1947-07-16, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
Dr. Sauter, counsel for defendant Kurt Blome, presents his closing argument
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 16 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has available an English translation of the argument on behalf of Defendant Blome, so the Tribunal will now listen to Dr. Sauter on behalf of defendant Blome. The Tribunal hopes that the hour allocated will be sufficient.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, Honorable Judges of the Tribunal: The result of the evidence for the case of Defendant Blome, was given for translation on the 24th of June and the translation has been submitted to the Tribunal. In a supplement to this document on 2nd July I have made a synthesis of the important parts and which I have quoted and otherwise made use of. In another supplement on 30 June 1947, which has not yet been submitted to you by the translators. I have considered those documents which the prosecution have only submitted after the case of Blome had been concluded, and they would therefore not have been contained in my original document. And furthermore, your Honor, in a document 12 July, as the defense counsel, I have expressed myself as to the attitude of the prosecution. I am referring to all these matters, now and I should like you to regard them as having been submitted.
My considerations of the case Blome I have based on a quotation of American Historian Professor Arnold Nash. In the summer of 1946 Arnold Nash, the American Historian, came to Germany to spend his vacation here; on his arrival in Bremen he was assailed by the journalists with the question, why had he chosen Germany of all countries as the place of his vacation after the ending of the Second World War, Germany, a wilderness of ruins, the country of the concentration camp infamies where every step and every look recalled the memory of million fold murder of innocent Jews, and Russian prisoners of war, of Polish underground soldiers and displaced workers from East Europe. The American historian Arnold Nash answered in one single sentence:
Every scholar has two homelands, his own and Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem clear that you will not be able to use all of this argument which has been placed before the Tribunal in the space allocated to you. You are prepared —
DR. SAUTER: I shall be able to manage with one hour, your Honor. In my statement on pages two and five I have explained how the whole milieu has, more and more created prejudices, prejudices against the individual defendant in this case, Prejudices, in fact which worked, as it were against the whole of the German Medical Profession and even the whole of the German people. I have therefore pointed out the exemplary attitude of Professor Nash.
I quote from my plea on page four. I read:
During the 5½ years of war, the world has learned only ugly things about Germany and the prejudice thus created, has increased considerably through the revelations made during the two years since the end of the war. Atrocity after atrocity, innumerable infamies, mass murder and slavery of unrivaled cruelty have been proved and will remain for ever a stain on the German name. But it is the Nurnberg trials, particular, which, in their thoroughness and objectivity, have shown the basis of this regime and those responsible for it represented only an amazingly small clique which banded around Hitler and formed, with them, a pledged community composed of criminal elements which did not shrink from destroying the entire German people if they could thus retain power and their lives This we have heard here in the court room with particularly startling clearness from the former defendant Albert Speer.
But it is just through the Nuernberg trials that the whole world knows if it only cares to listen, that the German people in its overwhelming majority wanted nothing to do with this tyranny, had inwardly nothing in common with it, and was not even allowed to learn of its worst outrages, and that the German people who stood outside that criminal clique, longed more and more as the months passed for the day when the world outside would deliver it from this clique. You, as judges, have twenty-three defendants to judge here, and your verdict will depend in the first place on whether you can include these twenty-three defendants in that criminal clique or not; whether you regard as proven or not that these defendants, by virtue of their position in the Third Reich, were able to recognize the criminal excesses of the regime in their full extent; whether they consented to these excesses; whether perhaps they even took part in them, or whether and how far these defendants were also deluded in the same way as 99% of the German people, and were just as powerless against it as our entire nation.
I have only to investigate here the results of the evidence as far as it concerns the two defendants. Dr. Blome and Dr. Ruff; with complete objectivity and from unbiased observation I definitely believe that I must conclude that in any case these two defendants did not belong to that criminal clique which had formed itself like a brazen ring around Hitler and Himmler, around Kaltenbrunner and Heydrich and the other millionfold murderers.
So far to the quotation from my plea. I shall proceed without quoting.
Under point 2 of my document, pages 5 to 14 I explain my attitude to the charge that during the Hitler time the standard of the medical profession completely deteriorated. I have also taken position against making Dr. Blome responsible for this. I have shown conclusively that Dr. Blome has the merit and the right to claim the merit, that he has done everything in the power of a human being to proceed in his work and the work of the medical profession, and that he has taken every care that all of the medical profession should exemplify tolerance and true love.
Imminent scientists, high ranking scientists of international fame, have certified this as far as Dr. Blome is concerned. For instance, Prof. von Bergmann, Prof. Martius, Prof. Stoeckel, Dr. Straskosch and others, the affidavits of whom have been submitted to the Tribunal. At this moment, I do not want to deal with this problem, because it is quite obvious that all of these statements of the Prosecution do not deal with a criminal guilt, but with a strictly moral offense or political responsibility, which is not identical with a penal guilt and which does not come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Under Point 111, on pages 14 to 43, I come to the actual experimental facts of the case in which Blome is charged with complete responsibility by the prosecution on pages 14 to 18. I have examined whether Dr. Blome had taken part in any way in the Lost gas experiments of Dr. Rascher at Dachau. I have explained that these two assignments of the Reich Council for Research had not been given by Dr. Blome, but that Dr. Sauerbruch was the originator thereof and that the notation in the card index of the council is only a mistake of the staff. Blome had nothing to do with such experiments and they were not within his competency. He was not interested in them and it can be seen that it was absolutely possible, shall we say, that he had nothing to do with such experiments, which were exclusively within the competence of Dr. Sauerbruch. It is also doubtful whether from the very beginning these concerned human experiments at all, or whether they were not perhaps experiments with animals.
Malaria and sulfonamide experiments did also not concern Dr. Blome, as I have said on pages 18 to 20 of my plea.
The unimportant fact that a man like Rudolf Brandt, in his various affidavits, has assumed that Blome was the deputy of Conti and as such must have been informed about these experiments does not determine anything. This is an assumption on the part of Rudolf Brandt which can not be maintained.
It is especially surprising to me that the prosecution also charged Dr. Blome with euthanasia, especially as they must have considered for some time whether the charge against Blome should not be dropped. Referring to the euthanasia question, the prosecution deals with the chart which was submitted by the defendant Brack, or which at least was supposed to be made according to facts purported by him, but which is obviously wrong as the defendant Brack himself said, as a witness. Blome never took part in this program, he never supported it, but on the contrary, when he heard about this action he tried to clarify the matter and oppose it although this again was not in his competency and he had of course no right to do anything against it. Thus I come to on pages 21 and 24 where I have pointed out that Blome was one of the few people within the party who, in his book, which came out in 1941, took position openly against the euthanasia program of the German government.
In this book which is quoted on page 15 of the prosecution's closing brief he has expressly stated that one could only defend the euthanasia program if there was some legal justification which would create a legal right if therefore would make it part of their legal program. Furthermore Blome stated that euthanasia should only be applied if people, incurably sick people, asked the doctors to be relieved of their suffering. In the book by Professor Blome, the quotation is verbally:
We ask ourselves whether in the case of lives of inferior people the Doctor could not take legal steps to end a life before its time had come.
We think of those very ill people who can not be cured, who can only expect physical and psychological suffering until their deaths and who ask the Doctor to be relieved from their terrible suffering.
So far the quotation in Blome's book. I can only say, if these demands by the defendant Blome had been fulfilled, if a legal basis had been presented and if one had just tried to fulfill the wishes of incurably diseased people, possibly nobody would have thought to charge the defendants before this Tribunal with participation in the euthanasia program.
Your Honors, the prosecution charges the defendant Blome with the proposed murder of tubercular Poles. This charge seems to me almost tragic. Because of the importance of this program, I shall read my statements, as from page 24 of the document which is in front of you. Here I take position as to this charge by the Prosecution and refer you to page 24, No. 5:
Probably the most severe accusation against Dr. Blome seemed to be the allegation that he had proposed the murder of 25,000 — 30,000 tubercular Poles and had taken part in carrying out this plan.
The evidence clearly shows, however, that this accusation is quite unfounded. I maintain on the contrary.
a) it is not true that Dr. Blome approved or supported this murderous plan and
b) it is also untrue that this plan was ever carried out. It is true, though, that it was just Dr. Blome who has prevented this devilish plan. It was Dr. Blome who, by his clever intervention has saved the life of the 25,000 — 30,000 tubercular Poles who were to be "liquidated".
The documents in document book no. 9 show that this plan first existed at Gauleiter [regional or district leader] [District Leader] Greiser and Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. Blome was then detached to this matter because it was known that he had for many years made the fight against tuberculosis the aim of his life and because he built his cancer institute in the same Gau in which Gauleiter Greiser governed.
Blome then stated his attitude clearly in the well-known letter of 18 November 1942 (Document Book 9, page 10, Document No. 250, Exhibit 203); in regard to this plan. He discussed the three possibilities which existed and explained the pros and cons of each of these three possibilities in detail. These three possibilities are either "Liquidation", i.e., the murder of these Poles suffering from incurable tuberculosis, or their internment in isolated institutions, or lastly their settlement in a reservation. In his letter of the 18 November 1942 (appendix 25) he definitely rejected the first possibility and advocated the latter possibility.
In this Blome was completely successful.
Greiser was so much impressed by Blome's arguments that he no longer dared to carry out the liquidation of the Poles which had been decided upon. In fact, he submitted Dr. Blome's memorandum to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler so that he should obtain a decision from Hitler himself. This, already, was a remarkable success of Blome's because Himmler had already ordered the liquidation of the Poles. Blome's arguments made such an impression even on the bloodhound Himmler, that contrary to Greiser's expectations he cautiously put the matter before Hitler again and obtained his definite ruling. It should be remembered that this in itself would not have been necessary any more because not only had Conti agreed to the murder, but from Greiser's cover note of 21 November 1942 it is obvious that Hitler also had given his approval to the extermination of the Poles already before.
Thereupon, after a subsequent examination of the matter, Hitler withdrew the extermination order and thus Himmler had no alternative but to do the same. This is clearly proved by Himmler's letter of 3 December 1942 (Doc. Book 9, Document 251, Exh. 204, App. 26). The extermination of the Poles did not take place; this is due to Blome.
Although these facts are incontestably proved by the documents presented, the prosecution nevertheless upheld the charge against Blome. This evidently was due to the peculiar wording of Blome's letter to Greiser of 18 November 1942. The prosecution in their speech of 19 December 1946 described this letter as a "develish masterpiece of murderous interest". In considering this case the prevailing conditions should be born in mind. Dr. Blome knew that the tuberculous Poles were lost, that their murder had been decided upon unless it was possible on some grounds to change Hitler's mind at the last moment. The statement of the witness Dr. Gundermann (Doc. Book Blome Doc. No. 1, Page 1 — 5, App. 28) proved that Blome, at that time, as is confirmed by Blome's own testimony (German examination record of 17 March 1947, page 4607) strove for days for a successful wording of his letter; he repeatedly drafted the letter, then rejected the wording again and finally introduced arguments in the letter which he hoped to be successful; from the very beginning he was aware, of course, that his intervention was bound to fail and have no success if he described Hitler's planned extermination of the Poles as a crime and downright murder and had solemnly protested against it. In this way Blome would have achieved nothing for the Poles, but had to expect to be brought before a court himself and sentenced for sabotaging an order of the Fuehrer, or to disappear in a concentration camp without any legal sentence.
With such a primitive method as entering a solemn protest by calling on the laws of humanity of justice nothing would have been achieved with Hitler, especially when he had already made up his mind and had decided on a certain matter and had already given the necessary execution orders; in such an event Hitler was usually inaccessible and would not listen to any counter proposals. Dr. Blome knew this, of course, just as well as, for instance, the Gauleiter of Niederdonau (Lower Danube) who in connection with a similar problem (sterilization) in his letter of 24 August 1942 (Doc. Book 6, Page 16, Document 039, Exh. 153) pointed out the importance of "enemy propaganda" as he considered this most likely to be successful. Dr. Blome therefore looked for such reasons which would perhaps have a decisive influence on Hitler and these were either the Church or the other nations. It is understandable that Hitler, in view of the tense situation at that time, amidst the second world war, did not want to break completely with the church and he also had to regard the opinion of the foreign countries so as not to antagonize all neutral states. Dr. Blome speculated on these two points; in his letter of 18 November 1942 he emphasized in a skillful manner and with all his determination these two points of view and with those two references he achieved full success.
It may now be realized why Blome in the early part of his letter tried to give Hitler the impression that he (Blome) fully agreed with the plan as such for the extermination of the Poles and why he even pretended that everything was already prepared for the execution of this plan. Hitler had, so to speak, only to press the button and 25,000 to 30,000 Poles would be done away with. This was merely a trick which Blome used in order to ensure a favorable consideration of his proposals 2 and 3 (internment or reservation). If Dr. Blome had written that he declined to approve such an order of the Fuehrer, that, as a consequence, no preparations for its execution had been made, and that he would rather resign than become a party to a mass murder, then Hitler would have had his customary fit, Blome would have been finished as far as he was concerned, he would, of course, have entirely disregarded the protest of such a "saboteur", and in the interests of so-called "reasons of State" the Fuehrer's orders would of course, have been strictly carried out.
To prevent this, Dr. Blome had to pretend for the time being, that he was ready to acknowledge the Fuehrer's orders as a matter of course and, where possible, to participate personally in their execution, if Hitler, as Head of the State, so desired. However, when weighing the pros and cons, Dr. Blome was able to bring to the foreground points of view against the plan of extermination and which, conceivably, might greatly impress Hitler.
Blome's letter of 18 November 1942 can only be explained thus, and was intended in this way (c.f. with this, affidavit Gundermann of 18 Dec. 1946, Doc. book Blome, Doc. No. 1, App. 28). Dr. Blome, on the strength of this letter can not then be convicted. For it is certain that Hitler thereupon dropped his plan and completely rescinded his orders for the murder.
This success, which could hardly have been anticipated because of Hitler's obstinacy and vainglory completely justifies the defendant Blome. It proves that Blome's conception was the right one and that his manipulations saved the lives of the Poles.
Another matter helped Blome considerably, which must not be overlooked here: shortly before, Hitler had cancelled the continuation of the Euthanasia Program. Apparently he did this under the influence of numerous protests which had been made by the two Christian Churches and, reaction abroad also played a considerable part in this because mass destruction of the insane had been taken up repeatedly by the foreign press with particular stress on reproaching the Nazi regime. Dr. Blome made use of these points of view which had proved effective in the case of the Euthanasia Program, and they also produced telling effects in the case of the tubercular Poles.
Why did the Prosecuting authorities maintain the accusation against Dr. Blome in spite of all this? Apparently this was solely on account of an affidavit by the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt. In his affidavit of 24 October 1945 (Doc. Book 9, p. 17, Doc. No. 441, Exh. 205) Rudolf Brandt completely suppresses the letters which cause the complete rescinding of the plan for murder. He is silent about these letters although it can be proved that they passed through his hands, were initialed and handed down to lower offices by him.
During his examination by the defense, Rudolf Brandt was reproached for his untruthfulness (see German minutes of the examination of 24 March 1947 p. 5020/22, App. 29). He was unable to offer an explanation for it, failed to answer and was at a loss to endure the reproach of untruthfulness, of deliberate untruthfulness. Altogether, Rudolf Brandt has made an amazing number of affidavits; he has supplied without scruples the Public Prosecuting authorities with about every affidavit desired for the incrimination of co-defendants, and he made likewise, with equal readiness, affidavits for these co-defendants which directly contradicted his former assertions. What he confirms under oath today, he denies under oath tomorrow and vice-versa! However, it must be stated that the affidavit which Rudolf Brandt made against Dr. Blome dated 24 October 1946 was the climax of his mendacity. After the experiences in this trial, and after having become acquainted, as we have, with a man like Rudolf Brandt, it would be ridiculous to even consider attaching any weight of the affidavit of a man as we have got to know in Rudolf Brandt. His affidavit of 24 November 1946 has been entirely refuted by documents introduced by the Prosecuting authorities.
It is unnecessary, therefore to examine to what extent Rudolf Brandt's untruthfulness can be traced to his state of mental health.
During the session of 9 Dec. 1946 (German examination records p. 107 of 9 Dec. 1946) the Prosecuting authorities announced: "We shall produce evidence to show that the program was executed towards the end of 1942 and at the beginning of 1943, and that on the strength of proposals by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were exterminated without pity, and that others were transported to remote camps where there were no medical facilities whatever and where thousands died."
This evidence has not been produced so far by the Prosecuting authorities, although the defense, during the session of 17 March 1947 (German examination records P. 4621) referred in particular to this lack of evidence. The assertions of a Rudolf Brandt in this respect cannot be evaluated as "evidence", even if it had not been completely retracted and even if it had not already been completely refuted by additional documents submitted by the Prosecution. If the Prosecuting authorities had succeeded in producing the witness Perwitschky, who had already been proposed in 1946, and who had been approved by the Tribunal, then his testimony would have produced additional clear proof that Blome actually prevented the proposed mass murder.
We know the later fate of these Poles who suffered from incurable open tuberculosis from the affidavit of Dr. Gundermann, the highest medical officer of the Warthe Gau (i.e. the territory in which the tubercular Poles were to be liquidated). The fight against tuberculosis was a legal task of the Public Health Office which were subordinated in the Warthe Gau to the witness Dr. Gundermann. As a result of difficulties caused by the war, it was not possible to accommodate during the war, either in restricted institutions or in a segregated area those suffering from tuberculosis; these two possibilities, which had been examined in a letter dated 18 November 1942 from Blome to Freiser were therefore out of the question, for the time being.
Therefore the tubercular Poles were provided for according to the same legal regulations which applied to tubercular Germans in the old Reich. Legal regulations notwithstanding, a separate Tuberculosis Welfare Office with Polish physicians and nurses was established in the various Health Offices of the Warthe Gau. (See Doc. Book Blome Doc. No. 1, pp. 4-5, App. 30). Therefore the contention by the Prosecution" that the accommodation of sick Poles in restricted institutions resulted in the comparatively rapid death of the sick or, that the transportation of the sick into a reserved area meant that, "they were left to their fate, provided with few physicians and with few or no nursing personnel", is devoid of application. (Examination record of 19 December 1946, p. 789-799.)
It should be observed, however, that these proposals by Blome did not originate from him, but had already been discussed during the meeting of the German Tuberculosis Society in 1937, and went back to proposals which had already been worked out years before by English research workers tuberculosis on instructions from the International Tuberculosis Commission, and which had been generally approved. (c.f. Report of the meeting in Doc. Book Blome, Supplement I, Doc. 14, p. 24, App. 31). Therefore even if the existence of these proposals had been known, it cannot be said that they contradicted in any way the laws of humanity. According to widespread views held by the responsible circles, such measures are necessary if tuberculosis, of which millions die yearly, is to be fought effectively, and if the healthy portion of the population is to be protected effectively against the dangers of infection through incurable, tubercular patients. In this case, the protection of the healthy population against infection appears more important than consideration for the unrestricted liberty of incurable patients (c.f. pertaining examination records of 17 March 1947 pp. 4611/4615/ 4618 to 4619).
In concluding this count of the indictment I should like to emphasize two facts in characterizing Blome's altitude towards Crimes against Humanity, which have been clearly proven by the evidence: a) In 1941 Blome prevented the realization of Dr. Conti's plan, whereby the Polish intelligentsia was to be sterilized and thereby biologically exterminated (compare Affidavit Dr. Boehm in Document Book Blome, page 13/14, Doc. No. 4, Exh. 7, App. 33 and Affidavit by Dr. Blome on 17 March 1947 German interrogation record page 4624-25, App. 34) and
b) Blome prevented the murder of Poles in the year 1942, that is at a time when Germany was still at the height of its Military Power and could not yet know such a defeat as Stalingrad. In the cross-examination the prosecutor attempted to present the suggestion to Blome that he would have agreed to the liquidation of the Poles, if a guarantee of absolute secrecy could have been assured. Blome, it was assumed had only "feared the effects of the propaganda". (German interrogation record, page 4853/56.)
Justice and truth demand that it be confirmed in the verdict that the only motive for Blome's actions were purely humanitarian and medically ethical reasons. It is therefore just to protect the defendant Blome against later unjustified reproaches. Blome's letter to Greiser of 18 November 1942 was a "Masterpiece", but not in the sense as presented by the Prosecution, that is, not (as has been said) a "devilish masterpiece of insidious desire for murder", but rather a well thought out intervention against a devilish murder plan, the successful prevention of which will remain a historical credit to Blome.
DR. SAUTER: So far the quotations in connection with tuberculosis. The merit of Dr. Blome which I have just spoken about cannot be denied by the closing brief of the Prosecution in which they use the term nonsense, the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, and therefore the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt can have no probative value to this issue. During the proceedings Prosecution has charged the defendant Blome with participating in biological warfare. To this question I have taken position on page 32 to 43 and I have explained that on the German side of this there were some preparations for biological warfare which had to be made in order to prevent any attacks on the part of the enemy in this way. These were only preparations of a defensive nature. They were never aggressive acts. It cannot be denied — it is a fact — that no acts were committed — no human experiments were carried through in this field. And, therefore, punishable acts on the part of the defendant Blome in this sphere of biological warfare do not aim. All statements maintaining this are wrong and of no relevance. As to the case of Blome, during the whole proceedings it could not be clarified what this mentioned assumption of the IMT was based on. The Prosecution of the present trial has tried for months to find some of the documents of the IMT documents which would have been able to support this assumption, and wanted therefore support the charge against Dr. Blome. In spite of searching for months and months no such document to support these assumptions could be found. Therefore, it cannot be proved today which experiments in biological warfare were made on prisoners of war and to what extent, by whose such experiments should have been carried out. In this trial Blome heard of these for the first time from the Prosecution and testified to this and the opposite has not been proved. If these statements of Blome's had not been correct then the Prosecution would certainly have shown him the documents containing the facts of these experiments and where his own participation was alleged to have been proved. Nothing like this happened. Blome had no part in these experiments, obviously — whether they happened or whether they did not happen. And, in this connection I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the evidence of the witness Schreiber of the IMT which was read here as evidence.
Schreiber who was informed about all these matters also certified that it never came to any action.
Your Honors, the last experiments which the defendant Blome is charged with are the Doryl and Polygal experiments. On page 36 to 41 I dealt with these questions explicitly and I draw the attention of the Court to the fact that with Doryl which is a poisonous drug no human experiments were made, and furthermore that the harmless and not dangerous treatment with Polygal cannot be described as experiment in connection with these proceedings and experiments of this kind were carried out only with volunteer subjects.
Your Honors, in concluding my brief I want to read the general issue as from page 44 of my brief, statements which I want to lay weight upon. I have written here:
Every Nurnberg trial is accompanied by strong prejudices against the defendants: The fact alone that they are called "principle war criminals" produces a certain prejudice in everyone, since one regards these people in the dock from the beginning as those most responsible for the unspeakable misery which the Hitler regime has brought over the whole world and specially over our Germany. This trial, the end of which is now approaching, has moreover repeatedly been called in the press the Nurnberg "trial of the SS-Doctors" and thus the whole embitterment we fell against the SS system is directed against these defendants even if they never belonged to the SS and never wanted to have any dealings with it, as was in fact the case with Dr. Blome, Dr. Ruff and several other defendants. To make the measure full, the most abominable crimes which are to be dealt with in this trial were committed in concentration camps; when speaking of this trial, one, therefore, automatically thinks of the numerous atrocities committed in the concentration camps. All the misery which this devilish institution brought upon the inmates arises before one's eyes; one sees the millions of poor people who were slaughtered there, one shudders at the thought of innumerable victims who starved to death there or were worked to death and the indignation one feels about all this is automatically directed against each defendant who in such circumstances occupies the dock as a principle war criminal.
However, such a view would, in many respects, be unjust and could never lead to a verdict which could be justified before our conscience and before history. Certainly every German approves and welcomes it that crimes, committed during the past twelve years are punished with all severity. We feel no compassion for people whose hands are stained with the blood of the innocent and who, therefore, deserve the rope. Especially to-day when our people are suffering from the terrible consequences of millionfold murder we say: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Whoever committed murder shall lose his own life, he has forfeited it.
But this sentimental point of view entails certain dangers because it makes us forget too easily that in American Law also a defendant is regarded as innocent while the prosecution have not proved the guilt of this defendant beyond doubt. Only recently the verdict of the American Military Tribunal in the Milch case contained the sentence:
If the established facts can be reconciled with the guilt as well as with the innocence of the defendant, then his guilt cannot be regarded as proven.
The same verdict of the American Military Tribunal II solemnly declared that the American flag in this court room guarantees just proceedings to all defendants and passes sentences only if the proof of their guilt is properly established; otherwise he must be acquitted.
If you only apply these principles to Blome then you will reach the conclusion that he, who never belonged to the SS and had nothing to do with concentration camps, in no way participated in criminal experiments or similar punishable acts, and should, therefore, be acquitted.
Furthermore I have another matter at heart, especially in my capacity as defense counsel for this defendant: Blome was Deputy Reich Physician Leader, he will, therefore, to a degree, easily be regarded as the representative of the German medical profession during Hitler regime.
Now, there is great danger that the entire German medical profession will be identified with its former leader Dr. Conti and with the crimes he was charged with during this trial; the German medical profession fears that those crimes which, in fact, were committed by individual doctors who may have rightly be charged, are to be taken as typical of the entire medical profession. Indeed, during the last months we could hear in the Press and on the radio that the entire medical profession was here in the prisoner's dock; unfortunately, by thus generalizing, the matter was presented as though the entire medical profession was corrupted and that the majority of German physicians had committed such kind of crimes or at least approved them, as stated here in the indictment at the trial. This conception would be wrong and unjust. The German medical profession numbered about 80,000 members and if we add the Wehrmacht physicians and the official physicians, one arrives at possibly 100,000 physicians. Now let us compare with this total number the small number of physicians and researchers here in the dock. There are altogether 20 men. Of what importance is such an insignificant number to the judgment of the entire profession? When out of 5,000 German physicians one single person committed a crime, it is impossible to draw a conclusion from these few exceptions regarding the behavior and moral of the whole rank. And even if we suppose that perhaps another few hundred physicians and researchers had taken part in the experiment on human beings and in the "Euthanasia Action", not here in the dock, the number of guilty persons in comparison with the total number of the entire profession is still too small to consider the entire profession as criminal, and morally inferior because some individuals committed a wrong.
There is yet another point of view. It stands to reason that not all experiments on human beings can be excused and justified, not even during a time of total warfare nor in the case of a dictatorship regime and no decent person would ever think of excusing the way and manner in which the Hitler-State carried out the "Euthanasia-Program." However, it is an incontestable fact that large scale experiments on human beings cannot altogether be avoided and are, in fact, carried out throughout the whole world, and that there are different view points about the problem euthanasia to a limited extent also in the circles of conscientious physicians at least then when this is done on a proper legal basis and when, in addition, full precautions are taken to prevent abuses.
It must not be overlooked that the deterioration claimed in connection with this trial are connected exclusively with the problem of experiments on human beings and with euthanasia, but that no accusations are made against the professional practice of the German physicians in any other respects, especially there are no accusations referring to the relationship between the sick patient and the physician whom he had chosen as a helper and confidant, to restore his health. This confidence between the attending physician and his patient remained completely untouched by this trial.
Your Honors, we Germans have our own opinion about our physicians, we know their conscientiousness and willingness to render help; we have been able to observe and appreciate especially during the war their readiness to sacrifice themselves; we know that the good qualities that made the German physicians and researchers a model in former decades, were not lost during Hitler's time and it would be a pity if the abuses which have been revealed and proved by this trial should serve to undermine the confidence of the German people in their physicians and expose them to the contempt of all civilized nations.
Individual researchers, who through ambition or a passion for research did not value a human being's life more than that of a rabbit should not be considered representatives of the German physicians profession, nor should those physicians of the concentration camps, who for lack of a conscience or for some other wicked reason made fatal injections on prisoners or tortured them to death be regarded as representative of the German medical profession. No: representative of a model German physician also during Hitler's time is the non-political, practicing physician, who, even if he did perhaps formally belong to the Party, strongly opposed from the bottom of his heart all kinds of violence and intolerance, who is closely bound to his nation and its needs, the practicing physician who had cared for his patients in the most devoted manner day after day and night after night during the time of total war and fearful bombardments, which is especially hard for a physician, or who as military physician served at the front far from home, from his practice, from his family, fairly sharing all the hardships, dangers and privations of his soldiers.
And the surgeon who, as director of his clinic, operated and cured and helped from morning till night wherever he could help without having time to breathe, let alone to take part in political activity, he also is representative of the model German physician also during Hitler's time.
I do not know what verdict you will arrive at respecting one or the other of these defendants; but as defense counsel for the former deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer [Reich Medical Leader] I beg you to make it clear by your verdict that in judging the defendant if you must condemn him you do not condemn and defaming the entire German medical profession but that the abuses which were committed, were individual acts such as, perhaps, happened in all professions during Hitler's time without necessitating a condemnation of the entire profession. These were individual acts arising perhaps partly from personal criminal tendencies of individual fanatics, partly from being connected with the excesses of a total war in a dictatorship of unscrupulous violence.
If beside the twenty-three defendants, Your Honors, there is a 24th sitting in the dock, invisible to our eye, it is not the German medical profession as was said in the German press, but the SS spirit of Himmler and of a dozen other murderers of millions of people. This spirit might have led a fanatic to forget his professional ethics and to commit crimes. But the entire medical profession remained sound and conscious of their duty.
May your verdict, Your Honors, not completely rob the German people of their confidence in their physicians, but restore it to them and I have no doubt that after the present crisis has been overcome and in more normal circumstances the German medical profession will prove to their people that in its entirety it never forgot nor will ever forget the professional ethical commandments of the Hippocratic oath.
So much for my plea in writing, Your Honors.
In order to come back to the case Blome, no guilt of the defendant has been proved, but only that he tried to help wherever he heard, help was needed and that he did so with success, although often endangered, and that he saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who, by Himmler Hitler and Greiser, had already been condemned to death, and I would, therefore, like you gentlemen of the Tribunal, to acquit the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the representative of the office of the Secretary General what translations of the arguments of counsel are on her desk, available to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is informed that the translation of the argument in behalf of defendant Rudolf Brand is available, but I do not see his counsel present in court.
DR. MERKEL (Defense counsel for defendant Genzken): Mr. President, as far as I know, the translation of my speech is in the hands of the translators.
THE INTERPRETER: We have it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am aware of the fact that the translators have it.
Counsel for defendant Genzken may proceed.
Before opening the argument, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)