1947-01-30, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants arc all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendant Oberheuser is absent today in continuation of the illness for which she has been absent several days. The defendant Karl Brandt is also absent, having been excused by this Tribunal yesterday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants save the defendant Oberheuser, absent on account of sickness in accordance with the doctor's certificate which I have, and the defendant Karl Brandt, having been excused by this Tribunal, and the defendant Brandt's counsel. The secretary-General will file this certificate in the absence of the defendant Oberheuser.
Counsel for defense may proceed with their arguments.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Joachim Mrugowsky
DR. FRITZ FLEMMING (attorney for Mrugowsky): Mr. President: The defendant Mrugowsky is charged in the first place under Count 1 of the indictment with a common design or a conspiracy.
I shall prove in respect to this Count that the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10 concerning conspiracy on which the Indictment is based on this point do not apply to the case which is here under review. As a precautionary measure I shall further prove that the actual conditions of a conspiracy are non-existent.
Under Count 2 of the Indictment, War Crimes, Mrugowsky is charged with High altitude and freezing experiments.
Malaria experiments, and Sea water experiments Sulfanilamide experiments and Epidemic jaundice experiments Sterilization experiments and Typhus experiments, Experiments with poison and Incendiary bomb experiments.
He is, furthermore, charged under Count 3. Section 11 of the Indictment With Crimes against Humanity on account of the same experiments.
In connection with The altitude experiments Count II, 6A of the Indictment The Malaria experiments Count II, 6C of the Indictment The sea water experiments Count II, 6D of the Indictment The experiments with epidemic jaundice Count II, 6H of the Indictment The Prosecution in presenting their evidence submitted nothing to show that the defendant Mrugowsky had any part in those experiments.
The Prosecution did not submit one document nor called one witness to prove his participation in the said experiments. The Indictment is entirely unsubstantiated in these respects. It has merely been assorted that the defendant Mrugowsky, together with other defendants, is guilty of a special responsibility and participation in these experiments.
As regards the Sterilization experiments Count 2, 6I of the Indictment The Prosecution have merely produced; in order to charge the defendant Mrugowsky; an affidavit of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt; dated 19 October 1946, Document No.440; Prosecution Exhibit 141.
This reads as follows at the end:
Blumenreuther Poppendick and Mrugowsky probably also knew about this.
This is a mere assumption on the part of Brandt which is given without any more detailed support and without reference to actual data and does not therefore constitute a proof of Mrugowsky's participation in the sterilization experiments.
The Prosecution have neither presented nor given any other proof for Mrugowsky's participation in sterilization experiments or even only for his knowledge of such experiments.
The Indictment against Mrugowsky is therefore inadequate in the points which I have just mentioned and I move that The Indictment be rejected as inadequate in the points which I have just mentioned, Count II, 6A, C, D, H & I of the Indictment.
And also in regard to III, 11 of the Indictment.
The defendant Mrugowsky is further charged in connection with Freezing experiments, Count II, 6B of the Indictment Sulfanilamide experiments.
Count II, 6E of the Indictment Typhus experiments, Count II, 6J of the Indictment Experiments with poison, Count II, 6K of the Indictment Experiments with incendiary bombs, Count II, 6L of the Indictment.
With War Crimes and on account of the same experiments under Count III.
11 of the Indictment with Crimes against Humanity.
On these Counts, I shall call the defendant Mrugowsky and other witnesses to the witness stand. I shall refer to the evidence given by witnesses interrogated by the Prosecution and by co-defendants as well as to the evidence of the co-defendants given in the witness stand, I shall submit documents and refer to documents submitted by the Prosecution and co-defendants.
I shall prove that the so-called Ding diary was pieced together subsequently and thus is a fake which has no value as evidence whatsoever.
I shall prove that the so-called work report drawn up by Ding for 1943, which the Prosecution have submitted, is a draft which has no value as evidence.
I shall do all this in order to prove that the defendant Mrugowsky under the counts of the Indictment was not a principal in, an accessory to, did not order, abet nor took a consenting part in, and that he was not connected with the performance of medical experiments mentioned above without the subjects' consent and that he committed neither murders nor brutalities nor cruelties, tortures, atrocities and other inhumane acts.
As regards the freezing experiments I shall prove that the defendant Mrugowsky had no part in these experiments at all. The Prosecution have submitted conclusive evidence of his participation in these experiments.
As regards the sulfanilamide experiments, I shall prove that the defendant Mrugowsky was not in any way involve in these experiments. The Prosecution have not claimed that he took part in the performance of the experiments, and I shall prove that he had no association whatsoever with the sulfanilamide experiments.
As regards the spotted typhus experiments, the Prosecution have not claimed that Mrugowsky was involved in the experiments at Natzweiler.
As regards the spotted typhus experiments at Buchenwald Concentration Camp, the Prosecution have presented comprehensive evidence. They have repeatedly claimed that Mrugowsky took part in these experiments and that he is responsible for them together with others.
I shall prove that Mrugowsky objected when his superior, Grawitz, for the first time referred to the intention to have spotted typhus experiments possibly performed inmates of a concentration camp.
I shall prove that the experiments in concentration camp inmates were ordered against Mrugowsky's opposition by Himmler and Grawitz. Mrugowsky did not become actively involve in these experiments, but Dr. Ding was directly instructed by Grawitz to perform the experiments.
The Prosecution have not claimed that Mrugowsky took an active part even in one single spotted typhus experiment.
I shall prove that during the whole period during which spotted typhus of experiments were carried out, he was at Buchenwald only twice and not in connection with these experiments but for other reasons.
I shall further prove that the spotted typhus experiments which General Taylor himself calls on page 115 of the German record of 9 December 1946, "The most important but fatal spotted typhus research" were no crime at all.
On the contrary, they constituted a research work which had to be carried out unless further hundreds of thousands of men, whose lives could be saved only with the help of these experiments, were to die of spotted typhus.
I shall prove that the so-called checks introduced in the spotted typhus serial experiments were unavoidable if the end was to be achieved to obtain quickly a clear idea of the effectiveness of the various vaccines and drugs. But I shall above all prove through the evidence given by witnesses of the prosecution that the number of deaths given in the documents furnished by Ding and presented by the Prosecution is wrong.
As regards the experiments with poison, the Prosecution mentioned three cases in presenting their evidence.
In the first case which was carried out upon the initiative of the SSTribunal at Buchenwald, it is not quite clear whether the Prosecution intend to charge Mrugowsky in the same way as the others. I shall prove in this case that he was not involved. One or the two other cases is the killing of six people by poison, mentioned by Dr. Ding in his diary as "A special experiment performed on six persons by order of Mrugowsky and of the Reich Criminal Police Office."
I shall prove in this case that the Prosecution have failed to give proof that Mrugowsky ordered this killing or that he even knew about it.
As regards the experiments with poison there remains the killing of three people at Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, on which Mrugowsky reports in his letter to the Reich Criminal Police Office, dated 12 December 1944, Document No.201. I shall prove that this was not an experiment to ascertain how much time it takes to kill a man in the indicated manner — that is what the Prosecution assert — but an execution which had been caused by the Reich Criminal Police Office.
As regard the incendiary bomb experiments I shall prove that they were performed by Ding, not by order of Mrugowsky, but by order of other agencies, and that Mrugowsky was not involved in these experiments at all and merely received a subsequent report when the experiments had been concluded.
In addition to the experiments specifically mentioned in the Indictment, the Prosecution have presented further evidence concerning a number of further experiments which it includes in the Indictment. I shall prove also in respect to those experiments that Mrugowsky was not in any way concerned with them.
The evidence which I have mentioned, in connection with war crimes, will also show that Mrugowsky is in no way committed crimes against humanity.
Mrugowsky does not deny his membership in the SS, which was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal. I shall prove, however, that in many questions, same of which were of decisive importance, he was in open opposition to the SS.
In conclusion I repeat my mention to declare the Indictment against Mrugowsky inadequate insofar as it is concerned with High altitude experiments Malaria experiments Sea-Water Experiments Experiments with epidemic jaundice.
Sterilization experiments concerning experiments under Count II 6 as well as Count III 11 of the Indictment.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Helmut Poppendick
BY DR. BOEHM (Defense Counsel for Defendant Poppendick):
Mr. President, members of the Tribunal:
The defendant Poppendick is mentioned in the Indictment as Oberfuehrer in the SS (Senior Colonel) and chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police, and, like all other defendants, he is indicted under Counts 1, 2, and 3, as well as under Count 4 as a member of the SS after 1939.
He is charged with special responsibility in the high altitude and freezing experiments, in the malaria and sulfanilamide experiments, as well as in sea-water experiments and experiments in respect to epidemic jaundice and poison, and finally in respect to sterilization and incendiary bomb experiments.
In presenting their evidence over a period of about four weeks, the Prosecution have submitted far more than four hundred documents, of which only six contain Poppendick's name in one form or another.
The Prosecution have called twenty-four witnesses to the stand and have interrogated them in great detail. Only one witness knew Poppendick's name. No further evidence concerning the defendant Poppendick was submitted by the Prosecution.
In opening the defense of the defendant Poppendick, it is necessary to correct the designation which has so far been used by the Prosecution in respect to Poppendick when they called him the chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police and to replace it with the more correct name "Chief of the Personal Secretariat with the Reich Physician SS and Police."
This is to prevent at the outset misunderstandings in respect to the position held by the defendant Poppendick.
It will now be the task of the defense counsel of the defendant Poppendick to define Poppendick's position with the Reich Physician SS and Police as well as his activity in the medical service of the SS before and after its reorganization in 1943 and furthermore, critically to consider his association with certain experiments with which he is charged by the Prosecution. Although the Prosecution have in no case furnished even approximately conclusive proofs that the defendant Poppendick actually was the deputy or the assistant of the Reich Physician SS and Police and had, as such, knowledge of all secret machinations, the Defense will clear up Poppendick's activity as chief of the Personal Secretariat, be it only in the interest of finding the objective truth.
The Defense will then deal in detail with the experiments with which the defendant Poppendick is associated one way or another and in connection with which he is represented as having a special responsibility.
The five essential documents which are to be above all the subject of a more detailed examination and of counter evidence are:
Certain entries made in Sievers' diary of 1944, PS-3546, Prosecution Exhibit 123.
Ding's Acridine Publication, no.582, Prosecution Exhibit 286, which is stamped "No objection from the point of view of the medical service, by order (signed) Poppendick."
The letter addressed by the Reich Physician SS and Police to Dr. Ding concerning the research done by Dr. Vaernet No.1300, Prosecution Exhibit 259, bearing the signature, "By order Poppendick."
Balachowsky's affidavit No.484, Prosecution Exhibit 291, about the ominous supervisory committee in which Poppendick, who is promoted Gruppenfuehrer by the author, is alleged to have been a member.
Rascher's alleged minutes on a conversation between Rascher, Grawitz, Poppendick, concerning the freezing memo sheet, No.320, Prosecution Exhibit 103.
The witnesses whom the defense of the defendant Poppendick will call will make their statements essentially in the form of affidavits. The Defense plan to call only a few of them to the witness stand. The witnesses will testify on the personality of the defendant Poppendick, on his position in the Race and Settlement Head Office, and with the Reich Physician SS and Police, as well as on hes association with certain experiments with which he is charged.
As regards the experiments made by the Danish physician, Dr. Vaernet, as well as Dr. Ding's Acridine research and the incendiary bomb experiments, the Defense will submit expert opinions from medical experts.
Although no information has been received up to date as to the whereabouts of the witnesses requested by the Defense, it is hoped that at least some of the requested witnesses can be heard on the questions under review.
The Defense at any rate have done all in their power to have the necessary witnesses available. Should, however, apart from the submission of a few affidavits and other documents, this whole group of questions be ultimately dealt with only by the defendant himself as a witness in his own cause or by questioning of his co-defendants, this should not place the Defense at a disadvantage on the grounds that the evidential value of such statements which are made under oath is considered very small.
It is certainly possible, particularly in this trial, for the Prosecution to check the credibility of the defendants in respect to their evidence by confronting them and thus to assist in correctly appreciating the evidence value of their statements.
The work of the defense in this trial is considerably more difficult than that of the defense in the trial against Hermann Goering and others. In the former proceeding at Nuernberg the charges made against the defendants were laid down in special trial briefs and the whole evidence of the prosecution in respect to the individual defendants was presented in one case after the other. Although Article 4 of Decree Number 7 concerning the procedure and competence of certain military tribunals issued by the Military Government of Germany specifically provides that the indictment should give defense the charges simply, clearly, and in sufficient detail, the indictment in this Case Number 1 against Karl Brandt and others, and the whole presentation of evidence by the prosecution, have refrained from specifying in greater detail the charges against every individual defendant.
On the contrary, in this trial the prosecution has presented their evidence strictly according to the subjects dealt with and have not defined in greater detail what the charges against the individual defendants are. They have considered in each case the individual experiments and the evidence presented in connection with them as a whole and have only occasionally commented upon certain documents concerning the defendants individually.
The defense therefore is confronted in this case with a certainly not very easy task critically to appreciate the individual charges against the defendants, which have only been very loosely or very approximately defined.
This is particularly striking in the case of the defendant Poppendick. His superior, Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz, having died, Poppendick is now to do what he never did during Grawitz's lifetime; he is to take his place here.
Poppendick, who was never authorized to take Grawitz's place and who had never received other powers from his chief, finds himself here in the defendants' dock and is to be rendered responsible for Dr. Grawitz's deeds. That at least is what the defense supposes they can infer from the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.
In view of the evidence so far given, it will not be difficult for the defense to refute the indictment against Poppendick on all counts as unfounded, if the requested defense witnesses are made available and can be heard at Nuernberg.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Wolfram Sievers
BY DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the defendant Sievers):
Mr. President, Your Honors:
On 1 July 1935 the society "Das Ahnenerbe" was founded and entered on the registry of associations at the district court in Berlin. Aim and purpose of the "Ahnenerbe" were to conduct research into the language, culture, history, and geography of the Indo-European peoples. That is to say, an institution devoted purely to reseach in the liberal arts. Heinrich Himmler held the top position in this society; his title was President and Chairman. Under him the position of curator and scientific director was held from 1935 to 1937 by the professor of the Pre-History of Ideas, Dr. Hermann Wirth, Berlin, and from 1937 on by Professor Dr. Walter Wuest of Munich. Under this man, in turn, was the General Secretary or, as he was called from 1937 on, the Reich Business Manager. This position was held by Wolfram Sievers. From 1942 on the society "Das Ahnenerbe" — which until then, although it had been under Himmler's protection, had been outside the hierarchy of the NSDAP or the SS — became an office under the Main Office "Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS". Professor Wuest was given the title "Office Chief", while Sievers' title of Reich Business Manager remained unchanged. His activity was and continued to be of a purely administrative nature.
Sievers was neither in a position to give research assignments, nor was he able to interfere in any way in the scientific part of the experiments. The clarification of this point seems to me to urgently necessary, in order not to leave uncontested the completely deviating opinion of defense counsel for the defendant Schroeder, asserting that Dr. Haagen stood in relationship of subordination to the defendant Sievers.
Even before 1942 the then Oberarzt of the Luftwaffe, Dr. Rascher, had managed to promote his particularly ambitious research aims with Himmler. Nothing would have been more suitable than for Dr. Rascher's ostensible re search work, which had nothing to do with the liberal arts, than to be incorporated into the medical service of the SS.
Instead, Himmler incorporated Rascher's enterprises into the "Ahnenerbe". Because Dr. Rascher's work was in a quite unrelated field, Sievers made an attempt to have Office Chief Wuest induce Himmler to withdraw his order. The intention of Reich Business Manager Sievers was of no avail due to the passivity of Office Chief Wuest. In spite of the apparent hopelessness of the case, Sievers on his own initiative, approached Himmler in an attempt to get rid of the undesirable addition to the Ahnenerbe. He was unsuccessful.
This was the beginning of a development, the tragic climax of which Sievers could not suspect, much less foresee. In the same year Himmler created the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Waffen SS and Police. This institute comprised research projects in which Himmler was personally interested, almost all of them were war-connected; at first they were in part carried out on behalf of and with the assistance of the Luftwaffe. There was no uniform scientific direction. Himmler issued instructions to the heads of the individual sections, seven of which later came into existence. The Luftwaffe or the Reich Research Council also issued orders to individual institutes. The heads of these institutes made scientific reports to Himmler or to the Luftwaffe or the Reich Research Council. The Institute was financed exclusively from funds of the Waffen SS or the Wehrmacht but not from funds of the Ahnenerbe. Himmler assigned the administrative duties to the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, the defendant Sievers.
This work brought Sievers in contact with things which lay exclusively in the medical field. Doctors carried out experiments of various kinds. Sievers, as a layman, had to procure materials, arrange for laboratories, pay expenses, conduct the correspondence, and perform other such administrative duties.
The prosecution has alleged that Sievers realized the criminality of all the experiments, or at least must have realized it. Through the nature of his work, it is alleged, he was guilty of complicity in part of the crimes which are here charged.
It will be my task to show and to prove to the Tribunal: first, to what extent the allegations of the prosecution are incorrect; second, to what extent the activity revealed by the documents which have been submitted was due to Siever's own initiative; and third, when and in which experiments Sievers realized or must have realized that they were irreconcilable with the rules of warfare and the principles of humanity.
I shall quite openly present the projects which Sievers realized were illegal and criminal. Thus we have come to the question: If Sievers realized that certain experiments were criminal, then why did he not immediately give up his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe and his work in the Institute for Military Scientific Research. Why did he not oppose Himmler's insane and criminal orders? Why did he do nothing to prevent people's suffering physical harm, often of the most severe kind, or even losing their lives in experiments?
This second part of my defense will bring me into the field of activity of a very considerable group of the German resistance movement which during the war undertook to overthrow Hitler's Reich by violence.
The prosecution has examined a number of foreign witnesses before this Tribunal, who had been arrested as members of a resistance group in their own country and sent to German concentration camps. They were there placed in the category of persons condemned to death. Today these determined and uncompromising fighters for freedom in their homelands are celebrated as heroes. Today no one asks whether these brave and fearless fighters committed deeds which, objectively considered, were irreconcilable with the rules of warfare or with the laws of humanity. They are not called to account before a tribunal. And why not? Because everything that they did in the struggle against the enemy power was done out of ardent love for their homeland, for their fatherland. Thus everything which they did is stripped of illegality and legalized.
In Germany, too there existed, from 1933 on, a constantly increasing resistance movement against National Socialism, the grave-digger of the German Reich. Since all the powerful resources of the state and Party were ruthlessly employed against everyone who opposed the National Socialist regime, the struggle against this regime was subject to its own laws. Men who were willing to take the utmost risks had to penetrate the positions of their political opponents in order, under various forms of camouflage, to undermine these positions and in painfully detailed work to make the preparations required for an armed uprising against a superior enemy. One of these men was Wolfram Sievers, whom a tragic fate has made a defendant in this trial. When Sievers, in the trial of Goering and others, proclaimed his membership in a resistance movement, Court and Prosecution were extremely skeptical of this assertion. There was at that time no occasion to examine his statements. But in the present trial Sievers must be given the opportunity, in his own defense, to prove that as early as 1931 a group which was strongly opposed to National Socialism deliberately sent him into the NSDAP in order to get as much insight as possible into this Party. From 1933 on he worked, on behalf of the resistance group, toward coming into contact with the highest Party authorities. This goal was achieved when, in 1935, he succeeded in becoming Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe. Thus, he had penetrated to the entourage of the Reichsfuehrer SS and the Police, Himmler, who united in his hands all instruments of power within the state. There began a period of great tension then. Sievers had to avoid carefully anything that might have brought him under suspicion of being opposed to the National Socialist regime. If he wanted to achieve his goal, he had to attain to the circle of Himmler's confidants.
In 1942, Sievers was confronted with a fateful decision, when, through Himmler's order, he came in contact with the wretched human experiments. Should he, when he recognized in this case or that the illegality of the experiments which Himmler ordered, refuse to continue to perform his duties in any form? With his friends from the resistance movement, he deliberated what was to be done. Would the human experiments be stopped, if his opposition was expressed more or less clearly? Never. Would the resistance movement against the National Socialist regime, in the determined preparation of an overthrow by violence, lo** in Sievers one of its most important exponents?
Yes. Therefore the decision was that Sievers had to remain at his post. In consistent execution of these instructions Sievers therefore had to master the duties which were assigned to him — the execution of which made enormous demands on his spiritual resistance in such a way that there could be no suspicion of a hostile attitude. There thus arose for Sievers the undeniable necessity of performing what administrative duties fell to his lot by virtue of his position, even in his contact with the human experiments.
Through witnesses and affidavits, including a number of members of foreign resistance movements whose lives Sievers saved, I shall prove to the Tribunal
that the resistance movement to which Sievers belonged was of considerable importance,
that Sievers as an exponent of this movement was of great importance in the Reichsfuehrung SS,
that Sievers had made preparations for an attack on Hitler and Himmler, the execution of which, however, was made impossible by the action taken by the officers' group and the situation which followed the unsuccessful attack on 20 July 1944,
that Sievers, in the execution of the duties which devolved upon him by virtue of his position, did no more than he had to do to carry out the orders given him.
I intend to call five witnesses; two of them will testify to the activity of the Defendant Sievers, as Reich Business Manager in connection with complicity in crimes with which he is charged, two other witnesses will testify to the importance of the resistance movement, and one witness will testify to Sievers' activity within the resistance movement to which he belonged. Finally, I intend to call the Defendant Sievers himself to the witness stand, and I shall examine several of the co-defendants on individual points.
I hope that I shall thus be able to give the Tribunal the necessary evidence for a judgment which will do justice to the special situation in Sievers' case.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Gerhard Rose
BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose):
Mr. President, Your Honors: The defendant professor Dr. Gerhard Rose was appointed vice-president of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin in 1943 a research institute of worldwide fame for the control of contagious diseases, after he had been a member of this Institute already, since 1936.
In 1939, at the beginning of the war he was drafted into the German Wehrmacht as consulting hygienist and tropical hygienist with the Chief of the Medical Service of the German Luftwaffe. At first he was given the rank of Oberarzt of the reserve and was finally promoted on 1 May 1945 to the rank of Generalarzt of the reserve — I wish to emphasize: of the reserve.
Perhaps it could be asked, whether the defendant Rose attained the high position of vice-president and the high military rank because of his-if only nominal — membership in the NSDAP. or because he is "one of the most eminent scientists" in the fields of hygiene and tropical medicine as he was introduced to Your Honors by General Taylor in his opening speech of 9 December 1946. The further evidence in this case will show that the latter is the answer.
At first it is the task of the defense to make clear:
whether and how Rose has filled the position of Vice-president of the Robert Koch Institute and
What were his tasks, authorities, and competencies, in his position as consulting hygienist and tropical doctor with the chief of the medical department of the Luftwaffe.
This clarification will show:
that Rose, despite his high position as vice-president and despite his high military rank which he finally attained, did not take part in planning or in carrying out the experiments and measures indicted here, nor
that he was the superior either in the civil field or in the Wehrmacht of persons who participated in planning and carrying out these experiments and measures.
In the indictment professor Rose is charge with special responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity which are considered as such in the experiments of human beings with typhus and other contagious diseases in the concentration camps Buchenwald and Natzweiler and in the alleged experiments on human beings with hepatitis epidemics in the concentration camps Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler.
First, as far as the hepatitis epidemics experiments are concerned, I may already now draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the name Rose does not appear at all in document book No. 8 submitted by the prosecution in connection with this matter.
Rose did not participate in the hepatitis research and moreover states that he had no knowledge of these alleged hepatitis experiments.
In the further course of this case I hope to be able to prove the accuracy of the defendant Rose's statement.
As far as the typhus experiments are concerned, it is true that Rose though he never worked on typhus — if only just once — was in Buchenwald while these experiments were being carried out. I believe to be able to prove beyond doubt that this visit to the concentration camp Buchenwald was not made because Rose was concerned with — or even approved of these experiments but that, on the contrary, this visit was connected with his fundamental objection to such experiments on human beings, which led to several protests by the defendant Rose. The witness Kogan has already forcibly drawn our attention to this.
Nor can it be denied that in the course of its presentation of evidence, the prosecution has produced some documents and heard some witnesses from which a layman could conclude a certain connection of the defendant Rose with the experiments of human beings in Buchenwald and Natzweiler.
Thus Mr. Hardy, for example, submitted document NO-122 — a letter by Professor Rose to Professor Haagen dated 3rd December 1943 with this reservation saying that he expected an explanation from Professor Rose. I hope to be able to offer this requested explanation to the High Court in the course of my presentation of evidence not only concerning this document but also concerning other existing correspondence, in a sense favorable to the defendant Rose.
In the course of its oral statement regarding the extent of the accusations against Rose, as contained in the indictment, the prosecution has even gone beyond those contained in the indictment.
Thus, it has also connected him with the malaria experiments by Professor Schilling which the latter carried out in the concentration camp of Dachau. It was evidently led to this because of the frequently recurring name of Rose in documents connected with Schilling's experiments in Dachau.
The prosecution has in the first instance overlooked the fact that Professor Rose is a malaria expert of international repute and it is hardly imaginable that his name would not be mentioned when experts are discussing malaria. Over and above this I hope to be able to prove that the defendant Rose — who altogether rejected Schilling's research methods quite apart from his experiments in Dachau — also here stands wrongfully accused. The last vestige of doubt about this will be removed when in my presentation of evidence, I come to speak about the sanitorium of Pfaffenrode, where the defendant Rose on his part conducted malaria experiments and used malaria therapy up to the arrival of the Americans.
Finally, Professor Rose, as well as all of his co-defendants, are accused of having participated in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity according to Count I of the Indictment.
The prosecution sees proof of the existence of such a conspiracy especially in the repeated meetings of the consulting physicians during the war at the conferences of the consulting specialists at the military medical academy. I shall prove that the defendant Rose, as far as his participation in such conferences is concerned, and in other respects, can on no account be considered a conspirator, neither as a leader nor as organizer nor as initiator or abettor. For it is just his attitude, be it at such a conference, be it at a meeting of prominent physicians, or be it towards the Reich health leader Dr. Conti, or towards the president of the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister, which shows that there can be no question of this.
In the course of my presentation of evidence, I plan to examine the defendant Rose on his own case, to present various documents and affidavits as exhibits to the Tribunal and finally to question several witnesses and experts.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Siegfried Ruff
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Dr. Siegfried Ruff):
Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have now the task of submitting to you in what manner the Defendant Dr. Ruff intends to conduct his defense:
The subject of the indictment against Dr. Siegfried Ruff deals merely with his participation in the high altitude experiments carried out in Dachau, as they are explained in Document Book 2. No further count of the indictment mentions Dr. Ruff, except for the question of "Conspiracy." Consequently, the defense on its part, can limit itself to dealing with these Dachau high altitude experiments.
The aim of Dr. Ruff's defense will be to establish the following facts:
The high altitude experiments carried out in Dachau by Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher with the approval of Dr. Ruff were necessary for the clarification of the problem of "the rescue of airplane crews from high altitudes."
These experiments were prepared in an unobjectionable scientific manner by Dr. Ruff and his associate, Dr. Romberg, and were executed in an unobjectionable manner by Dr. Romberg.
While carrying out these experiments, Dr. Ruff knew that the only experimental subjects used for that purpose were German convicted criminals, who voluntarily put themselves at his disposal and who, as a reward for undergoing these experiments, were subsequently to be pardoned. Dr. Ruff made certain of these facts at the time by asking various participating experimental subjects.
Dr. Ruff did not know Dr. Rascher closely before the Dachau high altitude experiments. He was at that time introduced to him by an absolutely reliable source and considered him to be a conscientious physician of the Luftwaffe.
Behind Dr. Romberg's back, this Dr. Rascher proceeded to carry out still other experiments, to which Dr. Ruff never gave his consent and which he would never have approved had he been asked.
These other experiments of Dr. Rascher were in no way connected with the parachute descent experiments carried out by Dr. Romberg. Dr. Ruff and the German Air Force were not at all interested in these other experiments of Dr. Rascher's. It was only in the course of this present trial that Dr. Ruff found out in detail with what these so-called "experiments" of Dr. Rascher were concerned.
When Dr. Ruff heard through a report by Dr. Romberg that a fatality had occurred during these additional, that is to say unauthorized, experiments of Dr. Rascher, he (Ruff), ordered that these experiments be discontinued and had the low-pressure chamber returned from Dachau to Berlin, and he prevented having the low-pressure chamber put at their disposal during the subsequent period, although Dr. Rascher and various high SS offices repeatedly requested the return of the chamber to Dachau for the purpose of carrying out further experiments.
Dr. Ruff is a serious and conscientious scientist, as will be confirmed by all witnesses. He is hard on himself but considerate towards his experimental subjects. His attitude was, on principle, that he would carry out his experiments in the first place on himself and with the voluntary associates of his institute.
Both before and after the experiments at Dachau, Dr. Ruff, together with his associates, carried out countless experiments on himself which, for the most part, were more un;easant from a subjective point of view, and more dangerous from an objective point of view, than those experiments at Dachau of which Dr. Ruff knew and which he authorized.
Dr. Ruff intends to use the following as evidence:
Altogether he has applied for 17 witnesses, all of whom were granted by the Tribunal. From most of these witnesses affidavits are already available, which will be submitted in the Document Book Dr. Ruff. I assume that the Prosecution, too, agrees to the submission of these affidavits. The nature of the testimony of the witnesses has been accurately described in the applications submitted to the Tribunal.
With reference to two of these witnesses, namely the two Americans, Dr. Wood and Dr. Baldes, both of whom are now again residing in the United States, I have submitted questionnaires on the 13th of January 1947, which are to be answered by the above-mentioned persons in their capacity as witnesses and experts and which, together with the answers, I intend to read into the record as soon as they will have been received. With reference to a further American citizen, Colonel Benford, I have applied on the 15th of January 1947 to obtain a statement of services rendered and a personal evaluation of the Defendant Dr. Ruff. From the autumn of 1945 until the autumn of 1946, Dr. Ruff was employed at an American Institute in Heidelberg, of which Colonel Benford was the chief.
I intend to hear only two witnesses in person here in the witness stand, namely the witnesses Dr. Walter Freitag and Karl Fohlmeister, for whom I applied as witnesses on December 13 and January 9 respectively, and whose examination in court has been granted by the Tribunal. If, for any reason, the personal appearance of these witnesses before this Tribunal cannot be carried out, then the Defendant Dr. Ruff is reserving for himself the right to submit affidavits from these two witnesses also.
The Defendant Dr. Ruff will also take the stand himself, in order to be examined as a witness. It appears suitable for this to be done before the other witnesses are called, so that Dr. Ruff can make the necessary explanations regarding the technical details of his experiments. The layman, too, will then be in a better position to understand and appreciate the testimony of the witnesses regarding these technical questions.
In the course of the direct examination of Dr. Ruff, I intend to have a short film, which had been made in the institute of the Defendant Dr. Ruff at the time, shown to the Tribunal. The purpose of this film is to enable the Tribunal and the Prosecution to make their own decisions about the high-altitude experiments carried out by Dr. Ruff, in particular in regard to the character and effects of the so-called "high-altitudesickness," in order to enable the Tribunal to make its findings as to whether this "high-altitude-sickness" can be considered under the heading of a crime against humanity.
As I have already mentioned, Dr. Ruff is accused of special responsibility by the Prosecution on one count only, that of the high altitude experiments at Dachau. It has not been alleged by the Prosecution that Dr. Ruff had in any way participated in other experiments at Dachau,-for instance, in the freezing experiments of Dr. Rascher. However, he has also been indicted from the point of view of conspiracy. In this respect the case for the Prosecution is in no way specialized and is not supported by any evidence. Already today, on the strength of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is an established fact that Dr. Ruff, apart from the high-altitude experiments in the spring of 1942, had no contact whatsoever, no matter of what nature, with Dr. Rascher or with the SS or with the concentration camps. Particularly he was never a member of the SS or any other affiliated organization of the Party, which was connected with such experiments. During the period dealt with in this trial, Dr. Ruff was not even a member of the Luftwaffe.
The presentation of evidence on the part of the prosecution has already shown that Dr. Ruff was not present at a single one of the various meetings and congresses, where planned experiments were discussed.
It is, therefore, quite obvious that the charge of conspiracy cannot be proved against Dr. Ruff. The prosecution was not in a position to establish even one single concrete assertion in that respect against Dr. Ruff. It would, therefore, be in accordance with justice to dismiss the charge of conspiracy against Dr. Ruff immediately since there is absolutely insufficient basis for the indictment in that respect.
I hereby apply for the immediate dismissal of the charge with reference to Conspiracy.
My other statements with reference to Conspiracy I am not going to repeat since a number of defense counsels have already submitted the legal basis with reference to that question, even if there were various differences in their arguments, and different results. This brings me to the end of the case of the Defendant Dr. Ruff.
Opening statement on behalf of the Defendant Hans-Wolfgang Romberg
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Dr. Romberg):
Mr. President, now the opening statement for the Defendant Dr. Romberg, follows. The defense counsel of the Defendant Dr. Romberg is at the moment engaged in an official journey for the purpose of interrogating witnesses. He yesterday telephoned me, saying that because of difficulties with trains, he would not be in a position to arrive here in time to appear in Court. He asked me to read the opening statement for the Defendant Dr. Romberg in his place and I ask for your permission.
We are now going to deal with the case of Dr. Romberg:
The prosecution charges the Defendant Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg with:
Participation in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Participation in High Altitude Experiments in Dachau from March until approximately August 1942, which were carried out, as the Prosecution states, to investigate the limits of human endurance and existence at extremely high altitudes.
With reference to the charge of participating in a conspiracy against the Defendant Dr. Romberg, I herewith present the application to quash the procedure and/or to acquit the defendant, Dr. Romberg, in respect of this count of the charge, for the following reasons:
The Control Council Law No. 10 provides in Article II, Paragraph 1a, a possibility of punishment for participation in a conspiracy only in cases of crimes against peace. Therefore, this rule is to be regarded as lex specialis and cannot simply be extended to war crimes and crimes against humanity, on which the entire charge is being based.
The defendant, Dr. Romberg has never been a member of any of the organizations declared as criminal by the IMT, he was not even a member of the Luftwaffe.
From the evidence presented it does not in any way appear that the charge in question is based on facts.
With reference to the charge made as to participation in high altitude experiments, it is to be stated;
That it was not the purpose of the high altitude experiments in question to investigate, and I quote, "The limits of human endurance and existence at extreme high altitudes", but to solve the problem of 'saving plane crews from high altitudes', and that these experiments were conducted properly.
It is further to be stated to the experimental subjects used in these experiments are criminals, condemned to death by ordinary courts, who had volunteered and who were to be pardoned as a reward;
That Dr. Romberg was, at first, to consider Dr. Rascher, whom he get to know only at the beginning of the experiments, a serious scientist.
That at a latter date Romberg succeeded, after having taken note of Rascher's fatal experiments, with the help of his superior, the co-defendant, Dr. Ruff, in having the low-pressure chamber immediately removed from Dachau, and this against the will of Rascher and Himmler.
That Dr. Romberg never took an active part in the experiments of Dr. Rascher which exceeded the plan; and finally
That Dr. Romberg is a serious and conscientious scientist who had previously taken part in many high-altitude experiments as a subject.
Dr. Romberg's statements, as well as the statements of several co-defendants are to serve as evidence. The Tribunal furthermore will be offered several affidavits.
And in this manner the defendant, Dr. Romberg intends to conduct his defense, and this brings me to the end of his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant, Brack. (Welz)
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I come back to yesterday's agreement of the defense counsel, which was that the cases of Romberg and Welz should be dealt with together.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding with the statement on behalf of the defendant, Welz, the Tribunal will recess.
(A recess was taken.)