1947-07-15, #1: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

Dr. Nelte, counsel for defendant Siegfried Handloser, concludes his closing argument

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 15 July 1947, 1330-1700, 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 if the defendants are all present in court?

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

Counsel for the defendant Handloser has been allowed an extra fifteen minutes to conclude his argument. He may proceed.

DR. NELTE (for defendant Handloser): I shall continue with my final plea.

The basic assertion in Handloser's case is his alleged participation in typhus conference which took place on 29 December 1941, and where, it is alleged, the decision was made to conduct typhus experiments in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

The Prosecution has not proved this fact, quite the contrary has been proved.

On 29 December 1941 a conference about the typhus vaccine problems took place in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Not even the Prosecution has alleged that Handloser took a part in it.

Now, in order to save the note in the Ding Diary, the Prosecution alleges that a second conference took place on the same day about which, however, no record or other document has been submitted.

Now it has been proved that, by expert opinion and Dr. Kogon, that the first page of the Ding Diary in the formulation as submitted has been falsified, therefore no probative value can be attached to it.

Neither in the affidavits Ding-Schuler NO-257, Dr. Hoven NO-429, and Mrugowsky NO-423, which deal with the typhus experiments in Buchenwald, nor in the entire remainder of the Ding Diary are Handloser's name and the Medical Inspectorate of the Army mentioned at all.

Above and beyond this, this one testimony of all alleged participants in the conference who are still alive refutes the statement that a conference of the alleged persons, leading to the alleged result, ever took place.

And finally, Dr. Rose's testimony under oath and the camouflage letter of Mrugowsky of 5 May 1942 prove that Dr. Conti instigated the experiments.

Also, if we suppose that Handloser, in his capacity as Medical Inspector of the Army, was present at such a meeting, it would be in contradiction to all logic and experience of life that he was never in Buchenwald, no report about the experiments ever reached the Medical Inspectorate of the Army, Handloser never spoke about the matter with his Chiefs of Staff, Handloser never spoke with Dr. Ding.

Handloser was Medical Inspector of the Army and Chief of the Medical Service of the Army. His position as Medical Inspector of the Army was strong and vested with authority to give orders.

The Prosecution, however, strives to stress Handloser's position as Chief of the Medical Services of the Army and to enlarge its importance because only thus they can construct a contact with the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe and of the Waffen-SS and thus establish a relation with the research work which is indicted here.

The investigation of the functions, rights, and duties of Handloser in his capacity as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service has occupied much space in the argument of the prosecution and the defense. This appeared necessary to the Prosecution because the edicts of 1942, 1944, and the Service Regulation 1944 gave no indication for the asserted competence of Handloser, and furthermore, because no evidence of a personal criminal responsibility of Handloser, as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service, could be produced in regard to the illegal experiments or his participation in them as charged.

If the Prosecution attempted to prove Handloser's authority to issue orders, it was not done to show that he had issued ordinances of this type by reason of this right to issue orders, for they do not exist. It was done to demonstrate his duty of exercising supervisory authority in this field, to show that he had to receive reports, and finally to be able to assert that he had incriminated himself because he had done nothing. The evidence submitted has shown quite clearly that it was his duty to direct the adjustment of personnel and material affairs within the branches of the Armed Forces as is evidenced by the first sentence of the decree of 1942. Within the scope of this sphere of duties, Professor Handloser was charged with the combination, or as it was generally called the coordination of all common problems in the field of the Armed Forces Medical Service.

The task of coordination given to Professor Handloser did not mean that all problems of the medical service, which were of the same nature, or capable of being consolidated, automatically came under the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Medical Service. It was rather his duty to examine which part of the immense Medical Service was suitable for coordination. Whenever Handloser thought that a certain department was suitable for coordination, he tried to reach an agreement with the Medical Chiefs of the branches of the Armed Forces; for, since he had no powers of command, the coordination could only take place in conjunction with the Medical Chiefs. After the coordination had been accomplished, he was empowered to issue directives in this field which did not have the character of an order.

It has become, clear, furthermore, that neither by reason of the decree of 1942, which was competent for the period from 1 August 1942 to 31 August 1944, nor by reason of the decree of 1944 and the Service Regulation, Handloser was the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht branches or the Waffen-SS, and that therefore he had no jurisdiction or supervisory authority in these organizations. The testimony of Handloser, Genzken, Gebhardt, Generalarzt [General Physician] Dr. Wuerfler and the official remark in the 1944 Service Regulation have shown quite unequivocally, regarding the relation of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and the Medical Services of the Waffen-SS, that relations between the Wehrmacht Medical Service agencies and the Waffen-SS was confined in time and substance to the necessary tactical subordination for supplying medical service for the Waffen-SS divisions during front line commitment. The testimony further shows that Professor Handloser had no influence on the medical system of the Waffen-SS, that is, on affairs and scopes of activity of the Medical and Sanitation Service of the Waffen-SS.

The research of the Luftwaffe, according to testimony of Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, was not under the jurisdiction, nor under the supervisory authority of Handloser as Chief of Medical Services.

I come now to the conclusion:

The prosecution defined the National Socialist ideology as the source of disregard for human life and thereby of the illegal experiments. This is one of the imponderable arguments for the greater readiness to adopt an attitude which deviates from the general ethical standard. The prosecution did not submit any special statements on this point, but merely expressed in a general way that the German medical profession as a whole was "infected by the paralyzing poison of Nazi superstition."

Professor Handloser has stated his attitude toward National Socialism on the witness stand. Numerous affidavits have testified that he consistently took the course of an upright man and that he opposed Party influences whenever they were contradiction to his ethical views.

If you read the opening statements of Professor Handloser in the printed records of the meetings — please do this — you will acquire a picture of his character as doctor and soldier. They are the confession of a man, who had devoted the whole of his life to a profession, the whole purpose and end of which is to help suffering humanity in its darkest hours. When war comes, with all its horrors, wounds and pestilences, when men are called up to kill and destroy, it is the doctors who, in the guise of soldiers, stake their all, under the ensign of the Red Cross, to heal or at least alleviate the pains and diseases of war. While the brutal business of war weakens the ethical laws, the highest achievement of culture and the soldier on the field loses his reverence for human life, the medical officer's task is increased far beyond the level of peacetime ethics. In the ethical chaos of war he is the symbol of human and brotherly love, for he is called upon to help friend and foe alike.

That the German doctors of the Wehrmacht in toto fulfilled this high task is proved convincingly among other things by the fact that no complaints were made about what they did, either on the battle front, on the home front, in the occupied territories, in military hospitals, or in prisoner of war camps.

This ethical attitude as confirmed also by the affidavits of the Swiss doctors Dr. von Erlach, and Dr. Bruenner, Professor Handloser will not claim as his merit; for the mass of German doctors, most of whom came from civil life, brought with them the ethics of their profession.

But I, as his defense counsel, may point out that only a strong character, rooted firmly in the ethics of his profession and of humanity, could maintain the spirit of the whole medical officer corps on such a high moral plane during such a war.

You have the opinion of his military superiors and the testimonials of the leading general physicians under him, the unsolicited affidavits of the Generalaerzte in the Garmisch POW camp, and of the Generalaerzte in Munster Camp C. The complementary counter piece to this is the testimony given him by the leading general physicians under him. The picture which emerges is that of a truthful and sincere doctor and soldier, irreproachable as a superior, upright and honest as a subordinate. This picture is completed by the numerous other largely spontaneously sent affidavits concerning the nature of the man Handloser. I think the plain examples of Dr. Drexler in his affidavit prove more adequately than any words that Handloser acted up fully to the principle of humanity, and that a person showing these characteristics cannot possibly have had any connection with and cannot possibly have approved of experiments which violate the principles of medical ethics. Professor Handloser, however, denied all knowledge of such connections too, and I think I have proved that this attitude is credible, and why. The testimonies of the two Chiefs of Staff, the Generalaerzte Dr. Wurfl and Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken, given under oath, appear to me convincing for the professional side of the problem. Moreover, tin the last instance it is a question of Professor Handloser's credibility, which may be deduced from an estimation of his whole personality.

There you have a clear picture of the man before you. At the interrogations which preceded this trial and in the witness box he has represented his activity as Army Medical Inspector and Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service with complete frankness. His statements have not been quashed by the evidence produced by the prosecution but coincide in every point with the evidence produced by the defense.

I think I may say that the credibility of Professor Handloser is beyond all doubt. If he ever pursued a wrong road in his life — and who among us has not erred at some time — he did not hesitate, as an honest man, to perceive and confess the error of his ways. He would not have behaved otherwise in this trial either, if he were conscious of guilt.

In the consciousness of having done his duty as Army Medical Inspector and as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, to his nation, to the wounded and sick soldiers of all nations, to the prisoners of war, and to the populations of the occupied territories to the best of his ability, in the firm confidence that this High Tribunal will apply the principles of justice that are conductive to international conciliation, he awaits your decision with the calm which can only come from a clear conscience.