1947-07-17, #5: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

Dr. Pelckmann, counsel for defendant Konrad Schaefer, presents his closing argument

AFTERNOON SESSION.

THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear from counsel for the defendant Schaefer.

DR. PELCKMANN (Counsel for the defendant Schaefer): Mr. President, Your Honors: I need not deal with the questions why the general, political and organizational back-ground as alleged by the prosecution does not apply to Schaefer. I need not do this as, for legal reasons, the legal term conspiracy is not applicable in the Trials before Military Tribunals in Nurnberg.

In the question which concerns us solely, namely whether Schaefer has been guilty of a crime against humanity as listed under Control Council Law 10, we must take into consideration the principle of all civilized nations quoted repeatedly in the verdict of the I.M.T. Guilt under criminal law is a personal one. Therefore no punishment without guilt.

In view of the vagueness of the definitions of participation listed under Art. II, 2 a legal bridge can only be established through a very strict subjective commission of an act, by a very strict examination of the whole of the evidence as to whether and why the defendant can be found guilty, and whether and why a charge can be raised against him from a given situation taking into consideration all circumstances which have had influence on his psychology, his acts and commissions. Finally, the question has to be investigated whether — provided the defendant has conducted himself in the manner he is now expected to — other consequences would have resulted, i.e. the actual event could have been prevented.

What do we find? if we examine such facts as are applicable here?

Schaefer, called up as a soldier in 1941 and promoted to Unterarzt [Sergeant], i.e. not an officer, was given the order of dealing with problems connected with Sea-Distress and in particular with the problem of thirst.

It was with great pleasure that he carried out that order because he knew that to solve that problem would once and for all finish the tortures suffered by all shipwrecked people all over the world.

He settled down to his work with that scientific thoroughness for which I have offered detailed proof. By reading the entire literature for months it became possible for him, at the orders of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate to hold a lecture on thirst and the fight against thirst in Sea-Distress at the Nurnberg Conference of 1942. The lecture was a purely academic one and not a report on experiments on human beings. The prosecution, it is true, alleged on 12 December 1946 the opposite, but the complete document #401, Prosecution Exhibit 93, proves that this allegation is wrong. (re: Schaefer Exhibit #17). I should like to mention here that no proof has been furnished for the fact that Schaefer has heard, or heard about Holzloehner's and Rascher's lectures at that meeting.

In dealing further with the sea-water problem, Schaefer made investigations, which had already been made by I.G. Farben. Through scientific collaboration with that firm a method was finally found which made sea-water drinkable without any injury to health. Many chemical and pharmacological investigations and experiments lead to this result. There was no need for experiments on human beings, because on the basis of all known scientific methods of research, Schaefer realized that this method was entirely innocuous.

The method was called "Wofatit SW", "I.G. Method" or "Schaefer Method".

In principle and its composition it is, with a very few small deviations the same method as invented by the American Dr. Ivy and used by the U.S. Forces. This was confirmed by Dr. Ivy as a witness.

The Schaefer-Method was completely finished by the end of 1943 and the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Schaefer's highest superior wanted to introduce it in the Luftwaffe.

The Technical Office, another branch of the Luftwaffe opposed the introduction, giving as a reason that there was not sufficient silver available to produce the method.

The important men in the technical Office, Oberstingenieur [Chief Engineer] Christensens and Stabsingenieur [Staff Engineer] Schickler insisted on the introduction of a method invented by Berka. This consisted of food-sugar which removed or lessened the salty taste of sea-water, but made no change in the salt-contents.

I have proved how Schaefer, since the beginning of this plan fought against the "Berka-Method" as a piece of charlatanism.

He wrote a damning report on the results of experiments carried out by Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] von Sirany on behalf of the Technical Office on voluntary patients of a Luftwaffe hospital with the "Berka Method". Schaefer had been ordered to carry out this examination by his superior officers in the Medical Inspectorate.

The result of Schaefer's attitude was that the Technical Office and officers of the Luftwaffe suspected him of being saboteur.

Schaefer realized what that accusation meant in the Third Reich and the fifth year of the war.

He knew of cases where Medical Experts were persecuted by the R.S.H.A. (i.e. the Gestapo) merely for deviating scientific opinions in important military matters.

Nevertheless he explained his opinion that the "Berka Method" was pointless in the conferences of 19 and 20 May, when the suggestion was made to test that method on concentration camp inmates. As an extreme warning he explained that the Berka Method would lead to death on the 12th day at the latest. This has been proved by prosecution document #177, Exhibit #133 and Schaefer Document, Exhibit #19.

That was all he could do in his position as noncommissioned officer, as the smallest among the resplendent uniforms of the thirteen higher officers.

Schaefer does not make a decision in that conference. That is not done in military circles. The highest office chiefs order and command. The defendant Schaefer does not receive the order to make experiments on concentration camp inmates. He is not even being sent to joint the commission investigating the conditions of the experiments, because he is well known as an opponent of the whole affair.

Another chance to prevent these completely senseless experiments, as Schaefer saw it, on human beings with the "Burka-Method", be it in concentration camps, be it in Luftwaffe hospitals, passes by. On 25 May 1944 the world famous Prof. Eppinger of Vienna stated that Burka's idea, regarded as utterly absurd by Schaefer namely that his (Burka's) method, would drive sea-water through the body without any harm, was not entirely wrong. Three other professors, famous medical experts, concurred in Schaefer's opinion. This is proved by Schaefer documents Exhibits 19, 35, 36.

This lost Schaefer another medical reason openly to oppose the carrying out of these experiments.

No law in the world can demand that Schaefer should have done more than he has done, if one takes into consideration the situation in Hitler Germany and Schaefer's particular position, and his rank in a correct and understanding manner.

Never was there in the conferences mentioned in the prosecution documents a word said or an order issued that the Schaefer method was to be tested on concentration camp inmates. Only for that would Schaefer have been responsible. In view of the excellence of his method he would not have shied clear of that medical responsibility although he would not have approved of using concentration camp inmates.

The experiments with the "Burka Method" for which he was not responsible were carried out without his help and his knowledge. It is therefore not incriminating for him that he listened to the lecture of Prof. Beiglboeck which completely revealed the uselessness of the Burka-Method.

I make the motion therefore to acquit defendant Schaefer and release him from custody.