one of the numerous barrack camps for the purpose of using of troops and that it was newly created during the war.

The defense will prove that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER did not have any personal knowledge of this letter of his chief of staff, since he happened to be on an official trip to Italy at the time in question.

e) The Counts in the Indictment regarding experiments on human beings concerning yellow fever and hepatitis are eliminated in any case since the prosecution did not submit any evidence at all to conducted in these two groups.

From the documents submitted by the prosecution it is quite obvious that a clearly delineated production assignment for yellow fever vaccine was issued in 1942 and that it was withdrawn after the African theater of war was given up, in July 1943.

There was no hepatitis research assignment for HAAGEN on the part of the Luftwaffe at all. The assignment had likewise been issued as "Top Secret" by the Reich Research Council.

As the submitted documents prove, HAAGEN selected assistants for the execution of his experiments from the circles of the established specialists, without considering their membership in one or another part of the Wehrmacht. Thus Prof. GUTZEIT and DOHMEN belonged to the Army, BRUECKNER and KALK to the Luftwaffe.

As the witness EYER has already testified before this tribunal, no experiments on human beings were conducted with reference to the hepatitis assignment.

We shall substantiate this evidence extensively through additional witnesses.

Regarding the typhus experiments on the basis of the order of the Reich Research Council, the prosecution neither offers reasons for nor proves a knowledge of these things on the part of the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER. On the contrary, we shall be able to demonstrate by tacit acquiescence undeniably by the testimony of witnesses that Prof.

Dr. SCHROEDER could not have known anything about them.

Concerning the experiments to make sea water potable, the following is applicable:

1) In accordance with his basic attitude toward medical ethics, which was described in the introduction, SCHROEDER condemns all experiments on human beings which could bring about injury to the health or even death. He draws the line of demarcation even more sharply against such experiments on living human beings, if they could be undertaken with intent to torture and with intent from the outset to kill. Neither do such experiments, as for example, those of RASCHER and DING, according to his attitude have anything to do with medical science, nor do the people who conduct them have the right to claim, to be called physicians or scientists. He considers that they are criminals and have to be judged accordingly,

2) SCHROEDER could agree only to experiments in which, under application of all scientific principles and precautions, the occurrence of an injury to the health was impossible according to the recognized principles of medical experience.

Here it has to be considered in his favor that, in this case, special circumstances prevailed, which made it possible to conceive the undertaking of experiments in a concentration camp and which, in a sense, forced them to be executed there.

Special weight against the defendant is given to the fact that in the letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Reichsfuehrer SS of 7 June 1944 he did not mention that the experiments planned in the concentration camp Dachau were to be carried out on voluntary experimental subjects and that he had consented at all to the undertaking of these experiments on concentration camp inmates.

The defense will prove that Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER, first, did everything possible in order to see to it that these experiments be carried out at a Luftwaffe hospital or at the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe as troop experiments, and that only a whole series of circumstances, which will be detailed later, forced him to desist from this original plan.

He assured himself, however, in an extensive conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz that, even under the changed outer conditions, the prerequisites for the experiment would remain the same as in the originally planned troop experiments, especially the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects.

3) It is evident, further, from the ordering of the experiments and from the clear and definite, directives issued for their execution to the director of the experiments, that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER was guided by the aim of eliminating every injury to an experimental subject and of continuing the experiments only to the limit of the compatibility of the amount of water administered in each case, but to discontinue them immediately, when this limit seemed to have been reached and the conclusion of the experiments seemed desirable from the subjective point of view of the experimental subject, who refused further acceptance of water if the experiment was continued, as well as objectively, according to the physiological findings.

The defense therefore believes that it can prove that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER in no case went beyond the limits which have been imposed upon the physician and scientist in the exercise of his profession by the ethical-medical and moral-human principles of medical science recognized throughout the world.

We are, moreover, of the opinion that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER, through the order to conduct experiments on making sea water potable, by careful preparation, by consulting recognized, proven and experienced scientists, and by the execution of the experiments under the supervision of a scientifically proven, medically experienced University professor of sound character, created the prerequisites for the best scientific work, and that, with the result achieved by these means he helped to solve a problem of enormous value for humanity not only during times of war but, over and above that, for tasks of peace, the problem of rescuing human beings in distress at sea from dying of thirst.

Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Karl Genzken

Mr. President! Your Honors!

The Defendant GENZKEN was Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS from the time it was organized. He was in change of all the medical care of the troops of the Waffen SS, that is to say medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and hygienic care of the four original and later 36 divisions of the Waffen SS. In his capacity as Chief of the medical Service of the Waffen SS he had no scientific research problems to solve, never actually raised such problems himself nor ordered their execution. Scientific research and planning were not, as the evidence will clearly show, in the hands of the Defendant GENZKEN, but exclusively in the hands of the Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. GRAWITZ. The sole and exclusive task of the Defendant GENZKEN was the medical care of the fighting units of the Waffen SS at the front and their reserves at home. At the end of the war the Waffen SS comprised about 900,000 men, the medical personnel alone amounted to over 40,000 persons at the end of 1944. GENZKEN alone was responsible for the professional direction and personal management of this personnel, the 61 hospitals and the medical units, and finally for the medical care of the entire Waffen SS. It is clear that this huge and extensive task, led and directed by him alone, left him no time to take even a superficial, not to mention a detailed interest in any scientific research or planning.

In the presented of my evidence I shall first, by examining the defendant as well us the witnesses whom I have called, present to the Tribunal evidence of GENZEN's non-participation in the alleged conspiracy of the defendant. In particular, I shall prove that GENZKEN was in a very tense relationship with GRAWITZ as well as HIMMLER, that he had considerable controversies with both, and that consequently both of them considered him "persona ingrata et incerta", and so that for this reason alone it must seem improbable that GRAWITZ and HIMMLER would initiate him into the experiments an concentration camp inmates which those two planned and ordered, or would even inform him of these experiments. If even the originators of these experiments did not want the Defendant GENZKEN to be informed about their experiments, the executing agents could certainly not have done so. I shall furthermore prove, through the defendant, that with one single exception he did not discuss the experiments with which he is charged with any of his co-defendants or with other persons, and that he did not request or receive any scientific reports or carry on any correspondence about these experiments.

Aside from this general point of view of conspiracy and membership in the SS, GENZKEN is charged with special responsibility for alleged participation in the sulfonamide, typhus, phosphorus, and poison experiments. He is not charged with active participation in these experiments. It is only asserted that, in spite of allegedly complete knowledge, above all of the typhus experiments; he did not do anything against them. Dr. DING; the director of the Section for Typhus and Virus Research in the Buchenwald concentration camp, and the latter's superior, the co-defendant MRUGOWSKY, are alleged to have been his subordinates. It is asserted that GENZKEN carried on continuous correspondence with DING and was therefore accurately informed about the typhus experiments; also that he consciously tolerated and promoted the sulfonamide, phosphorus, and poison experiments. The Prosecution attempted to prove its assertions regarding participation in the typhus experiments by submitting affidavits of the co-defendants HOVEN and MRUGOWSKY, by submitting the DING diary, and through the witness Dr. KOGON I shall on the other hand bring proof, by examining the defendant and through defense witnesses, that no such criminal responsibility of GENZKEN can be assumed. It will, in particular, appear from the evidence that GENZKEN did not suggest, tolerate, or know any details about either the establishment of the research institute or the execution of experiments on human beings. The evidence will show that Reich Physician GRAWITZ ordered the experiments without any previous or subsequent participation of the Defendant GENZKEN!

It is true that GENZKEN know Dr. DING. He did not, however, order Dr. DING's assignment to Buchenwald, and he never requested scientific reports from him or received such reports unsolicited; he never accented DING's occasional invitation to visit him in Buchenwald.

What GENZKEN know of Buchenwald was merely the fact that a station existed for the production of the typhus vaccine which was urgently needed by the units or the Waffen SS, and that from about the Spring of 1943 approximately 30,000 doses of vaccine were to be produced monthly.

He never learned anything about deliberate causing of infections, series of experiments, or deaths running into several digits, nor has the Prosecution been able to present any conclusive evidence to this effect. Whether and to what extent the purely formal relationship of subordination of the co-defendant MRUGOWSKY and the deceased Dr. DING to GENZKEN incriminates the latter in the sense of being criminally punishable will also be clarified in the course of the presentation of evidence.

As for the sulfonamide experiments, the Prosecution believed that it could deduce criminal participation of the defendant by proving that the bacteria cultures used for this purpose in Ravensbrueck and even the wood and glass particles needed for the artificial contamination of the wounds were delivered by the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS.

I shall prove through defense witnesses that the execution of these sulfonamide experiments was no more on the field of work of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS than the typhus experiments, the question of whether the experiments are punishable remains open. Moreover I shall prove that nothing was known about these experiments in the Medical Office of the Waffen SS either to the Defendant Genzken in particular knew nothing about them. Whether, beyond that, the shipment of gangrene cultures, etc., from the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS to the concentration camp Ravensbrueck in itself constitutes punishable action of the defendant Genzken will also be cleared up in the course of my presentation of evidence. Moreover, the Prosecution has not been able to present any evidence here, either, to the effect that Genzken himself had anything to do with the delivery of the cultures.

The Prosecution, further to support its charges against Genzken, refers to the East meeting at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943 and in this connection presented an affidavit by the co-defendant Fischer stating that Genzken was present at this meeting and heard Fischer's report on sulfonamide experiments.

Fischer is mistaken. He will not only correct this testimony in this respect himself, but, moreover, the defendant and witnesses will prove that Genzken did not hear Fischer's report. Whether or not the conclusions drawn by the Prosecution from participation in this meeting are at all pertinent from a legal point of view or not, these arguments do not apply to the Defendant Genzken because he did not participate in the meeting.

Finally, as to counts 6 K and 6 L of the indictment, namely poison experiments by administering poisoned food, etc., and experiments with phosphorus incendiary bombs, I am completely at a loss to see how the defendant could have had anything to do with these experiments, which took place in the concentration came Buchenwald beginning in the late fall of 1913.

It has already been established and will be emphasized once more during the presentation of evidence that from 1 September 1913 the Hygienic Institute was no longer under the defendant Genzken, but under the Reich Physician SS Grawitz. The same is true of the subordination of the co-defendant Mrugowsky. The Prosecution's contention that Mrugowsky, whom the Prosecution attempts to make primarily responsible for these experiments, was Genzken's subordinate is incorrect in this respect. For these experiments took place at a time when the Hygienic Institute under Mrugowsky had already been taken away from the defendant Genzken.

Nor did Genzken have any knowledge of these experiments; he learned of them only through the Indictment. This will be shown unequivocally by the evidence.

The evidence in the Genzken case will show that it was not the duty of the defendant to conduct scientific research or experiments on prisoners, but only to give medical care to the troops of the Waffen SS.

The case for the Prosecution may at first give the impression that Genzken, at least by tacit toleration, participated in experiments. The case for the Defense, on the other hand, will show that is not so; it will show that the Defendant neither ordered such experiments nor tolerated them, nor knew anything about the methods used in such experiments, but that he worked only as a physician, seller, and organizer in the medical service of the Waffen SS.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.

(A recess was taken to 1515)