The Project Gutenberg eBook of Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume I This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume I Author: Various Release date: June 13, 2017 [eBook #54899] Most recently updated: October 23, 2024 Language: English Credits: Produced by Larry Harrison, Cindy Beyer, and the online Project Gutenberg team at http://www.pgdpcanada.net with images provided by The Internet Archives-US. *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10, VOLUME I *** [Cover Illustration] TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10 [Illustration] VOLUME I NUERNBERG OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. — Price $2.75 (Buckram) PREFACE In April 1949, judgment was rendered in the last of the series of 12 Nuernberg war crimes trials which had begun in October 1946 and were held pursuant to Allied Control Council Law No. 10. Far from being of concern solely to lawyers, these trials are of especial interest to soldiers, historians, students of international affairs, and others. The defendants in these proceedings, charged with war crimes and other offenses against international penal law, were prominent figures in Hitler’s Germany and included such outstanding diplomats and politicians as the State Secretary of the Foreign Office, von Weizsaecker, and cabinet ministers von Krosigk and Lammers; military leaders such as Field Marshals von Leeb, List, and von Kuechler; SS leaders such as Ohlendorf, Pohl, and Hildebrandt; industrialists such as Flick, Alfried Krupp, and the directors of I. G. Farben; and leading professional men such as the famous physician Gerhard Rose, and the jurist and Acting Minister of Justice, Schlegelberger. In view of the weight of the accusations and the far-flung activities of the defendants, and the extraordinary amount of official contemporaneous German documents introduced in evidence, the records of these trials constitute a major source of historical material covering many events of the fateful years 1933 (and even earlier) to 1945, in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. The Nuernberg trials under Law No. 10 were carried out under the direct authority of the Allied Control Council, as manifested in that law, which authorized the establishment of the Tribunals. The judicial machinery for the trials, including the Military Tribunals and the Office, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, was prescribed by Military Government Ordinance No. 7 and was part of the occupation administration for the American zone, the Office of Military Government (OMGUS). Law No. 10, Ordinance No. 7, and other basic jurisdictional or administrative documents are printed in full hereinafter. The proceedings in these trials were conducted throughout in the German and English languages, and were recorded in full by stenographic notes, and by electrical sound recording of all oral proceedings. The 12 cases required over 1,200 days of court proceedings and the transcript of these proceedings exceeds 330,000 pages, exclusive of hundreds of document books, briefs, etc. Publication of all of this material, accordingly, was quite unfeasible. This series, however, contains the indictments, judgments, and other important portions of the record of the 12 cases, and it is believed that these materials give a fair picture of the trials, and as full and illuminating a picture as is possible within the space available. Copies of the entire record of the trials are available in the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and elsewhere. In some cases, due to time limitations, errors of one sort or another have crept into the translations which were available to the Tribunal. In other cases the same document appears in different trials, or even at different parts of the same trial, with variations in translation. For the most part these inconsistencies have been allowed to remain and only such errors as might cause misunderstanding have been corrected. Volume I and part of Volume II of this series are dedicated to the first of the twelve cases, _United States vs. Karl Brandt, et al._ (Case No. 1). This trial has become known as the Medical Case, because 20 of the 23 defendants were doctors, and the charges related principally to medical experimentation on human beings. The remainder of Volume II is devoted to the trial of former Field Marshal Erhard Milch, who was also charged with criminal responsibilities for medical experimentation on human beings (of which charge he was acquitted), and with responsibility for the deportation to forced labor of numerous civilians, in violation of the laws of war (of which charge he was convicted). CONTENTS Preface III Trials of War Criminals before Nuernberg Military Tribunals VII Declaration on German Atrocities VIII Executive Order 9547 IX London Agreement of 8 August 1945 IX Charter of The International Military Tribunal XI Control Council Law No. 10 XVI Executive Order 9679 XX General Orders Number 301, Hq. USFET, 24 October 1946 XX Military Government—Germany, United States Zone, Ordinance No. 7 XXI Military Government—Germany, Ordinance No. 11 XXVI Officials of the Office of the Secretary General XXVIII “_The Medical Case_” Introduction 3 Order Constituting Tribunal I 5 Members of the Tribunal 6 Prosecution Counsel 7 Defense Counsel 7 I. Indictment 8 II. Arraignment 18 III. Statement of the Tribunal on the Order of Trial and Rules of Procedure, 9 December 1946 24 IV. Opening Statement of the Prosecution by Brigadier General Telford Taylor, 9 December 1946 27 V. Introductory Statement on the Presentation of Evidence Made by the Prosecution, 10 December 1946 75 VI. Organization of the German Medical Services 81 VII. Extracts from Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense 92 A. Medical Experiments 92 1. High-altitude Experiments 92 2. Freezing Experiments 198 3. Malaria Experiments 278 4. Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments 314 5. Sulfanilamide Experiments 354 6. Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration, and Bone Transplantation Experiments 391 7. Sea-water Experiments 418 8. Epidemic Jaundice Experiments 494 9. Typhus and Other Vaccine Experiments 508 10. Experiments with Poison 631 11. Incendiary Bomb Experiments 639 12. Phlegmon Experiments 653 13. Polygal Experiments 669 14. Gas Oedema (Phenol) Experiments 684 15. Experiments for Mass Sterilization 694 B. Jewish Skeleton Collection 738 C. Project to kill Tubercular Polish Nationals 759 D. Euthanasia 794 E. Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution 897 VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case 909 A. Applicability of Control Council Law No. 10, to offenses against Germans During the War 909 B. Responsibility of Superiors for Acts of Subordinates 925 C. Responsibility of Subordinates for Acts Carried Out under Superior Orders 957 D. Status of Occupied Poland under International Law 974 E. Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects 980 (Sec. VIII continued in Vol. II) VOLUME II VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case F. Necessity G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties H. Usefulness of the Experiments I. Medical Ethics 1. General 2. German Medical Profession 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 XII. Judgment Sentences XIII. Petitions XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Commander of the U. S. Zone of Occupation XV. Supreme Court of the United States Denial of Writs of Habeas Corpus Appendix Table of Comparative Ranks List of Witnesses in Case I Index TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS Case No. _United States against_ _Popular Name_ _Volume No._ 1 Karl Brandt, et al. Medical Case I and II 2 Erhard Milch Milch Case II 3 Josef Altstoetter, et al. Justice Case III 4 Oswald Pohl, et al. Pohl Case V 5 Friedrich Flick, et al. Flick Case VI 6 Carl Krauch, et al. I. G. Farben Case VII and VIII 7 Wilhelm List, et al. Hostage Case XI 8 Ulrich Greifelt, et al. RuSHA Case IV and V 9 Otto Ohlendorf, et al. Einsatzgruppen Case IV 10 Alfred Krupp, et al. Krupp Case IX 11 Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al. Ministries Case XII, XIII, and XIV 12 Wilhelm von Leeb, et al. High Command Case X and XI Procedure XV DECLARATION ON GERMAN ATROCITIES [Moscow Declaration] Released November 1, 1943 THE UNITED KINGDOM, the United States and the Soviet Union have received from many quarters evidence of atrocities, massacres and cold-blooded mass executions which are being perpetrated by the Hitlerite forces in the many countries they have overrun and from which they are now being steadily expelled. The brutalities of Hitlerite domination are no new thing and all the peoples or territories in their grip have suffered from the worst form of government by terror. What is new is that many of these territories are now being redeemed by the advancing armies of the liberating Powers and that in their desperation, the recoiling Hitlerite Huns are redoubling their ruthless cruelties. This is now evidenced with particular clearness by monstrous crimes of the Hitlerites on the territory of the Soviet Union which is being liberated from the Hitlerites, and on French and Italian territory. Accordingly, the aforesaid three allied Powers, speaking in the interests of the thirty-two [thirty-three] United Nations, hereby solemnly declare and give full warning of their declaration as follows: At the time of the granting of any armistice to any government which may be set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the Nazi party who have been responsible for, or have taken a consenting part in the above atrocities, massacres, and executions, will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free governments which will be created therein. Lists will be compiled in all possible detail from all these countries having regard especially to the invaded parts of the Soviet Union, to Poland and Czechoslovakia, to Yugoslavia and Greece, including Crete and other islands, to Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France and Italy. Thus, the Germans who take part in wholesale shootings of Italian officers or in the execution of French, Dutch, Belgian, or Norwegian hostages or of Cretan peasants, or who have shared in the slaughters inflicted on the people of Poland or in territories of the Soviet Union which are now being swept clear of the enemy, will know that they will be brought back to the scene of their crimes and judged on the spot by the peoples whom they have outraged. Let those who have hitherto not imbrued their hands with innocent blood beware lest they join the ranks of the guilty, for most assuredly the three allied Powers will pursue them to the uttermost ends of the earth and will deliver them to their accusers in order that justice may be done. The above declaration is without prejudice to the case of the major criminals, whose offences have no particular geographical localisation and who will be punished by the joint decision of the Governments of the Allies. [Signed] Roosevelt Churchill Stalin EXECUTIVE ORDER 9547 =Providing for Representation of the United States in Preparing and Prosecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of the European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and Accessories= By virtue of the authority vested in me as President and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows: 1. Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson is hereby designated to act as the Representative of the United States and as its Chief of Counsel in preparing and prosecuting charges of atrocities and war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their principal agents and accessories as the United States may agree with any of the United Nations to bring to trial before an international military tribunal. He shall serve without additional compensation but shall receive such allowance for expenses as may be authorized by the President. 2. The Representative named herein is authorized to select and recommend to the President or to the head of any executive department, independent establishment, or other federal agency necessary personnel to assist in the performance of his duties hereunder. The head of each executive department, independent establishment, and other federal agency is hereby authorized to assist the Representative named herein in the performance of his duties hereunder and to employ such personnel and make such expenditures, within the limits of appropriations now or hereafter available for the purpose, as the Representative named herein may deem necessary to accomplish the purposes of this order, and may make available, assign, or detail for duty with the Representative named herein such members of the armed forces and other personnel as may be requested for such purposes. 3. The Representative named herein is authorized to cooperate with, and receive the assistance of, any foreign Government to the extent deemed necessary by him to accomplish the purposes of this order. HARRY S. TRUMAN THE WHITE HOUSE, _May 2, 1945_. (F. R. Doc. 45-7256; Filed, May 3, 1945; 10:57 a. m.) * * * * * LONDON AGREEMENT OF 8 AUGUST 1945 AGREEMENT by the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Provisional Government of the FRENCH REPUBLIC, the Government of the =United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland= and the Government of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS for the Prosecution and Punishment of the MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS of the EUROPEAN AXIS WHEREAS the United Nations have from time to time made declarations of their intention that War Criminals shall be brought to justice; AND WHEREAS the Moscow Declaration of the 30th October 1943 on German atrocities in Occupied Europe stated that those German Officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in atrocities and crimes will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries and of the free Governments that will be created therein; AND WHEREAS this Declaration was stated to be without prejudice to the case of major criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location and who will be punished by the Joint decision of the Governments of the Allies; NOW THEREFORE the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (hereinafter called “the Signatories”) acting in the interests of all the United Nations and by their representatives duly authorized thereto have concluded this Agreement. =Article 1.= There shall be established after consultation with the Control Council for Germany an International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminals whose offenses have no particular geographical location whether they be accused individually or in their capacity as members of organizations or groups or in both capacities. =Article 2.= The constitution, jurisdiction and functions of the International Military Tribunal shall be those set out in the Charter annexed to this Agreement, which Charter shall form an integral part of this Agreement. =Article 3.= Each of the Signatories shall take the necessary steps to make available for the investigation of the charges and trial the major war criminals detained by them who are to be tried by the International Military Tribunal. The Signatories shall also use their best endeavors to make available for investigation of the charges against and the trial before the International Military Tribunal such of the major war criminals as are not in the territories of any of the Signatories. =Article 4.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the provisions established by the Moscow Declaration concerning the return of war criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes. =Article 5.= Any Government of the United Nations may adhere to this Agreement by notice given through the diplomatic channel to the Government of the United Kingdom, who shall inform the other signatory and adhering Governments of each such adherence. =Article 6.= Nothing in this Agreement shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of any national or occupation court established or to be established in any allied territory or in Germany for the trial of war criminals. =Article 7.= This agreement shall come into force on the day of signature and shall remain in force for the period of one year and shall continue thereafter, subject to the right of any Signatory to give, through the diplomatic channel, one month’s notice of intention to terminate it. Such termination shall not prejudice any proceedings already taken or any findings already made in pursuance of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Agreement. DONE in quadruplicate in London this 8^{th} day of August 1945 each in English, French and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity. For the Government of the United States of America ROBERT H. JACKSON For the Provisional Government of the French Republic ROBERT FALCO For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland JOWITT, C. For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics I. NIKITCHENKO A. TRAININ CHARTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL I. CONSTITUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL =Article 1.= In pursuance of the Agreement signed on the 8th day of August 1945 by the Government of the United States of America, the Provisional Government of the French Republic, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there shall be established an International Military Tribunal (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) for the just and prompt trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis. =Article 2.= The Tribunal shall consist of four members, each with an alternate. One member and one alternate shall be appointed by each of the Signatories. The alternates shall, so far as they are able, be present at all sessions of the Tribunal. In case of illness of any member of the Tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason to fulfill his functions, his alternate shall take his place. =Article 3.= Neither the Tribunal, its members nor their alternates can be challenged by the prosecution, or by the Defendants or their Counsel. Each Signatory may replace its member of the Tribunal or his alternate for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement may take place during a Trial, other than by an alternate. =Article 4.= (_a_) The presence of all four members of the Tribunal or the alternate for any absent member shall be necessary to constitute the quorum. (_b_) The members of the Tribunal shall, before any trial begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a President, and the President shall hold office during that trial, or as may otherwise be agreed by a vote of not less than three members. The principle of rotation of presidency for successive trials is agreed. If, however, a session of the Tribunal takes place on the territory of one of the four Signatories, the representative of that Signatory on the Tribunal shall preside. (_c_) Save as aforesaid the Tribunal shall take decisions by a majority vote and in case the votes are evenly divided, the vote of the President shall be decisive: provided always that convictions and sentences shall only be imposed by affirmative votes of at least three members of the Tribunal. =Article 5.= In case of need and depending on the number of the matters to be tried, other Tribunals may be set up; and the establishment, functions, and procedure of each Tribunal shall be identical, and shall be governed by this Charter. II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES =Article 6.= The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes. The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (_a_) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of International treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; (_b_) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; (_c_) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.[1] Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan. =Article 7.= The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment. =Article 8.= The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires. =Article 9.= At the trial of any individual member of any group or organization the Tribunal may declare (in connection with any act of which the individual may be convicted) that the group or organization of which the individual was a member was a criminal organization. After receipt of the Indictment the Tribunal shall give such notice as it thinks fit that the prosecution intends to ask the Tribunal to make such declaration and any member of the organization will be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for leave to be heard by the Tribunal upon the question of the criminal character of the organization. The Tribunal shall have power to allow or reject the application. If the application is allowed, the Tribunal may direct in what manner the applicants shall be represented and heard. =Article 10.= In cases where a group or organization is declared criminal by the Tribunal, the competent national authority of any Signatory shall have the right to bring individuals to trial for membership therein before national, military or occupation courts. In any such case the criminal nature of the group or organization is considered proved and shall not be questioned. =Article 11.= Any person convicted by the Tribunal may be charged before a national, military or occupation court, referred to in Article 10 of this Charter, with a crime other than of membership in a criminal group or organization and such court may, after convicting him, impose upon him punishment independent of and additional to the punishment imposed by the Tribunal for participation in the criminal activities of such group or organization. =Article 12.= The Tribunal shall have the right to take proceedings against a person charged with crimes set out in Article 6 of this Charter in his absence, if he has not been found or if the Tribunal, for any reason, finds it necessary, in the interests of justice, to conduct the hearing in his absence. =Article 13.= The Tribunal shall draw up rules for its procedure. These rules shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter. III. COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS =Article 14.= Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigation of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals. The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a committee for the following purposes: (_a_) to agree upon a plan of the individual work of each of the Chief Prosecutors and his staff, (_b_) to settle the final designation of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal, (_c_) to improve the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, (_d_) to lodge the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the Tribunal, (_e_) to draw up and recommend to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure, contemplated by Article 13 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended. The Committee shall act in all the above matters by a majority vote and shall appoint a Chairman as may be convenient and in accordance with the principle of rotation: provided that if there is an equal division of vote concerning the designation of a Defendant to be tried by the Tribunal, or the crimes with which he shall be charged, that proposal will be adopted which was made by the party which proposed that the particular Defendant be tried, or the particular charges be preferred against him. =Article 15.= The Chief Prosecutors shall individually, and acting in collaboration with one another, also undertake the following duties: (_a_) investigation, collection, and production before or at the Trial of all necessary evidence, (_b_) the preparation of the Indictment for approval by the Committee in accordance with paragraph (_c_) of Article 14 hereof, (_c_) the preliminary examination of all necessary witnesses and of the Defendants, (_d_) to act as prosecutor at the Trial, (_e_) to appoint representatives to carry out such duties as may be assigned to them, (_f_) to undertake such other matters as may appear necessary to them for the purposes of the preparation for and conduct of the Trial. It is understood that no witness or Defendant detained by any Signatory shall be taken out of the possession of that Signatory without its assent. IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS =Article 16.= In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (_a_) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at a reasonable time before the Trial. (_b_) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he shall have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him. (_c_) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands. (_d_) A defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel. (_e_) A defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution. V. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL =Article 17.= The Tribunal shall have the power (_a_) to summon witnesses to the Trial and to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them, (_b_) to interrogate any Defendant, (_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material, (_d_) to administer oaths to witnesses, (_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the Tribunal including the power to have evidence taken on commission. =Article 18.= The Tribunal shall (_a_) confine the Trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges, (_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever, (_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including exclusion of any Defendant or his Counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. =Article 19.= The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value. =Article 20.= The Tribunal may require to be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is offered so that it may rule upon the relevance thereof. =Article 21.= The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take Judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. =Article 22.= The permanent seat of the Tribunal shall be in Berlin. The first meetings of the members of the Tribunal and of the Chief Prosecutors shall be held at Berlin in a place to be designated by the Control Council for Germany. The first trial shall be held at Nuremberg, and any subsequent trials shall be held at such places as the Tribunal may decide. =Article 23.= One or more of the Chief Prosecutors may take part in the prosecution at each Trial. The function of any Chief Prosecutor may be discharged by him personally, or by any person or persons authorized by him. The function of Counsel for a Defendant may be discharged at the Defendant’s request by any Counsel professionally qualified to conduct cases before the Courts of his own country, or by any other person who may be specially authorized thereto by the Tribunal. =Article 24.= The proceedings at the Trial shall take the following course: (_a_) The Indictment shall be read in court. (_b_) The Tribunal shall ask each Defendant whether he pleads “guilty” or “not guilty”. (_c_) The Prosecution shall make an opening statement. (_d_) The Tribunal shall ask the Prosecution and the Defense what evidence (if any) they wish to submit to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall rule upon the admissibility of any such evidence. (_e_) The witnesses for the Prosecution shall be examined and after that the witnesses for the Defense. Thereafter such rebutting evidence as may be held by the Tribunal to be admissible shall be called by either the Prosecution or the Defense. (_f_) The Tribunal may put any question to any witness and to any Defendant, at any time. (_g_) The Prosecution and the Defense shall interrogate and may cross-examine any witnesses and any Defendant who gives testimony. (_h_) The Defense shall address the court. (_i_) The Prosecution shall address the court. (_j_) Each Defendant may make a statement to the Tribunal. (_k_) The Tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. =Article 25.= All official documents shall be produced, and all court proceedings conducted, in English, French and Russian, and in the language of the Defendant. So much of the record and of the proceedings may also be translated into the language of any country in which the Tribunal is sitting, as the Tribunal considers desirable in the interests of justice and public opinion. VI. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE =Article 26.= The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review. =Article 27.= The Tribunal shall have the right to impose upon a Defendant, on conviction, death or such other punishment as shall be determined by it to be just. =Article 28.= In addition to any punishment imposed by it, the Tribunal shall have the right to deprive the convicted person of any stolen property and order its delivery to the Control Council for Germany. =Article 29.= In case of guilt, sentences shall be carried out in accordance with the orders of the Control Council for Germany, which may at any time reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but may not increase the severity thereof. If the Control Council for Germany, after any Defendant has been convicted and sentenced, discovers fresh evidence which, in its opinion, would found a fresh charge against him, the Council shall report accordingly to the Committee established under Article 14 hereof, for such action as they may consider proper, having regard to the interests of justice. VII. EXPENSES =Article 30.= The expenses of the Tribunal and of the Trials, shall be charged by the Signatories against the funds allotted for maintenance of the Control Council for Germany. * * * * * _PROTOCOL_ Whereas an Agreement and Charter regarding the Prosecution of War Criminals was signed in London on the 8th August 1945, in the English, French, and Russian languages. And whereas a discrepancy has been found to exist between the originals of Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian language, on the one hand, and the originals in the English and French languages, on the other, to wit, the semi-colon in Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter between the words “war” and “or”, as carried in the English and French texts, is a comma in the Russian text. and whereas it is desired to rectify this discrepancy: NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, signatories of the said Agreement on behalf of their respective Governments, duly authorized thereto, have agreed that Article 6, paragraph (_c_), of the Charter in the Russian text is correct, and that the meaning and intention of the Agreement and Charter require that the said semi-colon in the English text should be changed to a comma, and that the French text should be amended to read as follows: (_c_) LES CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE: c’est à dire l’assassinat, l’extermination, la réduction en esclavage, la déportation, et tout autre acte inhumain commis contre toutes populations civiles, avant ou pendant la guerre, ou bien les persécutions pour des motifs politiques, raciaux, ou réligieux, lorsque ces actes ou persécutions, qu’ils aient constitué ou non une violation du droit interne du pays où ils ont été perpétrés, ont été commis à la suite de tout crime rentrant dans la compétence du Tribunal, ou en liaison avec ce crime. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Undersigned have signed the present Protocol. DONE in quadruplicate in Berlin this 6th day of October, 1945, each in English, French, and Russian, and each text to have equal authenticity. For the Government of the United States of America ROBERT H. JACKSON For the Provisional Government of the French Republic FRANÇOIS DE MENTHON For the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland HARTLEY SHAWCROSS For the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics R. RUDENKO ----- [1] See proctocol p. XV for correction of this paragraph. * * * * * CONTROL COUNCIL LAW NO. 10 _PUNISHMENT OF PERSONS GUILTY OF WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST PEACE AND AGAINST HUMANITY_ In order to give effect to the terms of the Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 and the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, and the Charter issued pursuant thereto and in order to establish a uniform legal basis in Germany for the prosecution of war criminals and other similar offenders, other than those dealt with by the International Military Tribunal, the Control Council enacts as follows: Article I The Moscow Declaration of 30 October 1943 “Concerning Responsibility of Hitlerites for Committed Atrocities” and the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 “Concerning Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis” are made integral parts of this Law. Adherence to the provisions of the London Agreement by any of the United Nations, as provided for in Article V of that Agreement, shall not entitle such Nation to participate or interfere in the operation of this Law within the Control Council area of authority in Germany. Article II 1. Each of the following acts is recognized as a crime: (_a_) _Crimes against Peace._ Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war of violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing. (_b_) _War Crimes._ Atrocities or offences against persons or property constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. (_c_) _Crimes against Humanity._ Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated. (_d_) Membership in categories of a criminal group or organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal. 2. Any person without regard to nationality or the capacity in which he acted, is deemed to have committed a crime as defined in paragraph 1 of this Article, if he was (_a_) a principal or (_b_) was an accessory to the commission of any such crime or ordered or abetted the same or (_c_) took a consenting part therein or (_d_) was connected with plans or enterprises involving its commission or (_e_) was a member of any organization or group connected with the commission of any such crime or (_f_) with reference to paragraph 1 (_a_), if he held a high political, civil or military (including General Staff) position in Germany or in one of its Allies, co-belligerents or satellites or held high position in the financial, industrial or economic life of any such country. 3. Any person found guilty of any of the Crimes above mentioned may upon conviction be punished as shall be determined by the tribunal to be just. Such punishment may consist of one or more of the following: (_a_) Death. (_b_) Imprisonment for life or a term of years, with or without hard labour. (_c_) Fine, and imprisonment with or without hard labour, in lieu, thereof. (_d_) Forfeiture of property. (_e_) Restitution of property wrongfully acquired. (_f_) Deprivation of some or all civil rights. Any property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is ordered by the Tribunal shall be delivered to the Control Council for Germany, which shall decide on its disposal. 4. (_a_) The official position of any person, whether as Head of State or as a responsible official in a Government Department, does not free him from responsibility for a crime or entitle him to mitigation of punishment. (_b_) The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his Government or of a superior does not free him from responsibility for a crime, but may be considered in mitigation. 5. In any trial or prosecution for a crime herein referred to, the accused shall not be entitled to the benefits of any statute of limitation in respect of the period from 30 January 1933 to 1 July 1945, nor shall any immunity, pardon or amnesty granted under the Nazi regime be admitted as a bar to trial or punishment. Article III 1. Each occupying authority, within its Zone of occupation, (_a_) shall have the right to cause persons within such Zone suspected of having committed a crime, including those charged with crime by one of the United Nations, to be arrested and shall take under control the property, real and personal, owned or controlled by the said persons, pending decisions as to its eventual disposition. (_b_) shall report to the Legal Directorate the names of all suspected criminals, the reasons for and the places of their detention, if they are detained, and the names and location of witnesses. (_c_) shall take appropriate measures to see that witnesses and evidence will be available when required. (_d_) shall have the right to cause all persons so arrested and charged, and not delivered to another authority as herein provided, or released, to be brought to trial before an appropriate tribunal. Such tribunal may, in the case of crimes committed by persons of German citizenship or nationality against other persons of German citizenship or nationality, or stateless persons, be a German Court, if authorized by the occupying authorities. 2. The tribunal by which persons charged with offenses hereunder shall be tried and the rules and procedure thereof shall be determined or designated by each Zone Commander for his respective Zone. Nothing herein is intended to, or shall impair or limit the jurisdiction or power of any court or tribunal now or hereafter established in any Zone by the Commander thereof, or of the International Military Tribunal established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945. 3. Persons wanted for trial by an International Military Tribunal will not be tried without the consent of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors. Each Zone Commander will deliver such persons who are within his Zone to that committee upon request and will make witnesses and evidence available to it. 4. Persons known to be wanted for trial in another Zone or outside Germany will not be tried prior to decision under Article IV unless the fact of their apprehension has been reported in accordance with Section 1 (_b_) of this Article, three months have elapsed thereafter, and no request for delivery of the type contemplated by Article IV has been received by the Zone Commander concerned. 5. The execution of death sentences may be deferred by not to exceed one month after the sentence has become final when the Zone Commander concerned has reason to believe that the testimony of those under sentence would be of value in the investigation and trial of crimes within or without his Zone. 6. Each Zone Commander will cause such effect to be given to the judgments of courts of competent jurisdiction, with respect to the property taken under his control pursuant hereto, as he may deem proper in the interest of justice. Article IV 1. When any person in a Zone in Germany is alleged to have committed a crime, as defined in Article II, in a country other than Germany or in another Zone, the government of that nation or the Commander of the latter Zone, as the case may be, may request the Commander of the Zone in which the person is located for his arrest and delivery for trial to the country or Zone in which the crime was committed. Such request for delivery shall be granted by the Commander receiving it unless he believes such person is wanted for trial or as a witness by an International Military Tribunal, or in Germany, or in a nation other than the one making the request, or the Commander is not satisfied that delivery should be made, in any of which cases he shall have the right to forward the said request to the Legal Directorate of the Allied Control Authority. A similar procedure shall apply to witnesses, material exhibits and other forms of evidence. 2. The Legal Directorate shall consider all requests referred to it, and shall determine the same in accordance with the following principles, its determination to be communicated to the Zone Commander. (_a_) A person wanted for trial or as a witness by an International Military Tribunal shall not be delivered for trial or required to give evidence outside Germany, as the case may be, except upon approval of the Committee of Chief Prosecutors acting under the London Agreement of 8 August 1945. (_b_) A person wanted for trial by several authorities (other than an International Military Tribunal) shall be disposed of in accordance with the following priorities: (1) If wanted for trial in the Zone in which he is, he should not be delivered unless arrangements are made for his return after trial elsewhere; (2) If wanted for trial in a Zone other than that in which he is, he should be delivered to that Zone in preference to delivery outside Germany unless arrangements are made for his return to that Zone after trial elsewhere; (3) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United Nations, of one of which he is a citizen, that one should have priority; (4) If wanted for trial outside Germany by several countries, not all of which are United Nations, United Nations should have priority; (5) If wanted for trial outside Germany by two or more of the United Nations, then, subject to Article IV 2 (_b_) (3) above, that which has the most serious charges against him, which are moreover supported by evidence, should have priority. Article V The delivery, under Article IV of this Law, of persons for trial shall be made on demands of the Governments or Zone Commanders in such a manner that the delivery of criminals to one jurisdiction will not become the means of defeating or unnecessarily delaying the carrying out of justice in another place. If within six months the delivered person has not been convicted by the Court of the zone or country to which he has been delivered, then such person shall be returned upon demand of the Commander of the Zone where the person was located prior to delivery. Done at Berlin, 20 December 1945. JOSEPH T. MCNARNEY General B. L. MONTGOMERY Field Marshal L. KOELTZ General de Corps d’Armée for P. KOENIG General d’Armée G. ZHUKOV Marshal of the Soviet Union EXECUTIVE ORDER 9679 =Amendment of Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, Entitled “Providing for Representation of the United States in Preparing and Prosecuting Charges of Atrocities and War Crimes Against the Leaders of the European Axis Powers and Their Principal Agents and Accessories”= By virtue of the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, under the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows: 1. In addition to the authority vested in the Representative of the United States and its Chief of Counsel by Paragraph 1 of Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, to prepare and prosecute charges of atrocities and war crimes against such of the leaders of the European Axis powers and their accessories as the United States may agree with any of the United Nations to bring to trial before an international military tribunal, such Representative and Chief of Counsel shall have the authority to proceed before United States military or occupation tribunals, in proper cases, against other Axis adherents, including but not limited to cases against members of groups and organizations declared criminal by the said international military tribunal. 2. The present Representative and Chief of Counsel is authorized to designate a Deputy Chief of Counsel, to whom he may assign responsibility for organizing and planning the prosecution of charges of atrocities and war crimes, other than those now being prosecuted as Case No. 1 in the international military tribunal, and, as he may be directed by the Chief of Counsel, for conducting the prosecution of such charges of atrocities and war crimes. 3. Upon vacation of office by the present Representative and Chief of Counsel, the functions, duties, and powers of the Representative of the United States and its Chief of Counsel, as specified in the said Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, as amended by this order, shall be vested in a Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to be appointed by the United States Military Governor for Germany or by his successor. 4. The said Executive Order No. 9547 of May 2, 1945, is amended accordingly. HARRY S. TRUMAN THE WHITE HOUSE, _January 16, 1946_. (F. R. Doc. 46-893; Filed, Jan. 17, 1946; 11:08 a. m.) * * * * * HEADQUARTERS US FORCES, EUROPEAN THEATER GENERAL ORDERS } 24 OCTOBER 1946 No. 301 } Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes I Chief Prosecutor II Announcement of Assignments III _I_——_OFFICE OF CHIEF OF COUNSEL FOR WAR CRIMES._ Effective this date, the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes is transferred to the Office of Military Government for Germany (US). The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes will report directly to the Deputy Military Governor and will work in close liaison with the Legal Adviser of the Office of Military Government for Germany and with the Theater Judge Advocate. _II_——_CHIEF PROSECUTOR._ Effective this date, the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes will also serve as Chief Prosecutor under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, established by the Agreement of 8 August 1945. _III_——_ANNOUNCEMENT OF ASSIGNMENTS._ Effective this date, Brigadier General Telford Taylor, USA, is announced as Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, in which capacity he will also serve as Chief Prosecutor for the United States under the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, established by the Agreement of 8 August 1945. BY COMMAND OF GENERAL MCNARNEY: C. R. HUEBNER _Major General, GSC,_ _Chief of Staff_ OFFICIAL: GEORGE F. HERBERT _Colonel_, AGD _Adjutant General_ DISTRIBUTION: D * * * * * MILITARY GOVERNMENT—GERMANY UNITED STATES ZONE ORDINANCE NO. 7 _ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS_ Article I The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the establishment of military tribunals which shall have power to try and punish persons charged with offenses recognized as crimes in Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, including conspiracies to commit any such crimes. Nothing herein shall prejudice the jurisdiction or the powers of other courts established or which may be established for the trial of any such offenses. Article II (_a_) Pursuant to the powers of the Military Governor for the United States Zone of Occupation within Germany and further pursuant to the powers conferred upon the Zone Commander by Control Council Law No. 10 and Articles 10 and 11 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal annexed to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 certain tribunals to be known as “Military Tribunals” shall be established hereunder. (_b_) Each such tribunal shall consist of three or more members to be designated by the Military Governor. One alternate member may be designated to any tribunal if deemed advisable by the Military Governor. Except as provided in subsection (_c_) of this Article, all members and alternates shall be lawyers who have been admitted to practice, for at least five years, in the highest courts of one of the United States or its territories or of the District of Columbia, or who have been admitted to practice in the United States Supreme Court. (_c_) The Military Governor may in his discretion enter into an agreement with one or more other zone commanders of the member nations of the Allied Control Authority providing for the joint trial of any case or cases. In such cases the tribunals shall consist of three or more members as may be provided in the agreement. In such cases the tribunals may include properly qualified lawyers designated by the other member nations. (_d_) The Military Governor shall designate one of the members of the tribunal to serve as the presiding judge. (_e_) Neither the tribunals nor the members of the tribunals or the alternates may be challenged by the prosecution or by the defendants or their counsel. (_f_) In case of illness of any member of a tribunal or his incapacity for some other reason, the alternate, if one has been designated, shall take his place as a member in the pending trial. Members may be replaced for reasons of health or for other good reasons, except that no replacement of a member may take place, during a trial, other than by the alternate. If no alternate has been designated, the trial shall be continued to conclusion by the remaining members. (_g_) The presence of three members of the tribunal or of two members when authorized pursuant to subsection (_f_) _supra_ shall be necessary to constitute a quorum. In the case of tribunals designated under (_c_) above the agreement shall determine the requirements for a quorum. (_h_) Decisions and judgments, including convictions and sentences, shall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes of the members are equally divided, the presiding member shall declare a mistrial. Article III (_a_) Charges against persons to be tried in the tribunals established hereunder shall originate in the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, appointed by the Military Governor pursuant to paragraph 3 of the Executive Order Numbered 9679 of the President of the United States dated 16 January 1946. The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes shall determine the persons to be tried by the tribunals and he or his designated representative shall file the indictments with the Secretary General of the tribunals (see Article XIV, _infra_) and shall conduct the prosecution. (_b_) The Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, when in his judgment it is advisable, may invite one or more United Nations to designate representatives to participate in the prosecution of any case. Article IV In order to ensure fair trial for the defendants, the following procedure shall be followed: (_a_) A defendant shall be furnished, at a reasonable time before his trial, a copy of the indictment and of all documents lodged with the indictment, translated into a language which he understands. The indictment shall state the charges plainly, concisely and with sufficient particulars to inform defendant of the offenses charged. (_b_) The trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the defendant understands. (_c_) A defendant shall have the right to be represented by counsel of his own selection, provided such counsel shall be a person qualified under existing regulations to conduct cases before the courts of defendant’s country, or any other person who may be specially authorized by the tribunal. The tribunal shall appoint qualified counsel to represent a defendant who is not represented by counsel of his own selection. (_d_) Every defendant shall be entitled to be present at his trial except that a defendant may be proceeded against during temporary absences if in the opinion of the tribunal defendant’s interests will not thereby be impaired, and except further as provided in Article VI (_c_). The tribunal may also proceed in the absence of any defendant who has applied for and has been granted permission to be absent. (_e_) A defendant shall have the right through his counsel to present evidence at the trial in support of his defense, and to cross examine any witness called by the prosecution. (_f_) A defendant may apply in writing to the tribunal for the production of witnesses or of documents. The application shall state where the witness or document is thought to be located and shall also state the facts to be proved by the witness or the document and the relevancy of such facts to the defense. If the tribunal grants the application, the defendant shall be given such aid in obtaining production of evidence as the tribunal may order. Article V The tribunals shall have the power (_a_) to summon witnesses to the trial, to require their attendance and testimony and to put questions to them; (_b_) to interrogate any defendant who takes the stand to testify in his own behalf, or who is called to testify regarding another defendant; (_c_) to require the production of documents and other evidentiary material; (_d_) to administer oaths; (_e_) to appoint officers for the carrying out of any task designated by the tribunals including the taking of evidence on commission; (_f_) to adopt rules of procedure not inconsistent with this Ordinance. Such rules shall be adopted, and from time to time as necessary, revised by the members of the tribunal or by the committee of presiding judges as provided in Article XIII. Article VI The tribunals shall (_a_) confine the trial strictly to an expeditious hearing of the issues raised by the charges; (_b_) take strict measures to prevent any action which will cause unreasonable delay, and rule out irrelevant issues and statements of any kind whatsoever; (_c_) deal summarily with any contumacy, imposing appropriate punishment, including the exclusion of any defendant or his counsel from some or all further proceedings, but without prejudice to the determination of the charges. Article VII The tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. They shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and non-technical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which they deem to have probative value. Without limiting the foregoing general rules, the following shall be deemed admissible if they appear to the tribunal to contain information of probative value relating to the charges: affidavits, depositions, interrogations, and other statements, diaries, letters, the records, findings, statements and judgments of the military tribunals and the reviewing and confirming authorities of any of the United Nations, and copies of any document or other secondary evidence of the contents of any document, if the original is not readily available or cannot be produced without delay. The tribunal shall afford the opposing party such opportunity to question the authenticity or probative value of such evidence as in the opinion of the tribunal the ends of justice require. Article VIII The tribunals may require that they be informed of the nature of any evidence before it is offered so that they may rule upon the relevance thereof. Article IX The tribunals shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. They shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of any of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations. Article X The determinations of the International Military Tribunal in the judgments in Case No. 1 that invasions, aggressive acts, aggressive wars, crimes, atrocities or inhumane acts were planned or occurred, shall be binding on the tribunals established hereunder and shall not be questioned except insofar as the participation therein or knowledge thereof by any particular person may be concerned. Statements of the International Military Tribunal in the judgment in Case No. 1 constitute proof of the facts stated, in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary. Article XI The proceedings at the trial shall take the following course: (_a_) The tribunal shall inquire of each defendant whether he has received and had an opportunity to read the indictment against him and whether he pleads “guilty” or “not guilty.” (_b_) The prosecution may make an opening statement. (_c_) The prosecution shall produce its evidence subject to the cross examination of its witnesses. (_d_) The defense may make an opening statement. (_e_) The defense shall produce its evidence subject to the cross examination of its witnesses. (_f_) Such rebutting evidence as may be held by the tribunal to be material may be produced by either the prosecution or the defense. (_g_) The defense shall address the court. (_h_) The prosecution shall address the court. (_i_) Each defendant may make a statement to the tribunal. (_j_) The tribunal shall deliver judgment and pronounce sentence. Article XII A Central Secretariat to assist the tribunals to be appointed hereunder shall be established as soon as practicable. The main office of the Secretariat shall be located in Nuernberg. The Secretariat shall consist of a Secretary General and such assistant secretaries, military officers, clerks, interpreters and other personnel as may be necessary. Article XIII The Secretary General shall be appointed by the Military Governor and shall organize and direct the work of the Secretariat. He shall be subject to the supervision of the members of the tribunals, except that when at least three tribunals shall be functioning, the presiding judges of the several tribunals may form the supervisory committee. Article XIV The Secretariat shall: (_a_) Be responsible for the administrative and supply needs of the Secretariat and of the several tribunals. (_b_) Receive all documents addressed to tribunals. (_c_) Prepare and recommend uniform rules of procedure, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance. (_d_) Secure such information for the tribunals as may be needed for the approval or appointment of defense counsel. (_e_) Serve as liaison between the prosecution and defense counsel. (_f_) Arrange for aid to be given defendants and the prosecution in obtaining production of witnesses or evidence as authorized by the tribunals. (_g_) Be responsible for the preparation of the records of the proceedings before the tribunals. (_h_) Provide the necessary clerical, reporting and interpretative services to the tribunals and its members, and perform such other duties as may be required for the efficient conduct of the proceedings before the tribunals, or as may be requested by any of the tribunals. Article XV The judgments of the tribunals as to the guilt or the innocence of any defendant shall give the reasons on which they are based and shall be final and not subject to review. The sentences imposed may be subject to review as provided in Article XVII, _infra_. Article XVI The tribunal shall have the right to impose upon the defendant, upon conviction, such punishment as shall be determined by the tribunal to be just, which may consist of one or more of the penalties provided in Article II, Section 3 of Control Council Law No. 10. Article XVII (_a_) Except as provided in (_b_) _infra_, the record of each case shall be forwarded to the Military Governor who shall have the power to mitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the tribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof. (_b_) In cases tried before tribunals authorized by Article II (_c_), the sentence shall be reviewed jointly by the zone commanders of the nations involved, who mitigate, reduce or otherwise alter the sentence by majority vote, but may not increase the severity thereof. If only two nations are represented, the sentence may be altered only by the consent of both zone commanders. Article XVIII No sentence of death shall be carried into execution unless and until confirmed in writing by the Military Governor. In accordance with Article III, Section 5 of Law No. 10, execution of the death sentence may be deferred by not to exceed one month after such confirmation if there is reason to believe that the testimony of the convicted person may be of value in the investigation and trial of other crimes. Article XIX Upon the pronouncement of a death sentence by a tribunal established thereunder and pending confirmation thereof, the condemned will be remanded to the prison or place where he was confined and there be segregated from the other inmates, or be transferred to a more appropriate place of confinement. Article XX Upon the confirmation of a sentence of death the Military Governor will issue the necessary orders for carrying out the execution. Article XXI Where sentence of confinement for a term of years has been imposed the condemned shall be confined in the manner directed by the tribunal imposing sentence. The place of confinement may be changed from time to time by the Military Governor. Article XXII Any property declared to be forfeited or the restitution of which is ordered by a tribunal shall be delivered to the Military Governor, for disposal in accordance with Control Council Law No. 10, Article II (3). Article XXIII Any of the duties and functions of the Military Governor provided for herein may be delegated to the Deputy Military Governor. Any of the duties and functions of the Zone Commander provided for herein may be exercised by and in the name of the Military Governor and may be delegated to the Deputy Military Governor. This Ordinance becomes effective 18 October 1946. BY ORDER OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT. * * * * * MILITARY GOVERNMENT—GERMANY ORDINANCE NO. 11 _AMENDING MILITARY GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE NO. 7 OF 18 OCTOBER 1946, ENTITLED “ORGANIZATION AND POWERS OF CERTAIN MILITARY TRIBUNALS”_ Article I Article V of Ordinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new subdivision to be designated “(_g_)”, reading as follows: “(_g_) The presiding judges, and, when established, the supervisory committee of presiding judges provided in Article XIII shall assign the cases brought by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes to the various Military Tribunals for trial.” Article II Ordinance No. 7 is amended by adding thereto a new article following Article V to be designated Article V-B, reading as follows: “(_a_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called by any of the presiding judges thereof or upon motion, addressed to each of the Tribunals, of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or of counsel for any defendant whose interests are affected, to hear argument upon and to review any interlocutory ruling by any of the Military Tribunals on a fundamental or important legal question either substantive or procedural, which ruling is in conflict with or is inconsistent with a prior ruling of another of the Military Tribunals. “(_b_) A joint session of the Military Tribunals may be called in the same manner as provided in subsection (_a_) of this Article to hear argument upon and to review conflicting or inconsistent final rulings contained in the decisions or judgments of any of the Military Tribunals on a fundamental or important legal question, either substantive or procedural. Any motion with respect to such final ruling shall be filed within ten (10) days following the issuance of decision or judgment. “(_c_) Decisions by joint sessions of the Military Tribunals, unless thereafter altered in another joint session, shall be binding upon all the Military Tribunals. In the case of the review of final rulings by joint sessions, the judgments reviewed may be confirmed or remanded for action consistent with the joint decision. “(_d_) The presence of a majority of the members of each Military Tribunal then constituted is required to constitute a quorum. “(_e_) The members of the Military Tribunals shall, before any joint session begins, agree among themselves upon the selection from their number of a member to preside over the joint session. “(_f_) Decisions shall be by majority vote of the members. If the votes of the members are equally divided, the vote of the member presiding over the session shall be decisive.” Article III Subdivisions (_g_) and (_h_) of Article XI of Ordinance No. 7 are deleted; subdivision (_i_) is re-lettered “(_h_)”; subdivision (_j_) is relettered “(_i_)”; and a new subdivision, to be designated “(_g_)”, is added, reading as follows: “(_g_) The prosecution and defense shall address the court in such order as the Tribunal may determine.” This Ordinance becomes effective 17 February 1947. BY ORDER OF THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT. OFFICIALS OF THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL Secretaries General MR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 25 October 1946 to 17 November 1946. MR. GEORGE M. READ From 18 November 1946 to 19 January 1947. MR. CHARLES E. SANDS From 20 January 1947 to 18 April 1947. COLONEL JOHN E. RAY From 19 April 1947 to 9 May 1948. DR. HOWARD H. RUSSELL From 10 May 1948 to 1 December 1949. Deputy and Executive Secretaries General MR. CHARLES E. SANDS Deputy from 18 November 1946 to 10 January 1947. JUDGE RICHARD D. DIXON Acting Deputy from 25 November 1946 to 5 March 1947. MR. HENRY A. HENDRY Deputy from 6 March 1947 to 9 May 1947. MR. HOMER B. MILLARD Executive Secretary General from 3 March 1947 to 5 October 1947. LIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Executive Secretary General from 6 HOLSTEN October 1947 to 30 April 1949. Assistant Secretaries General [Since many trials were being held simultaneously, an Assistant Secretary General was designated by the Secretary General for each case. Assistant Secretaries General are listed with the members of each tribunal.] Marshals of Military Tribunals COLONEL CHARLES W. MAYS From 4 November 1946 to 5 September 1947. COLONEL SAMUEL L. METCALFE From 7 September 1947 to 29 August 1948. CAPTAIN KENYON S. JENCKES From 30 August 1948 to 30 April 1949. Court Archives MRS. BARBARA S. MANDELLAUR Chief from 21 February 1947 to 30 April 1949. Defense Information Center MR. LAMBERTUS WARTENA Defense Administrator from 3 March 1947 to 16 September 1947. LIEUTENANT COLONEL HERBERT N. Defense Administrator from 17 HOLSTEN September 1947 to 19 October 1947. MAJOR ROBERT G. SCHAEFER Defense Administrator from 20 October 1947 to 30 April 1949. “The Medical Case” MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. 1 CASE 1 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA —against— KARL BRANDT, SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, PAUL ROSTOCK, OSKAR SCHROEDER, KARL GENZKEN, KARL GEBHARDT, KURT BLOME, RUDOLF BRANDT, JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY, HELMUT POPPENDICK, WOLFRAM SIEVERS, GERHARD ROSE, SIEGFRIED RUFF, HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG, =Viktor Brack=, HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, GEORG AUGUST WELTZ, =Konrad Schaefer=, WALDEMAR HOVEN, WILHELM BEIGLBOECK, =Adolf Pokorny=, HERTA OBERHEUSER, and FRITZ FISCHER, _Defendants_ INTRODUCTION The “Doctors Trial” or “Medical Case”—officially designated _United States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt_, _et al._ (Case No. 1)—was tried at the Palace of Justice in Nuernberg before Military Tribunal I. The Tribunal convened 139 times, and the duration of the trial is shown by the following schedule: Indictment filed 25 October 1946 Indictment served 5 November 1946 Arraignment 21 November 1946 Prosecution opening statement 9 December 1946 Defense opening statement 29 January 1947 Prosecution closing statement 14 July 1947 Defense closing statements 14-18 July 1947 Judgment 19 August 1947 Sentences 20 August 1947 Affirmation of sentences by Military 25 November 1947 Commander of the United States Zone of Occupation Order of the United States Supreme Court 16 February 1948 denying writ of habeas corpus The death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, Karl Gebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and Waldemar Hoven were put into execution on 2 June 1948. The English transcript of the Court proceedings runs to 11,538 mimeographed pages. The prosecution introduced into evidence 570 written exhibits (some of which contained several documents), and the defense 901 written exhibits. The Tribunal heard oral testimony of 32 witnesses called by the prosecution and of 30 witnesses, excluding the defendants, called by the defense. Each of the 23 defendants testified in his own behalf, and each was subject to examination on behalf of other defendants. The exhibits offered by both the prosecution and defense contained documents, photographs, affidavits, interrogatories, letters, maps, charts, and other written evidence. The prosecution introduced 49 affidavits; the defense introduced 535 affidavits. The prosecution called 3 defense affiants for cross-examination; the defense called 13 prosecution affiants for cross-examination. The case-in-chief of the prosecution took 25 court days and the case for the 23 defendants took 107 court days. The Tribunal was in recess between 18 and 27 January 1947 to give the defense additional time to prepare its case. A further recess was taken from 3 to 14 July 1947 to allow both prosecution and defense time for the preparation of their closing arguments. The members of the Tribunal and prosecution and defense counsel are listed on the ensuing pages. Prosecution counsel were assisted in preparing the case by Walter Rapp (Chief of the Evidence Division), Fred Rodell, Norbert Barr, and Herbert Meyer, interrogators, and Henry Sachs, Eleanor Anspacher, Nancy Fenstermacher, and Olga Lang, research and documentary analysts. * * * * * Selection and arrangement of the “Medical Case” material published herein was accomplished principally by Arnost Horlik-Hochwald, working under the general supervision of Drexel A. Sprecher, Deputy Chief Counsel and Director of Publications, Office U. S. Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. Catherine W. Bedford, Henry Buxbaum, Emilie Evand, Gertrude Ferencz, Paul H. Gantt, Constance Gavares, Olga Lang, Helga Lund, Gwendoline Niebergall, Johanna K. Reischer, Hans Sachs, and Enid M. Standring assisted in selecting, compiling, editing, and indexing the numerous papers. John H. E. Fried, Special Legal Consultant to the Tribunals, reviewed and approved the selection and arrangement of the material as the designated representative of the Nuernberg Tribunals. Final compilation and editing of the manuscript for printing was administered by the War Crimes Division, Office of the Judge Advocate General, under the direct supervision of Richard A. Olbeter, Chief, Special Projects Branch, with Alma Soller as editor and John W. Mosenthal as research analyst. ORDER CONSTITUTING TRIBUNAL I OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT FOR GERMANY (U. S.) APO 742 GENERAL ORDERS } No. 68 } 26 October 1946 Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7 1. Pursuant to Military Government Ordinance No. 7, 24 October 1946, entitled “Organization and Powers of Certain Military Tribunals”, there is hereby constituted, Military Tribunal I. 2. The following are designated as members of Military Tribunal I: WALTER B. BEALS Presiding Judge HAROLD L. SEBRING Judge JOHNSON TAL CRAWFORD Judge VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN Alternate Judge 3. The Tribunal shall convene at Nuernberg, Germany, to hear such cases as may be filed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes or by his duly designated representative. 4. This order is effective as of 25 October 1946. BY COMMAND OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAY: C. K. GAILEY _Brigadier General, USA_ _Chief of Staff_ OFFICIAL: G. H. GARDE _Lieutenant Colonel, AGD_ _Adjutant General_ DISTRIBUTION: “B” plus 2-NRU USFET MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL JUDGE WALTER B. BEALS, Presiding Judge. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. JUDGE HAROLD L. SEBRING, Member. Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. JUDGE JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD, Member. Formerly Judge of a District Court of the State of Oklahoma. JUDGE VICTOR C. SWEARINGEN, Alternate Member. Formerly Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. ASSISTANT SECRETARIES GENERAL MR. DEHULL N. TRAVIS From 21 November 1946 to 6 June 1947 MAJOR MILLS C. HATFIELD From 17 June 1947 to 14 July 1947 MISS M. A. ROYCE From 15 July 1947 to 20 August 1947 [Illustration: TRIBUNAL I—CASE ONE. _Left to Right: Harold L. Sebring_; _Walter B. Beals, Presiding_; _Johnson Tal Crawford_; _Victor C. Swearingen, Alternate_.] [Illustration: _General view of courtroom on opening day of trial. Upper left: Court reporter and translators. Left: Defendants and defense counsel. At rostrum: Brigadier General Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes Right: Judges and court clerks of Tribunal I. Foreground: Members of the prosecution staff with Mr. James McHaney, Chief Prosecutor, and Mr. Alexander Hardy, Associate Prosecutor, seated at table directly behind Brigadier General Taylor._] [Illustration: _View of the defendants and defense council, 9th December 1946. The defendants are, left to right: (front row) Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gerbhardt, Kurt Blome, Joachim Mrugowsky, Rudolph Brandt, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers; (back row) Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff, Viktor Brack, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaeffer, Waldemar Haven, Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer._] [Illustration: _The defendant Gerhard Rose at work in his cell on his defense material._] PROSECUTION COUNSEL _Chief of Counsel_: BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR _Chief Prosecutor_: MR. JAMES M. MCHANEY _Associate Counsel_: MR. ALEXANDER G. HARDY MR. ARNOST HORLIK-HOCHWALD _Assistant Counsel_: MR. GLEN J. BROWN MISS ESTHER J. JOHNSON MR. JACK W. ROBBINS MR. DANIEL J. SHILLER DEFENSE COUNSEL _Defendants_ _Defense Counsel_ _Associate Defense Counsel_ BRANDT, KARL DR. ROBERT SERVATIUS DR. RUDOLF SCHMIDT HANDLOSER, SIEGFRIED DR. OTTO NELTE ROSTOCK, PAUL DR. HANS PRIBILLA SCHROEDER, OSKAR DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER GENZKEN, KARL DR. RUDOLF MERKEL DR. ALFRED BRENNER GEHARDT, KARL DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL BLOME, KURT DR. FRITZ SAUTER BRANDT, RUDOLF DR. KURT KAUFFMANN MRUGOWSKY, JOACHIM DR. FRITZ FLEMMING POPPENDICK, HELMUT DR. GEORG BOEHM DR. HELMUT DUERR SIEVERS, WOLFRAM DR. JOSEF WEISGERBER DR. ERICH BERGLER ROSE, GERHARD DR. HANS FRITZ RUFF, SIEGFRIED DR. FRITZ SAUTER ROMBERG, HANS WOLFGANG DR. BERND VORWERK BRACK, VIKTOR DR. GEORG FROESCHMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, HERMANN DR. HANNS MARX DR. WALTER DEHNER WELTZ, GEORG AUGUST DR. SIEGFRIED WILLE SCHAEFER, KONRAD DR. HORST PELCKMANN HOVEN, WALDEMAR DR. HANS GAWLIK DR. GERHARD KLINNERT BEIGLBOECK, WILHELM DR. GUSTAV STEINBAUER POKORNY, ADOLF DR. KARL HOFFMANN DR. HANS-GUNTHER SERAPHIM OBERHEUSER, HERTA DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL FISCHER, FRITZ DR. ALFRED SEIDL DR. GEORG GIERL I. INDICTMENT The United States of America, by the undersigned Telford Taylor, Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed to represent said Government in the prosecution of war criminals, charges that the defendants herein participated in a common design or conspiracy to commit and did commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, duly enacted by the Allied Control Council on 20 December 1945. These crimes included murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhumane acts, as set forth in counts one, two, and three of this indictment. Certain defendants are further charged with membership in a criminal organization, as set forth in count four of this indictment. The persons accused as guilty of these crimes and accordingly named as defendants in this case are— KARL BRANDT—Personal physician to Adolf Hitler; Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major General) in the Waffen SS; Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation (Reichskommissar fuer Sanitaets- und Gesundheitswesen); and member of the Reich Research Council (Reichsforschungsrat). SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER—Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General, Medical Service); Medical Inspector of the Army (Heeressanitaetsinspekteur); and Chief of the Medical Services of the Armed Forces (Chef des Wehrmachtsanitaetswesens). PAUL ROSTOCK—Chief Surgeon of the Surgical Clinic in Berlin; Surgical Adviser to the Army; and Chief of the Office for Medical Science and Research (Amtschef der Dienststelle Medizinische Wissenschaft und Forschung) under the defendant Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation. OSKAR SCHROEDER—Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General Medical Service); Chief of Staff of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Stabes, Inspekteur des Luftwaffe-Sanitaetswesens); and Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe (Chef des Sanitaetswesens der Luftwaffe). KARL GENZKEN—Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major General) in the Waffen SS; and Chief of the Medical Department of the Waffen SS (Chef des Sanitaetsamts der Waffen SS). KARL GERHARDT—Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant (Major General) in the Waffen SS; personal physician to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler; Chief Surgeon of the Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police (Oberster Kliniker, Reichsarzt SS und Polizei); and President of the German Red Cross. KURT BLOME—Deputy [of the] Reich Health Leader (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer); and Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research in the Reich Research Council. RUDOLF BRANDT—Standartenfuehrer (Colonel); in the Allgemeine SS; Personal Administrative Officer to Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler (Persoenlicher Referent von Himmler); and Ministerial Counsellor and Chief of the Ministerial Office in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the Waffen SS; Chief Hygienist of the Reich Physician SS and Police (Oberster Hygieniker, Reichsarzt SS und Polizei); and Chief of the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS (Chef des Hygienischen Institutes der Waffen SS). HELMUT POPPENDICK—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS; and Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police (Chef des Persoenlichen Stabes des Reichsarztes SS und Polizei). WOLFRAM SIEVERS—Standartenfuehrer (Colonel) in the SS; Reich Manager of the “Ahnenerbe” Society and Director of its Institute for Military Scientific Research (Institut fuer Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung); and Deputy Chairman of the Managing Board of Directors of the Reich Research Council. GERHARD ROSE—Generalarzt of the Luftwaffe (Brigadier General, Medical Service of the Air Force); Vice President, Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine, and Professor of the Robert Koch Institute; and Hygienic Adviser for Tropical Medicine to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. SIEGFRIED RUFF—Director of the Department for Aviation Medicine at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation (Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt). HANS WOLFGANG ROMBERG—Doctor on the Staff of the Department for Aviation Medicine at the German Experimental Institute for Aviation. VIKTOR BRACK—Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel) in the SS and Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and Chief Administrative Officer in the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP (Oberdienstleiter, Kanzlei des Fuehrers der NSDAP). HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG—Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe (Captain, Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the Department for Aviation Medicine of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. GEORG AUGUST WELTZ—Oberfeldarzt in the Luftwaffe (Lieutenant Colonel, Medical Service of the Air Force); and Chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich (Institut fuer Luftfahrtmedizin). KONRAD SCHAEFER—Doctor on the Staff of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin. WALDEMAR HOVEN—Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain) in the Waffen SS; and Chief Doctor of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. WILHELM BEIGLBOECK—Consulting Physician to the Luftwaffe. ADOLF POKORNY—Physician, Specialist in Skin and Venereal Diseases. HERTA OBERHEUSER—Physician at the Ravensbrueck Concentration Camp; and Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the Hospital at Hohenlychen. FRITZ FISCHER—Sturmbannfuehrer (Major) in the Waffen SS; and Assistant Physician to the defendant Gebhardt at the Hospital at Hohenlychen. COUNT ONE—THE COMMON DESIGN OR CONSPIRACY 1. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein, acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did conspire and agree together and with each other and with divers other persons, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article II. 2. Throughout the period covered by this indictment all of the defendants herein, acting in concert with each other and with others, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. 3. All of the defendants herein, acting in concert with others for whose acts the defendants are responsible, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly participated as leaders, organizers, investigators, and accomplices in the formulation and execution of the said common design, conspiracy, plans, and enterprises to commit, and which involved the commission of, war crimes and crimes against humanity. 4. It was a part of the said common design, conspiracy, plans, and enterprises to perform medical experiments upon concentration camp inmates and other living human subjects, without their consent, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed the murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts, more fully described in counts two and three of this indictment. 5. The said common design, conspiracy, plans, and enterprises embraced the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as set forth in counts two and three of this indictment, in that the defendants unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly encouraged, aided, abetted, and participated in the subjection of thousands of persons, including civilians, and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich, to murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. COUNT TWO—WAR CRIMES 6. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments without the subjects’ consent, upon civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. Such experiments included, but were not limited to, the following: (_A_) _High-Altitude Experiments._ From about March 1942 to about August 1942 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the limits of human endurance and existence at extremely high altitudes. The experiments were carried out in a low-pressure chamber in which the atmospheric conditions and pressures prevailing at high altitude (up to 68,000 feet) could be duplicated. The experimental subjects were placed in the low-pressure chamber and thereafter the simulated altitude therein was raised. Many victims died as a result of these experiments and others suffered grave injury, torture, and ill-treatment. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_B_) _Freezing Experiments._ From about August 1942 to about May 1943 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, primarily for the benefit of the German Air Force, to investigate the most effective means of treating persons who had been severely chilled or frozen. In one series of experiments the subjects were forced to remain in a tank of ice water for periods up to 3 hours. Extreme rigor developed in a short time. Numerous victims died in the course of these experiments. After the survivors were severely chilled, rewarming was attempted by various means. In another series of experiments, the subjects were kept naked outdoors for many hours at temperatures below freezing. The victims screamed with pain as parts of their bodies froze. The defendants Karl Brand, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_C_) _Malaria Experiments._ From about February 1942 to about April 1945 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp in order to investigate immunization for and treatment of malaria. Healthy concentration-camp inmates were infected by mosquitoes or by injections of extracts of the mucous glands of mosquitoes. After having contracted malaria the subjects were treated with various drugs to test their relative efficacy. Over 1,000 involuntary subjects were used in these experiments. Many of the victims died and others suffered severe pain and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_D_) _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments._ At various times between September 1939 and April 1945 experiments were conducted at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps for the benefit of the German Armed Forces to investigate the most effective treatment of wounds caused by Lost gas. Lost is a poison gas which is commonly known as mustard gas. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the subjects were infected with Lost. Some of the subjects died as a result of these experiments and others suffered intense pain and injury. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_E_) _Sulfanilamide Experiments._ From about July 1942 to about September 1943 experiments to investigate the effectiveness of sulfanilamide were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp for the benefit of the German Armed Forces. Wounds deliberately inflicted on the experimental subjects were infected with bacteria such as streptococcus, gas gangrene, and tetanus. Circulation of blood was interrupted by tying off blood vessels at both ends of the wound to create a condition similar to that of a battlefield wound. Infection was aggravated by forcing wood shavings and ground glass into the wounds. The infection was treated with sulfanilamide and other drugs to determine their effectiveness. Some subjects died as a result of these experiments and others suffered serious injury and intense agony. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, Oberheuser, and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_F_) _Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation Experiments._ From about September 1942 to about December 1943 experiments were conducted at the Ravensbrueck concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Armed Forces, to study bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, and bone transplantation from one person to another. Sections of bones, muscles, and nerves were removed from the subjects. As a result of these operations, many victims suffered intense agony, mutilation, and permanent disability. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Oberheuser, and Fischer are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_G_) _Sea-water Experiments._ From about July 1944 to about September 1944 experiments were conducted at the Dachau concentration camp, for the benefit of the German Air Force and Navy, to study various methods of making sea-water drinkable. The subjects were deprived of all food and given only chemically processed sea-water. Such experiments caused great pain and suffering and resulted in serious bodily injury to the victims. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_H_) _Epidemic Jaundice Experiments._ From about June 1943 to about January 1945 experiments were conducted at the Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the causes of, and inoculations against, epidemic jaundice. Experimental subjects were deliberately infected with epidemic jaundice, some of whom died as a result, and others were caused great pain and suffering. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, and Becker-Freyseng are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_I_) _Sterilization Experiments._ From about March 1941 to about January 1945 sterilization experiments were conducted at the Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck concentration camps, and other places. The purpose of these experiments was to develop a method of sterilization which would be suitable for sterilizing millions of people with a minimum of time and effort. These experiments were conducted by means of X-ray, surgery, and various drugs. Thousands of victims were sterilized and thereby suffered great mental and physical anguish. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and Oberheuser are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_J_) _Spotted Fever (Fleckfieber)[2] Experiments._ From about December 1941 to about February 1945 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald and Natzweiler concentration camps, for the benefit of the German Armed Forces, to investigate the effectiveness of spotted fever and other vaccines. At Buchenwald numerous healthy inmates were deliberately infected with spotted fever virus in order to keep the virus alive; over 90 percent of the victims died as a result. Other healthy inmates were used to determine the effectiveness of different spotted fever vaccines and of various chemical substances. In the course of these experiments 75 percent of the selected number of inmates were vaccinated with one of the vaccines or nourished with one of the chemical substances and, after a period of 3 to 4 weeks, were infected with spotted fever germs. The remaining 25 percent were infected without any previous protection in order to compare the effectiveness of the vaccines and the chemical substances. As a result, hundreds of the persons experimented upon died. Experiments with yellow fever, smallpox, typhus, paratyphus[3] A and B, cholera, and diphtheria were also conducted. Similar experiments with like results were conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp. The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Rose, Becker-Freyseng, and Hoven are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_K_) _Experiments with Poison._ In or about December 1943, and in or about October 1944, experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald concentration camp to investigate the effect of various poisons upon human beings. The poisons were secretly administered to experimental subjects in their food. The victims died as a result of the poison or were killed immediately in order to permit autopsies. In or about September 1944 experimental subjects were shot with poison bullets and suffered torture and death. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. (_L_) _Incendiary Bomb Experiments._ From about November 1943 to about January 1944 experiments were conducted at the Buchenwald concentration camp to test the effect of various pharmaceutical preparations on phosphorous burns. These burns were inflicted on experimental subjects with phosphorous matter taken from incendiary bombs, and caused severe pain, suffering, and serious bodily injury. The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick are charged with special responsibility for and participation in these crimes. 7. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder of civilians and members of the armed forces of nations then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control. One hundred twelve Jews were selected for the purpose of completing a skeleton collection for the Reich University of Strasbourg. Their photographs and anthropological measurements were taken. Then they were killed. Thereafter, comparison tests, anatomical research, studies regarding race, pathological features of the body, form and size of the brain, and other tests, were made. The bodies were sent to Strasbourg and defleshed. 8. Between May 1942 and January 1944[4] the defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder and mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish nationals who were civilians and members of the armed forces of a nation then at war with the German Reich and who were in the custody of the German Reich in exercise of belligerent control. These people were alleged to be infected with incurable tuberculosis. On the ground of insuring the health and welfare of Germans in Poland, many tubercular Poles were ruthlessly exterminated while others were isolated in death camps with inadequate medical facilities. 9. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed war crimes, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the execution of the so-called “euthanasia” program of the German Reich in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including nationals of German-occupied countries. This program involved the systematic and secret execution of the aged, insane, incurably ill, of deformed children, and other persons, by gas, lethal injections, and diverse other means in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums. Such persons were regarded as “useless eaters” and a burden to the German war machine. The relatives of these victims were informed that they died from natural causes, such as heart failure. German doctors involved in the “euthanasia” program were also sent to Eastern occupied countries to assist in the mass extermination of Jews. 10. The said war crimes constitute violations of international conventions, particularly of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, and 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, and of Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Prisoner-of-War Convention (Geneva, 1929), the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. COUNT THREE—CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 11. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects’ consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference. 12. Between June 1943 and September 1944 the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder of German civilians and nationals of other countries. The particulars concerning such murders are set forth in paragraph 7 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference. 13. Between May 1942 and January 1944[5] the defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the murder and mistreatment of tens of thousands of Polish nationals. The particulars concerning such murder and inhuman treatment are set forth in paragraph 8 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference. 14. Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the execution of the so-called “euthanasia” program of the German Reich, in the course of which the defendants herein murdered hundreds of thousands of human beings, including German civilians, as well as civilians of other nations. The particulars concerning such murders are set forth in paragraph 9 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference. 15. The said crimes against humanity constitute violations of international conventions, including Article 46 of the Hague Regulations, 1907, the laws and customs of war, the general principles of criminal law as derived from the criminal laws of all civilized nations, the internal penal laws of the countries in which such crimes were committed, and of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. COUNT FOUR—MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION 16. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Brack, Hoven, and Fischer are guilty of membership in an organization declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal in Case No. 1, in that each of the said defendants was a member of the SCHUTZSTAFFELN DER NATIONALSOZIALISTISCHEN DEUTSCHEN ARBEITERPARTEI (commonly known as the “SS”) after 1 September 1939. Such membership is in violation of paragraph I (_d_), Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. Wherefore, this indictment is filed with the Secretary General of the Military Tribunals and the charges herein made against the above-named defendants are hereby presented to MILITARY TRIBUNAL NO. I. TELFORD TAYLOR _Brigadier General, USA_ _Chief of Counsel for War Crimes_ _Acting on Behalf of the United States of America_ Nuernberg, _25 October 1946_ ----- [2] It was definitely ascertained in the course of the proceedings, by both prosecution and defense, that the correct translation of “Fleckfieber” is _typhus_. A finding to this effect is contained in the judgment. A similar initial inadequate translation occurred in the case of “typhus” and “paratyphus” which should be rendered as _typhoid_ and _paratyphoid_. [3] Ibid. [4] Indictment originally read “January 1943” but was amended by a motion filed with the Secretary General. See Arraignment, p. 18. [5] Ibid. II. ARRAIGNMENT Extract from the official Transcript of Military Tribunal I in the matter of the _United States of America_ vs. _Karl Brandt et al._, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 21 November 1946, Judge Beals presiding. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We will now proceed to arraign the defendants on the cause now pending before this Tribunal. As the names of the defendants are called each defendant will stand, and will remain standing until told to be seated. Mr. Secretary General of the Tribunal will call the roll of the defendants. THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Karl Brandt, Siegfried Handloser, Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Georg August Weltz, Konrad Schaefer, Waldemar Hoven, Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser, Fritz Fischer. (As their names are called, the defendants rise.) If the Honorable Tribunal please, all of the defendants are in the dock. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The defendants will be seated. The counsel for the prosecution will now proceed with the arraignment of the defendants. [Here Brigadier General Taylor read the indictment in full. See pp. 8-17.] PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I shall now call upon the defendants to plead guilty or not guilty to the charges against them. Each defendant, as his name is called, will stand and speak into the microphone. At this time there will be no arguments, speeches, or discussion of any kind. Each defendant will simply plead either guilty or not guilty to the offenses with which he is charged by the indictment. Karl Brandt. DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. Chairman, before the defendant pleads guilty or not guilty, may I say a word? I am defense counsel for the defendant Schaefer, number 18. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: For which defendant? DR. PELCKMANN: Schaefer, number 18. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: We are now receiving the plea of the defendant Karl Brandt. You do not represent him as counsel, do you? DR. PELCKMANN: No. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Then I see no reason for counsel for another defendant making any remarks at this time. DR. PELCKMANN: May I speak before the defendant Schaefer speaks? A formal objection. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: When the name of the defendant Schaefer is called, you may address the Court. Karl Brandt, are you represented by counsel in this proceeding? DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you, guilty or not guilty? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. Siegfried Handloser, are you represented by counsel in this cause? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: No, I have no counsel yet. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you desire that the Tribunal appoint counsel for you? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I hope that today or tomorrow I may receive an affirmative answer from a defense counsel. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are you at this time ready to plead to the indictment, guilty or not guilty? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How do you plead to the charges and specifications and each thereof set forth in the indictment against you, guilty or not guilty? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: Not guilty. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. [At this point the defendants Paul Rostock, Oskar Schroeder, Karl Genzken, Karl Gebhardt, Kurt Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Helmut Poppendick, Wolfram Sievers, Gerhard Rose, Siegfried Ruff, Hans Wolfgang Romberg, Viktor Brack, Hermann Becker-Freyseng and Georg August Weltz were arraigned. All were represented by counsel. All pleaded not guilty to the indictment.] DR. PELCKMANN: Your Honor, may I speak? PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What is the purpose of the remarks you desire to make? DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to object to the indictment. I should like to say that in my opinion, as far as Schaefer is concerned, the indictment does not conform to Ordinance No. 7. I can explain that. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How much time do you desire to present your argument? DR. PELCKMANN: Three minutes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed. First, have you filed in the proceeding any written notice of the objection to the indictment and served it upon the prosecutor? DR. PELCKMANN: I have not had the indictment long enough. I have just had the written material for 2 days. What I have to say I could submit in writing later. Because of the brief time, I ask to be allowed to make a brief statement now. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may make a brief statement and submit argument in support of your objection within 5 days. DR. PELCKMANN: Very well. May I now say something? PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may proceed for 3 minutes. DR. PELCKMANN: Ordinance No. 7, in Article IV (_a_), prescribes the following according to the English text: “The indictment shall state the charges plainly, concisely and with sufficient particulars to inform defendant of the offenses charged.” Schaefer is charged only on one count, count two (_G_). Experiments with sea-water in Dachau are charged against 12 defendants. In two sentences the indictment goes on to say that the 12 persons who are then named are charged with special responsibility for these crimes and participation in them. I am of the opinion that this does not contain sufficient particulars. “Responsibility” and “participation” are legal concepts. There is no evidence of “sufficient particulars,” which implies details. The indictment, in my opinion, must give facts to indicate how and why each one of these 12 defendants who, ostensibly, participated in these experiments, is responsible and participated. My client cannot tell what the nature of his participation is supposed to have been. The indictment says, in count one, number 2, that all defendants were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Those also are only legal concepts. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may file a written brief in support of your position. DR. PELCKMANN: I should like to add, without the knowledge of the indictment, my client is not ready to answer the question as to whether he is guilty or not guilty. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You will serve a copy of your brief upon the prosecution and file it with the Secretary General. DR. PELCKMANN: Very well, your Honor. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: In connection with this matter, General Taylor, do you desire to make any remarks or suggestions? BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, needless to say, we have no objection to the making of this motion or the filing of this brief. It is needless to say, also, that we think the indictment quite adequately specifies the date, place, and type of experiment charged. The defendant’s connection with it is better known to the defendant than to anyone else. There is no reason why he should not enter his plea at this time. JUDGE SEBRING: That would not go to the jurisdictional aspect of the indictment, but it would go to the question of particulars. The consideration is whether or not upon the showing of the motion, more particulars as to the charges specified, should be included. Do you understand my point? BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Yes, your Honor. That is what I understood. The prosecution will consider the motion, and if need be, submit particulars, although we think the indictment is adequate enough. We think there is no challenge of the jurisdiction. The defendant should be required to promptly plead. JUDGE CRAWFORD: How do you plead to the charges against you? DEFENDANT SCHAEFER: Not guilty. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Be seated. [At this point the balance of the defendants: Waldemar Hoven, Wilhelm Beiglboeck, Adolf Pokorny, Herta Oberheuser and Fritz Fischer were arraigned. All were represented by counsel. All pleaded not guilty to the indictment.] DR. SERVATIUS: Servatius for the defendant Karl Brandt. Your Honor, may I make an application regarding the submission of documents by the prosecution? PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may state your application. DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the prosecution that the documents be submitted to the defense in time, the documents on which the charge is based. This would make the proceedings easier and give the defense an opportunity to examine the documents in time, and to obtain counterproof. In the first trial before the International Military Tribunal, we were given a list of documents with the indictment; although these documents were not enclosed, we could look at them and we could work on them. Up to now we have nothing on which we can build our defense. In other words, on the 9th of December, we will have proceeded no further than today, and we will not be able to advise our clients. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You may be seated and we will hear from the prosecution, Brigadier General Telford Taylor. BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the counsel for the defense who has just spoken is thoroughly familiar with the procedures used in the prior case. The prosecution in this case plans to follow the same procedures and give the defense counsel the same opportunities and, if possible, more. The Defense Information Center, which is the place where the documents have in the past been made available, will be supplied in advance with copies of the documents on which our evidence is based. I would suggest, your Honor, that after all counsel for the defense are here that it would be most useful if there be a meeting between representatives of the prosecution and the defense so that procedures can be developed. But at the moment only half of the counsel for the defense are here and it would be economical if these matters could be arranged after they are all present. DR. SERVATIUS: Your Honor, may I ask one question? May I add one thing, that the documents be given to us in German. In the previous trial, there was difficulty at the beginning because we got them in English. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I believe if counsel for the defense will refer to the rules promulgated by this Tribunal on 2 November 1946, you will see that a requirement is made that all such matters be submitted in a language that is understood by each of the defendants. DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, but for technical reasons that was not always done. There were great difficulties. The conferences with the prosecution will make it possible to eliminate the difficulties. If it is not possible, I will address the Court again. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Do you have anything further, General Taylor? BRIGADIER GENERAL TAYLOR: Your Honor, the prosecution merely wishes to note that it has filed with the Secretary General a motion to amend the indictment in paragraph 8 of count two and paragraph 13 of count three, by changing 1943 to 1944. The motion has been filed with the Secretary General and copies of the motion are in German and are in the hands of defense counsel. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: How many of the defendants are concerned with the amendment to the indictment? My point is that if the— MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the amendment occurs first in paragraph 8 on page 14 of the indictment and it affects only two of the defendants; namely, Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The amendment is also made in paragraph 13 because the same facts are there charged as a crime against humanity. In paragraph 13 only the same two defendants are involved; that is, defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: What are the particulars of the amendment? MR. MCHANEY: The only change made by the amendment is to say the date January 1944 for the date January 1943; in other words, it extends the period covered by the crime for 1 year. The date 1943 was inserted by mistake in the indictment as filed with the Tribunal. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Are these two defendants represented by counsel here present this morning? MR. MCHANEY: I think that Rudolf Brandt answered “Yes”. DEFENDANT BLOME: Yes, your Honor. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Has this motion been served upon counsel for these two defendants? MR. MCHANEY: Your Honor, my understanding is that the motion for amendment was filed with the Secretary General. If we understand the rules correctly, the Secretary General then serves it upon the defendants. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I was just asking for information whether they had received copies of the motion. MR. MCHANEY: That I don’t know. Yes, the counsel for these defendants say “Yes”. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does counsel for defendant Blome raise any objection to the amendment of the indictment? DR. SAUTER: No. DR. KAUFFMANN: Kauffmann for Rudolf Brandt. I have no objection to the change. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: You represent Rudolf Brandt? DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Well, the other defendant affected is defendant Blome, I understand. Is he represented here? DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the defendant Blome. We don’t have any objection. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The indictment will be amended in accordance with the motion. Is it agreeable to counsel for these two defendants that the arraignment as to them upon this count which has just been amended be considered as pleas to the count as amended now—their pleas of “Not Guilty”? DR. SAUTER: Yes. DR. KAUFFMANN: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: These matters will appear in the records of the Tribunal. The pleas of the defendants will all be entered in the minutes of the Tribunal. III. STATEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ORDER OF TRIAL AND RULES OF PROCEDURE, 9 DECEMBER 1946[6] PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I have a statement which I desire to make for the benefit of the prosecution, defendants, and all concerned: Before opening the trial of Case No. 1, _The United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al._, there are certain matters which the Tribunal desires to call to the attention of the counsel for the prosecution and the counsel for the defendants. 1. The prosecution may be allowed, for the purpose of making the opening statement in this case, time not to exceed one trial day. This time may be allocated by the chief prosecutor, between himself and any of his assistants, as he desires. 2. When the prosecution has rested its case, defense counsel will be allowed two trial days in which to make their opening statements, and which will comprehend the entire theory of their respective defenses. The time allocated will be divided between the different defense counsel, as they may themselves agree. In the event the defense counsel cannot agree, the Tribunal will allocate the time, not to exceed 30 minutes to each defendant. 3. The prosecution shall, not less than 24 hours before it desires to offer any record or document or writing in evidence as part of its case-in-chief, file with the Defense Information Center not less than one copy of such record, document, or writing for each of the counsel for defendants, such copies to be in the German language. The prosecution shall also deliver to the Defense Information Center at least four copies thereof in the English language. 4. When the prosecution or any defendant offers a record, document, or any other writing, or a copy thereof, in evidence, there shall be delivered to the Secretary General in addition to the original document or other instrument in writing so offered for admission in evidence, six copies of the document. If the document is written or printed in a language other than English there shall also be filed with the copies of the document above referred to six copies of an English translation of the document. If such document is offered by any defendant, suitable facilities for procuring English translations of that document shall be made available. 5. At least 24 hours before a witness is called to the stand, either by the prosecution or by any defendant, the party who desires to interrogate the witness shall deliver to the Secretary General an original and six copies of a memorandum which shall disclose: (1) the name of the witness; (2) his nationality; (3) his residence or station; (4) his official rank or position; (5) whether he is called as an expert witness or as a witness to testify to facts, and if the latter, a prepared statement of the subject matter on which the witness will be interrogated. When the prosecution prepares such a statement in connection with the witness whom it desires to call, at the time of the filing of this statement, two additional copies thereof shall be delivered to the Defense Information Center. When a defendant prepares such a statement concerning a witness whom it desires to call, the defendant shall at the same time as the copies are filed with the Secretary General deliver one additional copy to the prosecution. 6. When either the prosecution or a defendant desires the Tribunal to take judicial notice of any official Government documents or reports of the United Nations, including any action, ruling or regulation of any committee, board, or counsel, heretofore established by or in the Allied Nations for the investigation of war crimes, or any record made by, or the findings of, any military or other tribunal, this Tribunal may refuse to take judicial notice of such documents, rules, or regulations, unless the party proposing asks this Tribunal to notice such documents, rules, or regulations judicially, and places a copy thereof in writing before the Tribunal. This Tribunal has learned with satisfaction of the procedure adopted by the prosecution with the intention of furnishing to the defense counsel information concerning the writings or documents which the prosecution expects to offer in evidence for the purpose of affording the defense counsel information to help them prepare their respective defense to the indictments. The desire of the Tribunal is that this be made available to the defendants so as to aid them in the presentation of their respective defense. The United States of America having established this Military Tribunal I, pursuant to law, through properly empowered military authorities, and the defendants having been brought before Military Tribunal I pursuant to the indictment filed 25 October 1946 in the Office of the Secretary General of the Military Tribunal at Nuernberg, Germany by an officer of the United States Army, regularly designated as Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, acting on behalf of the United States of America, pursuant to appropriate military authority, and the indictment having been served upon each defendant for more than 30 days prior to this date, and a copy of the indictment in the German language having been furnished to each defendant and having been in his possession more than 30 days and each defendant having had ample opportunity to read the indictment, and having regularly entered his plea of “not guilty” to the indictment, the Tribunal is ready to proceed with the trial. This Tribunal will conduct the trial in accordance with controlling laws, rules, and regulations, and with due regard to appropriate precedents in a sincere endeavor to insure both to the prosecution and to each and every defendant an opportunity to present all evidence of an appropriate value bearing upon the issues before the Tribunal; to this end, that under law and pending regulations impartial justice may be accomplished. The trial, of course, will be a public trial, not one behind closed doors; but, because of limited facilities available, the Tribunal must insist that the number of spectators be limited to the seating capacity of the courtroom. Passes will therefore be issued by the appropriate authorities to those who may enter the courtroom. The Tribunal will insist that good order be at all times maintained, and appropriate measures will be taken to see that this rule is strictly enforced. For the information of all concerned, the Tribunal announces that hearings will be held each day this week commencing at 9:30 o’clock through Friday. The Tribunal will reconvene at 9:30 o’clock, Monday, 16 December 1946, and will hold sessions every day of that week including Saturday, on which day, however, the Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o’clock, Thursday, 2 January 1947, when the Tribunal will convene at the usual time. ----- [6] Tr. pp. 9-11. IV. OPENING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION BY BRIGADIER GENERAL TELFORD TAYLOR, 9 DECEMBER 1946.[7] The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected. For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals. They were 200 Jews in good physical condition, 50 gypsies, 500 tubercular Poles, or 1,000 Russians. The victims of these crimes are numbered among the anonymous millions who met death at the hands of the Nazis and whose fate is a hideous blot on the page of modern history. The charges against these defendants are brought in the name of the United States of America. They are being tried by a court of American judges. The responsibilities thus imposed upon the representatives of the United States, prosecutors and judges alike, are grave and unusual. It is owed, not only to the victims and to the parents and children of the victims, that just punishment be imposed on the guilty, but also to the defendants that they be accorded a fair hearing and decision. Such responsibilities are the ordinary burden of any tribunal. Far wider are the duties which we must fulfill here. These larger obligations run to the peoples and races on whom the scourge of these crimes was laid. The mere punishment of the defendants, or even of thousands of others equally guilty, can never redress the terrible injuries which the Nazis visited on these unfortunate peoples. For them it is far more important that these incredible events be established by clear and public proof, so that no one can ever doubt that they were fact and not fable; and that this Court, as the agent of the United States and as the voice of humanity, stamp these acts, and the ideas which engendered them, as barbarous and criminal. We have still other responsibilities here. The defendants in the dock are charged with murder, but this is no mere murder trial. We cannot rest content when we have shown that crimes were committed and that certain persons committed them. To kill, to maim, and to torture is criminal under all modern systems of law. These defendants did not kill in hot blood, nor for personal enrichment. Some of them may be sadists who killed and tortured for sport, but they are not all perverts. They are not ignorant men. Most of them are trained physicians and some of them are distinguished scientists. Yet these defendants, all of whom were fully able to comprehend the nature of their acts, and most of whom were exceptionally qualified to form a moral and professional judgment in this respect, are responsible for wholesale murder and unspeakably cruel tortures. It is our deep obligation to all peoples of the world to show why and how these things happened. It is incumbent upon us to set forth with conspicuous clarity the ideas and motives which moved these defendants to treat their fellow men as less than beasts. The perverse thoughts and distorted concepts which brought about these savageries are not dead. They cannot be killed by force of arms. They must not become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity. They must be cut out and exposed, for the reason so well stated by Mr. Justice Jackson in this courtroom a year ago— “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.” To the German people we owe a special responsibility in these proceedings. Under the leadership of the Nazis and their war lords, the German nation spread death and devastation throughout Europe. This the Germans now know. So, too, do they know the consequences to Germany: defeat, ruin, prostration, and utter demoralization. Most German children will never, as long as they live, see an undamaged German city. To what cause will these children ascribe the defeat of the German nation and the devastation that surrounds them? Will they attribute it to the overwhelming weight of numbers and resources that was eventually leagued against them? Will they point to the ingenuity of enemy scientists? Will they perhaps blame their plight on strategic and military blunders by their generals? If the Germans embrace those reasons as the true cause of their disaster, it will be a sad and fatal thing for Germany and for the world. Men who have never seen a German city intact will be callous about flattening English or American or Russian cities. They may not even realize that they are destroying anything worthwhile, for lack of a normal sense of values. To reestablish the greatness of Germany they are likely to pin their faith on improved military techniques. Such views will lead the Germans straight into the arms of the Prussian militarists to whom defeat is only a glorious opportunity to start a new war game. “Next time it will be different.” We know all too well what that will mean. This case, and others which will be tried in this building, offer a signal opportunity to lay before the German people the true cause of their present misery. The walls and towers and churches of Nuernberg were, indeed, reduced to rubble by Allied bombs, but in a deeper sense Nuernberg had been destroyed a decade earlier, when it became the seat of the annual Nazi Party rallies, a focal point for the moral disintegration in Germany, and the private domain of Julius Streicher. The insane and malignant doctrines that Nuernberg spewed forth account alike for the crimes of these defendants and for the terrible fate of Germany under the Third Reich. A nation which deliberately infects itself with poison will inevitably sicken and die. These defendants and others turned Germany into an infernal combination of a lunatic asylum and a charnel house. Neither science, nor industry, nor the arts could flourish in such a foul medium. The country could not live at peace and was fatally handicapped for war. I do not think the German people have as yet any conception of how deeply the criminal folly that was nazism bit into every phase of German life, or of how utterly ravaging the consequences were. It will be our task to make these things clear. These are the high purposes which justify the establishment of extraordinary courts to hear and determine this case and others of comparable importance. That murder should be punished goes without the saying, but the full performance of our task requires more than the just sentencing of these defendants. Their crimes were the inevitable result of the sinister doctrines which they espoused, and these same doctrines sealed the fate of Germany, shattered Europe, and left the world in ferment. Wherever those doctrines may emerge and prevail, the same terrible consequences will follow. That is why a bold and lucid consummation of these proceedings is of vital importance to all nations. That is why the United States has constituted this Tribunal. STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH I pass now to the facts of the case in hand. There are 23 defendants in the box. All but three of them—Rudolf Brandt, Sievers, and Brack—are doctors. Of the 20 doctors, all but one—Pokorny—held positions in the medical services of the Third Reich. To understand this case, it is necessary to understand the general structure of these state medical services, and how these services fitted into the over-all organization of the Nazi State. [Illustration: Chart Showing German State Medical Services] To assist the Court in this regard the prosecution has prepared a short expository brief [not introduced into evidence] which is already in the hands of the Court and which has been made available to defense counsel in German and English. The brief includes a glossary of the more frequent German words or expressions which will occur in this trial—most of them from the vocabulary of military, medical, or governmental affairs. It also includes a table of equivalent ranks [App. Vol. II] between the American Army and the German Army and the SS, and of the medical ranks used in the German Armed Forces and the SS. Finally, it includes a chart [see p. 30] showing the subordination of the several German medical services within the general framework of the German State. This chart has been enlarged and is displayed at the front of the courtroom. Following this opening statement Mr. McHaney, in opening the presentation of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, will offer in evidence a series of detailed charts of the various German medical services, which have been certified as accurate by the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Karl Brandt, Mrugowsky, and Brack. The chart to which I am now directing the attention of the Tribunal is a composite chart based upon those which Mr. McHaney will offer in evidence. The chart in the front of the courtroom to which I now refer will not be offered in evidence; it is intended merely as a convenient guide to the Court and to defense counsel to enable them to follow the opening statement and to comprehend the over-all structure of the German medical services. All power in the Third Reich derived from Adolf Hitler, who was at one and the same time the head of the government, the leader of the Nazi Party, and the commander in chief of the armed forces. His title as head of the government was Reich Chancellor. He was the “Fuehrer” of the Nazi Party, and the “Supreme Commander” of the Wehrmacht. Immediately subordinate to Hitler were the chiefs of the armed forces, the principal cabinet ministers in the government, and the leading officials of the Nazi Party. The only defendant in the dock who was directly responsible to Hitler himself is the defendant Karl Brandt. The Court will observe that the defendants fall into three main groups. Eight of them were members of the medical service of the German Air Force. Seven of them were members of the medical service of the SS. The remaining eight include the defendants Karl Brandt and Handloser, who occupied top positions in the medical hierarchy; it included the three defendants who are not doctors; the defendant Rostock, who was an immediate subordinate of Karl Brandt; the defendant Blome, a medical official of the Nazi Party; and the defendant Pokorny, whom we have grouped under the SS for reasons which will appear later. I will deal first with the military side of the case. Hitler, as Supreme Commander of the German Armed Forces, exercised his authority through a staff called the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, better known by its German initials, OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht). The chief of this staff, throughout the period with which this case will concern itself, was Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. Under the OKW came the High Commands of the three branches of the Wehrmacht: the Navy (OKM), the Army (OKH) and the Air Force (OKL). Grand Admiral Erich Raeder was the Commander in Chief of the German Navy until 1943, when he was succeeded by Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz. Prior to the outbreak of the war, the Commander in Chief of the German Army was Field Marshal von Brauchitsch. In December 1941 Brauchitsch was relieved and Hitler himself took this position. Hermann Goering was the Commander in Chief of the German Air Force with the rank of Reich Marshal, until the very last month of the war. Each of the three branches of the Wehrmacht had its own medical service. For purposes of this case, the medical service of the Navy is not of much importance. During most of the war the defendant Handloser was the Chief of the Medical Service of the German Army; in 1944 he was succeeded in this capacity by Dr. Walter. The Chief of the Medical Service of the German Air Force until 1943 was Dr. Erich Hippke; from January 1944 until the end of the war, it was the defendant Schroeder. Subordinate to the defendant Schroeder are seven other defendants from the Air Force Medical Service, whose functions I will briefly describe later on. I turn now to the second principal group of defendants—those affiliated with the SS. The SS was nominally a part of the Nazi Party, and came under Hitler in his capacity as Fuehrer of the NSDAP. In fact, during the years of the Nazi regime, the SS expanded into a vast complex of military, police, and intelligence organizations. The head of this extraordinary combine was Heinrich Himmler, with the title of Reich Leader SS. The SS had its own medical service, headed by Grawitz, who bore the title Reich Physician SS. The SS in turn was divided into many departments, of which one of the most important was the Armed or Waffen SS. The members of the Waffen SS were trained and equipped as regular troops, were formed into regular military formations, and fought at the front side by side with the troops of the Wehrmacht. By the end of the war there were some 30 SS divisions in the line. The head of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS was the defendant Genzken. Six other defendants were members of the SS Medical Service and therefore subordinated to Grawitz. The German civilian medical services derived their authority both from the German Government and from the Party. The medical chief on the civilian side was Dr. Leonardo Conti, who committed suicide in October 1945. Dr. Conti occupied the position of State Secretary for Health in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. In this capacity Conti was a subordinate of the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Wilhelm Frick, until 1943, and thereafter to Heinrich Himmler who assumed the additional duties of Minister of the Interior in that year. Conti also held the title in the Nazi Party of Reich Health Leader. His deputy in this capacity was the defendant Blome. As Reich Health Leader, Conti was subordinate to the Nazi Party Chancellery, the chief of which was Martin Bormann. As the Court will see from the chart,[8] the three principal people in the hierarchy of German state health and medicine are the defendants Karl Brandt and Handloser, and the deceased Dr. Conti. In July 1942, Hitler issued a decree, a copy of which will later be read before the Court, which established the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. Shown on the chart here Handloser’s name appears in this capacity. Handloser was given supervisory and professional authority over the medical services of all three branches of the Wehrmacht. Inasmuch as the Waffen SS came to constitute an important part of the armed forces, Handloser’s supervisory authority also extended to the defendant Genzken, Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS. In this position Handloser was charged with the coordination of all common tasks of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. He thus became the principal figure in German military medicine, just as Dr. Conti was the central figure in the field of civilian medicine. Handloser and Conti, as will be seen from the chart, were not directly responsible to Hitler himself. Handloser’s responsibility ran to Hitler through the OKW, and Conti’s through the Ministry of the Interior and the chief of the Nazi Party Chancellery. In 1942 Hitler for the first time established a medical and health official under his direct control. This official was the defendant Karl Brandt. A Hitler decree of July 1942 (_NO-080_) gave Brandt the title Plenipotentiary for Health and Medical Services, and empowered him to carry out special tasks and negotiations with reference to the requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the military and civilian sectors of the health and sanitation systems. Brandt’s role, therefore, was to coordinate the requirements of the military and civilian agencies in the field of medicine and public health. Dr. Karl Brandt had been the personal physician to Hitler since 1934. He was only 38 years old at the time he assumed the important duties conferred by the 1942 decree. His rise continued. In September 1943 Hitler issued another decree which gave Brandt the title of General Commissioner for Sanitation and Health and empowered him to coordinate and direct the problems and activities of the entire administration for sanitation and health. (_NO-081._) This authority was explicitly extended to the field of medical science and research. Finally, in August 1944, Hitler appointed Dr. Brandt Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and Health, and stated that in this capacity Brandt’s office ranked as the “highest Reich authority.” (_NO-082._) Brandt was authorized to issue instructions to the medical offices and organizations of the government, to the party, and the armed forces, in the field of sanitation and health. Karl Brandt, as the supreme medical authority in the Reich, appointed the defendant Paul Rostock as his immediate subordinate to head the Office for Scientific and Medical Research. Rostock’s position reached into the activities of the medical societies, the medical colleges, and the Reich Research Council. Brandt also appointed Admiral Fikentscher, who had theretofore been the chief medical officer of the German Navy, as his subordinate to head the Office for Planning and Production. In this field, Fikentscher dealt with the principal labor authorities, the Ministry of Economics, and the Ministry for Armament and War Production. As chief of the Medical Service of the German Air Force, the defendant Schroeder also held one of the most important positions in the German medical hierarchy. He and the defendant Handloser both held the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt, the highest rank in the German medical service and the equivalent of lieutenant general in the American Army. I do not propose to go into detail concerning the positions held by the seven defendants who were under Schroeder, inasmuch as Mr. McHaney will introduce charts which show in great detail the structure of the German Air Force Medical Service, and which have been authenticated by the defendant Schroeder himself. The defendant Rose held a high rank in the Air Force Medical Service equivalent to that of a brigadier general in the American Army and was appointed special adviser to Schroeder on matters pertaining to tropical medicine, held a chair at one of the most important German medical institutes, and is one of the most distinguished scientists in the dock. The defendant Becker-Freyseng headed Schroeder’s department for aviation medicine. The defendant Weltz was chief of the Institute for Aviation Medicine at Munich. The particular functions of the defendants Ruff, Romberg, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck will appear as we proceed with the presentation of the evidence. I will likewise pass over very briefly the detailed functions of the six SS physicians who were shown on the chart as the subordinates of Grawitz. Detailed charts of the SS Medical Service, authenticated by the defendant Mrugowsky, will shortly be introduced in evidence. The defendant Gebhardt was Himmler’s personal physician and he held a rank in the SS equivalent to that of a major general in the American Army. He became the president of the German Red Cross. He was the chief surgeon on Grawitz’s staff, and also headed the hospital at Hohenlychen, in which capacity the defendants Oberheuser and Fischer were his assistants. The defendant Poppendick was the chief of Grawitz’s personal staff. The defendant Mrugowsky was Grawitz’s chief hygienist and also headed the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS. The defendant Hoven was the chief doctor of the Buchenwald concentration camp. The defendant Pokorny is a private physician who had no official connection with the governmental medical service. We have shown him on the chart underneath the group of SS physicians for reasons which will appear in the course of presenting the evidence concerning sterilization experiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment). The three defendants who are not doctors are shown in the top right-hand corner of the chart. Two of them—Rudolf Brandt and Brack—are administrative officers. Rudolf Brandt had the rank of colonel in the SS, was sort of personal adjutant, and held an administrative office both in the SS and the Ministry of the Interior. Viktor Brack was the chief administrative officer in Hitler’s personal chancellery [Chancellery of the Fuehrer], the head of which was Philipp Bouhler. The defendant Sievers, who held the rank of colonel in the SS, is a special case. He was a direct subordinate of Heinrich Himmler in the latter’s capacity as president of the so-called Ahnenerbe Society. The name of this society literally means “ancestral heritage”, and it was originally devoted to scientific and psuedo-scientific researches concerning the anthropological and cultural history of the German race. Later on an Institute for Military Scientific Research was set up within the Ahnenerbe Society. Sievers was the manager of the society and the director of the Institute for Military Scientific Research. This concludes the general description of the German state medical services under the Nazi regime, and of the positions which the defendants occupied in the scheme of things. It is convenient at this point to refer to count four of the indictment, which charges that 10 of the defendants were members of an organization declared to be criminal by the International Military Tribunal, and that such membership is in violation of paragraph 1 (_d_) of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10. The organization in question is the SS. This count concerns the defendant Karl Brandt, six of the defendants who were affiliated with the Medical Service of the SS, and three defendants who are not doctors. It does not concern any of the nine defendants on the military side, nor the defendants Rostock, Blome, Oberheuser, or Pokorny. The International Military Tribunal’s declaration of criminality applies to all persons who had been officially accepted as members of any branch of the SS, and who remained members after 1 September 1939. The prosecution will show that all 10 defendants charged in count four were officially accepted as members of the SS and remained so after that date. The defendants Karl Brandt, Genzken, and Gebhardt held ranks in both the General or Allgemeine SS and the Waffen SS equivalent to that of a major general in the American Army. The defendants Mrugowsky, Hoven, Poppendick, and Fischer all held officer rank in the SS or Waffen SS, and all four of them, together with the defendants Genzken and Gebhardt, held positions in the SS Medical Service. The defendant Rudolf Brandt held the rank of colonel in the General (Allgemeine) SS, and was a personal assistant to Himmler in Himmler’s capacity as Reich Leader SS. The defendant Brack held officer rank in both the SS and the Waffen SS. The defendant Sievers held the rank of colonel in the SS, and was manager of the Ahnenerbe Society, which was attached to the SS Main Office. The declaration of criminality by the International Military Tribunal does not apply when it appears that a member of the SS was drafted into membership in such a way as to give him no choice in the matter. Nor does it apply if it appears that the member had no knowledge that the organization was being used for the commission of criminal acts. For purposes of this case, these questions, the prosecution believes, will be academic. All of the defendants charged in count four held officer rank in the SS, and most of them held senior rank. They were moving spirits and personal participants in murder and torture on a large scale, and in a variety of other crimes. In this connection we respectfully invite the Tribunal’s attention to two statements by the International Military Tribunal which, under Article X of Ordinance No. 7, constitute proof in the absence of substantial new evidence to the contrary. In setting forth the criminal acts committed by the SS, the International Military Tribunal stated:[9] “Also attached to the SS main offices was a research foundation known as the Experiments Ahnenerbe. The scientists attached to this organization are stated to have been mainly honorary members of the SS. During the war an institute for military scientific research became attached to the Ahnenerbe which conducted extensive experiments involving the use of living human beings.” And again it was stated:[10] “In connection with the administration of the concentration camps, the SS embarked on a series of experiments on human beings which were performed on prisoners of war or concentration camp inmates. These experiments included freezing to death and killing by poison bullets. The SS was able to obtain an allocation of Government funds for this kind of research on the grounds that they had access to human material not available to other agencies.” CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE GUISE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (Counts two and three, pars. 6, 7, 11, and 12) I turn now to the main part of the indictment and will outline at this point the prosecution’s case relating to those crimes alleged to have been committed in the name of medical or scientific research. The charges with respect to “euthanasia” and the slaughter of tubercular Poles obviously have no relation to research or experimentation and will be dealt with later. What I will cover now comprehends all the experiments charged as war crimes in paragraph 6 and as crimes against humanity in paragraph 11 of the indictment, and the murders committed for so-called anthropological purposes which are charged as war crimes in paragraph 7 and as crimes against humanity in paragraph 12 of the indictment. Before taking up these experiments one by one, let us look at them as a whole. Are they a heterogeneous list of horrors, or is there a common denominator for the whole group? A sort of rough pattern is apparent on the face of the indictment. Experiments concerning high altitude, the effect of cold, and the potability of processed sea-water have an obvious relation to aeronautical and naval combat and rescue problems. The mustard gas and phosphorous burn experiments, as well as those relating to the healing value of sulfanilamide for wounds, can be related to air-raid and battlefield medical problems. It is well known that malaria, epidemic jaundice, and typhus were among the principal diseases which had to be combated by the German Armed Forces and by German authorities in occupied territories. To some degree, the therapeutic pattern outlined above is undoubtedly a valid one, and explains why the Wehrmacht, and especially the German Air Force, participated in these experiments. Fanatically bent upon conquest, utterly ruthless as to the means or instruments to be used in achieving victory, and callous to the sufferings of people whom they regarded as inferior, the German militarists were willing to gather whatever scientific fruit these experiments might yield. But our proof will show that a quite different and even more sinister objective runs like a red thread through these hideous researches. We will show that in some instances the true object of these experiments was not how to rescue or to cure, but how to destroy and kill. The sterilization experiments were, it is clear, purely destructive in purpose. The prisoners at Buchenwald who were shot with poisoned bullets were not guinea pigs to test an antidote for the poison; their murderers really wanted to know how quickly the poison would kill. This destructive objective is not superficially as apparent in the other experiments, but we will show that it was often there. Mankind has not heretofore felt the need of a word to denominate the science of how to kill prisoners most rapidly and subjugated people in large numbers. This case and these defendants have created this gruesome question for the lexicographer. For the moment we will christen this macabre science “thanatology,” the science of producing death. The thanatological knowledge, derived in part from these experiments, supplied the techniques for genocide, a policy of the Third Reich, exemplified in the “euthanasia” program and in the wide-spread slaughter of Jews, gypsies, Poles, and Russians. This policy of mass extermination could not have been so effectively carried out without the active participation of German medical scientists. I will now take up the experiments themselves. Two or three of them I will describe more fully, but most of them will be treated in summary fashion, as Mr. McHaney will be presenting detailed proof of each of them. A. High-Altitude Experiments The experiments known as “high-altitude” or “low-pressure” experiments were carried out at the Dachau concentration camp in 1942. According to the proof, the original proposal that such experiments be carried out on human beings originated in the spring of 1941 with a Dr. Sigmund Rascher. Rascher was at that time a captain in the medical service of the German Air Force, and also held officer rank in the SS. He is believed now to be dead. The origin of the idea is revealed in a letter which Rascher wrote to Himmler in May 1941 at which time Rascher was taking a course in aviation medicine at a German Air Force headquarters in Munich. According to the letter, this course included researches into high-altitude flying and “considerable regret was expressed at the fact that no tests with human material had yet been possible for us, as such experiments are very dangerous and nobody volunteers for them.” (_1602-PS._) Rascher, in this letter, went on to ask Himmler to put human subjects at his disposal and baldly stated that the experiments might result in death to the subjects but that the tests theretofore made with monkeys had not been satisfactory. Rascher’s letter was answered by Himmler’s adjutant, the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, who informed Rascher that— “* * * Prisoners will, of course, gladly be made available for the high-flight researches.” (_1582-PS._) Subsequently Rascher wrote directly to Rudolf Brandt asking for permission to carry out the experiments at the Dachau concentration camp, and he mentioned that the German Air Force had provided “a movable pressure chamber” in which the experiments might be made. Plans for carrying out the experiments were developed at a conference late in 1941, or early in 1942, attended by Dr. Rascher and by the defendants Weltz, Romberg, and Ruff, all of whom were members of the German Air Force Medical Service. The tests themselves were carried out in the spring and summer of 1942, using the pressure chamber which the German Air Force had provided. The victims were locked in the low-pressure chamber, which was an airtight ball-like compartment, and then the pressure in the chamber was altered to simulate the atmospheric conditions prevailing at extremely high altitudes. The pressure in the chamber could be varied with great rapidity, which permitted the defendants to duplicate the atmospheric conditions which an aviator might encounter in falling great distances through space without a parachute and without oxygen. The reports, conclusions, and comments on these experiments, which were introduced here and carefully recorded, demonstrate complete disregard for human life and callousness to suffering and pain. These documents reveal at one and the same time the medical results of the experiments, and the degradation of the physicians who performed them. The first report by Rascher was made in April 1942, and contains a description of the effect of the low-pressure chamber on a 37-year-old Jew. (_1971-A-PS._) I quote: “The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that I called an SS physician of the camp as witness, since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 kilometers conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good general condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes the experimental subject began to perspire and wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the experimental subject became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether. “Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth. “At 5 minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were written. After breathing had stopped Ekg (electrocardiogram) was continuously written until the action of the heart had come to a complete standstill. About ½ hour after breathing had stopped, dissection was started.” Rascher’s report also contains the following record of the “autopsy”: “When the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was filled tightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the pericardium, 80 cc. of clear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The moment the tamponade had stopped, the right auricle of the heart began to beat heavily, at first at the rate of 60 actions per minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes after the pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by puncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood spurted forth. Thereafter, clogging of the puncture wound in the auricle by coagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of the action of the right auricle occurred. “One hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was completely severed and the brain removed. Thereupon, the action of the auricle of the heart stopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action, coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarachnoid oedema was found in the brain. In the veins and arteries of the brain, a considerable quantity of air was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart and liver were enormously obstructed by embolism.” (_1971-A-PS._) After seeing this report Himmler ironically ordered that if a subject should be brought back to life after enduring such an experiment, he should be “pardoned” to life imprisonment in a concentration camp. Rascher’s reply to this letter, dated 20 October 1942, reveals that up to the time the victims of these experiments had all been Poles and Russians, that some of them had been condemned to death, and Rascher inquired whether Himmler’s benign mercy extended to Poles and Russians. (_1971-D-PS._) A teleptyped reply from the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, confirmed Rascher’s belief that Poles and Russians were beyond the pale and should be given no amnesty of any kind. (_1971-E-PS._) The utter brutality of the crimes committed in conducting this series of experiments is reflected in all the documents. A report written in May 1942 reflects that certain of these tests were carried out on persons described therein as “Jewish professional criminals.” In fact, these Jews had been condemned for what the Nazis called “Rassenschande,” which literally means “racial shame.” The crime consisted of marriage or intercourse between Aryans and non-Aryans. The murder and torture of these unfortunate Jews is eloquently reflected in the following report: “Some of the experimental subjects died during a continued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water, an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles. “In order to find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some experimental subjects were kept under water until they died. When the skull and cavities of the breast and of the abdomen were opened under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines.” (_NO-220._) The victims who did not die in the course of such experiments, surely wished that they had. A long report written in July 1942 by Rascher, and by the defendants Ruff and Romberg, describes an experiment on a former delicatessen clerk, who was given an oxygen mask and raised in the chamber to an atmospheric elevation of over 47,000 feet, at which point the mask was removed and a parachute descent was simulated. The report describes the victim’s reactions—“spasmodic convulsions,” “agonal convulsive breathing,” “clonic convulsions, groaning,” “yells aloud,” “convulses arms and legs,” “grimaces, bites his tongue,” “does not respond to speech,” “gives the impression of someone who is completely out of his mind.” (_NO-402._) The evidence which we will produce will establish that the defendants Ruff and Romberg personally participated with Rascher in experiments resulting in death and torture; that the defendant Sievers watched the experiments for an entire day and made an oral report to Himmler on his observations; that the defendant Rudolf Brandt was the agent of Himmler in providing the human subjects for these experiments and in making many other facilities available to Rascher and rendering him general assistance; and that the defendant Weltz, in his official capacity, repeatedly insisted on supervision over and full responsibility and credit for the experiments. The higher authorities of both the German Air Force and the SS were fully informed concerning what was going on. Extensive correspondence will be introduced, for example, concerning the availability of the low-pressure chamber which the German Air Force furnished at Dachau, and concerning the availability of Rascher, who was an officer in the Air Force Medical Service, to conduct the experiments. Knowledge of, participation in, and responsibility for these atrocious crimes on the part of the defendants here charged will be clearly shown by the evidence. B. Freezing Experiments The deep interest of the German Air Force in capitalizing on the availability of inmates of concentration camps for experimental purposes is even more apparent in the case of the freezing experiments. These, too, were conducted at Dachau. They began immediately after the high-altitude experiments were completed and they continued until the spring of 1943. Here again, the defendant Weltz was directly in charge of the experiments, with Rascher as his assistant, as is shown in a letter written in May 1942 by Field Marshal Erhard Milch, the Inspector General of the German Air Force, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, one of Heinrich Himmler’s principal subordinates, and this letter specifically requested that the freezing experiments be carried out at Dachau under Weltz’s supervision. (_343-A-PS._) The purpose of these experiments was to determine the most effective way of rewarming German aviators who were forced to parachute into the North Sea. The evidence will show that in the course of these experiments, the victims were forced to remain outdoors without clothing in freezing weather from 9 to 14 hours. In other cases, they were forced to remain in a tank of iced water for 3 hours at a time. The water experiments are described in a report by Rascher written in August 1942. (_1618-PS._) I quote: “Electrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4° in the stomach and 26.5° in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and the back of the head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts of free blood, up to ½ liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in those experiments reached 28°, the experimental subjects died invariably, despite all attempts at resuscitation.” Other documents set forth that from time to time the temperature of the water would be lowered by 10° Centigrade and a quart of blood would be taken from an artery in the subject’s throat for analysis. The organs of the victims who died were extracted and sent to the Pathological Institute at Munich. Rewarming of the subjects was attempted by various means, most commonly and successfully in a very hot bath. In September, Himmler personally ordered that rewarming by the warmth of human bodies also be attempted, and the inhuman villains who conducted these experiments promptly produced four gypsy women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. When the women had arrived, rewarming was attempted by placing the chilled victim between two naked women. A voluminous report on the freezing experiments conducted in tanks of ice water, written in October 1942, contains the following (_NO-428_): “If the experimental subject were placed in the water under narcosis, one observed a certain arousing effect. The subject began to groan and made some defensive movements. In a few cases, a state of excitation developed. This was especially severe in the cooling of the head and neck. But never was a complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The defensive movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the arm musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to the body. The rigor increased with the continuation of the cooling, now and then interrupted by tonic-clonic twitching. With still more marked sinking of the body temperature, it suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, without any successful results from resuscitation efforts. * * * * * “Experiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in the course of cooling. Upon entry into the water, a severe cold shuddering appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the head was felt as especially painful, but already after 5 to 10 minutes, a significant weakening of the pain sensation was observable. Rigor developed after this time in the same manner as under narcosis, likewise the tonic-clonic twitchings. At this point, speech became difficult because the rigor also affected the speech musculature. “Simultaneously with the rigor, a severe difficulty in breathing set in with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to speak, an iron ring was placed about the chest. Objectively, already at the beginning of this breathing difficulty, a marked dilatation of the nostrils occurred. The expiration was prolonged and visibly difficult. This difficulty passed over into a rattling and snoring breathing. * * *” [Emphasis not shown.] During the winter of 1942 and 1943, experiments with “dry” cold were conducted. And Rascher reported on these in another letter to Himmler (_1616-PS_): “Up to now, I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the open air during nine to fourteen hours at 27° to 29°. After a time, corresponding to a trip of 1 hour, I put these subjects in a hot bath. Up to now, every single patient was completely warmed up within 1 hour at most, although some of them had their hands and feet frozen white.” The responsibility among the defendants for the freezing experiments is substantially the same as for the high-altitude tests. The results were, if anything, ever more widely known in German medical circles. In October 1942, a medical conference took place here in Nuernberg at the Deutscher Hof Hotel, at which one of the authors of the report from which I have just quoted spoke on the subject “Prevention and Treatment of Freezing”, and the defendant Weltz spoke on the subject “Warming up after Freezing to the Danger Point.” Numerous documents which we will introduce show the widespread responsibility among the defendants, and in the highest quarters of the German Air Force, for these sickening crimes. C. Malaria Experiments Another series of experiments carried out at the Dachau concentration camp concerned immunization for and treatment of malaria. Over 1,200 inmates of practically every nationality were experimented upon. Many persons who participated in these experiments have already been tried before a general military court held at Dachau, and the findings of that court will be laid before this Tribunal. The malaria experiments were carried out under the general supervision of a Dr. Schilling, with whom the defendant Sievers and others in the box collaborated. The evidence will show that healthy persons were infected by mosquitoes or by injections from the glands of mosquitoes. Catholic priests were among the subjects. The defendant Gebhardt kept Himmler informed of the progress of these experiments. Rose furnished Schilling with fly eggs for them, and others of the defendants participated in various ways which the evidence will demonstrate. After the victims had been infected, they were variously treated with quinine, neosalvarsan, pyramidon, antipyrin, and several combinations of these drugs. Many deaths occurred from excessive doses of neosalvarsan and pyramidon. According to the findings of the Dachau court, malaria was the direct cause of 30 deaths and 300 to 400 others died as the result of subsequent complications. D. Mustard Gas Experiments The experiments concerning mustard gas were conducted at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps and extended over the entire period of the war. Wounds were deliberately inflicted on the victims, and the wounds were then infected with mustard gas. Other subjects were forced to inhale the gas, or to take it internally in liquid form, and still others were injected with the gas. A report on these experiments written at the end of 1939 described certain cases in which wounds were inflicted on both arms of the human guinea pigs and then infected, and the report states: “The arms in most of the cases are badly swollen and pains are enormous.” The alleged purpose of these experiments was to discover an effective treatment for the burns caused by mustard gas. In 1944 the experiments were coordinated with a general program for research into gas warfare. A decree issued by Hitler in March 1944 ordered the defendant Karl Brandt to push medical research in connection with gas warfare. The defendant Rudolf Brandt sent copies of this decree to the defendant Sievers, to Grawitz, and others, and transmitted Hitler’s request that they confer soon with the defendant Karl Brandt “on account of the urgency of the order given him by the Fuehrer.” Subsequently, Sievers, who was thoroughly familiar with the mustard gas experiments being carried on in the concentration camps, reported the details of these experiments to the defendant Karl Brandt. E. and F. Ravensbrueck Experiments Concerning Sulfanilamide and Other Drugs; Bone, Muscle, and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation The experiments conducted principally on the female inmates of Ravensbrueck concentration camp were perhaps the most barbaric of all. These concerned bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation, and experiments with sulfanilamide and other drugs. They were carried out by the defendants Fischer and Oberheuser under the direction of the defendant Gebhardt. In one set of experiments, incisions were made on the legs of several of the camp inmates for the purpose of simulating battle-caused infections. A bacterial culture, or fragments of wood shavings, or tiny pieces of glass were forced into the wound. After several days, the wounds were treated with sulfanilamide. Grawitz, the head of the SS Medical Service, visited Ravensbrueck and received a report on these experiments directly from the defendant Fischer. Grawitz thereupon directed that the wounds inflicted on the subjects should be even more severe so that conditions similar to those prevailing at the front lines would be more completely simulated. Bullet wounds were simulated on the subjects by tying off the blood vessels at both ends of the incision. A gangrene-producing culture was then placed in the wounds. Severe infection resulted within 24 hours. Operations were then performed on the infected areas and the wounds were treated with sulfanilamide. In each of the many sulfanilamide experiments, some of the subjects were wounded and infected but were not given sulfanilamide, so as to compare their reactions with those who received treatment. Bone transplantation from one person to another and the regeneration of nerves, muscles, and bones were also tried out on the women at Ravensbrueck. The defendant Gebhardt personally ordered that bone transplantation experiments be carried out, and in one case the scapula of an inmate at Ravensbrueck was removed and taken to Hohenlychen Hospital and there transplanted. We will show that the defendants did not even have any substantial scientific objective. These experiments were senseless, sadistic, and utterly savage. The defendant Oberheuser’s duties at Ravensbrueck in connection with the experiments were to select young and healthy inmates for the experiments, to be present at all of the surgical operations, and to give the experimental subjects post-operative care. We will show that this care consisted chiefly of utter neglect of nursing requirements, and cruel and abusive treatment of the miserable victims. Other experiments in this category were conducted at Dachau to discover a method of bringing about coagulation of the blood. Concentration camp inmates were actually fired upon, or were injured in some other fashion in order to cause something similar to a battlefield wound. These wounds were then treated with a drug known as polygal in order to test its capacity to coagulate the blood. Several inmates were killed. Sulfanilamide was also administered to some and withheld from other inmates who had been infected with the pus from a phlegmon-diseased person. Blood poisoning generally ensued. After infection, the victims were left untreated for 3 or 4 days, after which various drugs were administered experimentally or experimental surgical operations were performed. Polish Catholic priests were used for these tests. Many died and others became invalids. As a result of all of these senseless and barbaric experiments, the defendants are responsible for manifold murders and untold cruelty and torture. G. Sea-Water Experiments For the sea-water experiments we return to Dachau. They were conducted in 1944 at the behest of the German Air Force and the German Navy in order to develop a method of rendering sea-water drinkable. Meetings to discuss this problem were held in May 1944, attended by representatives of the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and I. G. Farben. The defendants Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer were among the participants. It was agreed to conduct a series of experiments in which the subjects, fed only with shipwreck emergency rations, would be divided into four groups. One group would receive no water at all; the second would drink ordinary sea-water; the third would drink sea-water processed by the so-called “Berka” method, which concealed the taste but did not alter the saline content; the fourth would drink sea-water treated so as to remove the salt. Since it was expected that the subjects would die, or at least suffer severe impairment of health, it was decided at the meeting in May 1944 that only persons furnished by Himmler could be used. Thereafter in June 1944 the defendant Schroeder set the program in motion by writing to Himmler, and I quote from his letter (_NO-185_): “Earlier you made it possible for the Luftwaffe to settle urgent medical matters through experiments on human beings. Today I again stand before a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals and also on voluntary human subjects, demands final solution: The Luftwaffe has simultaneously developed two methods for making sea-water drinkable. The one method, developed by a medical officer, removes the salt from the sea-water and transforms it into real drinking water; the second method, suggested by an engineer, only removes the unpleasant taste from the sea-water. The latter method, in contrast to the first, requires no critical raw material. From the medical point of view this method must be viewed critically, as the administration of concentrated salt solutions can produce severe symptoms of poisoning. “As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out for a period of 4 days, and as practical demands require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12 days, appropriate experiments are necessary. “Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that necessary laboratories exist in the Dachau concentration camp, this camp would be very suitable. * * * * * “Due to the enormous importance which a solution of this question has for soldiers of the Luftwaffe and Navy who have become shipwrecked, I would be greatly obliged to you, my dear Reich Minister, if you would decide to comply with my request.” Himmler passed this letter to Grawitz who consulted Gebhardt and other SS officials. A typical and nauseating Nazi discussion of racial questions ensued. One SS man suggested using quarantined prisoners and Jews; another suggested gypsies. Grawitz doubted that experiments on gypsies would yield results which were scientifically applicable to Germans. Himmler finally directed that gypsies be used with three others as a check. The tests were actually begun in July 1944. The defendant Beiglboeck supervised the experiments, in the course of which the gypsy subjects underwent terrible suffering, became delirious or developed convulsions, and some died. H. Epidemic Jaundice The epidemic jaundice experiments, which took place at Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler concentration camps, were instigated by the defendant Karl Brandt. A letter written in 1943 by Grawitz stresses the enormous military importance of developing an inoculation against epidemic jaundice, which had spread extensively in the Waffen SS and the German Army, particularly in southern Russia. In some companies, up to 60 percent casualties from epidemic jaundice had occurred. Grawitz further informed Himmler that, and I quote: “The General Commissioner of the Fuehrer, SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt, has approached me with the request to help him obtain prisoners to be used in connection with his research on the causes of Epidemic Jaundice which has been furthered to a large degree by his efforts. * * * In order to enlarge our knowledge, so far based only on inoculation of animals with germs taken from human beings, it would not be necessary to reverse the procedure and inoculate human beings with germs cultivated in animals. Casualties (Todesfaelle) must be anticipated.” Grawitz also had been doing research: on this problem with the assistance of a Dr. Dohmen, a medical officer attached to the Army Medical Inspectorate. Himmler made the following reply to the Grawitz letter (_NO-011_): “I approve that eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz (eight Jews of the Polish Resistance Movement condemned to death) should be used for these experiments.” Other evidence will indicate that the scope of these experiments was subsequently enlarged and that murder, torture, and death resulted from them. I. Sterilization Experiments In the sterilization experiments conducted by the defendants at Auschwitz, Ravensbrueck, and other concentration camps, the destructive nature of the Nazi medical program comes out most forcibly. The Nazis were searching for methods of extermination, both by murder and sterilization, of large population groups, by the most scientific and least conspicuous means. They were developing a new branch of medical science which would give them the scientific tools for the planning and practice of genocide. The primary purpose was to discover an inexpensive, unobtrusive, and rapid method of sterilization which could be used to wipe out Russians, Poles, Jews, and other people. Surgical sterilization was thought to be too slow and expensive to be used on a mass scale. A method to bring about an unnoticed sterilization was thought desirable. Medicinal sterilizations were therefore carried out. A Dr. Madaus had stated that caladium seguinum, a drug obtained from a North American plant, if taken orally or by injection, would bring about sterilization. In 1941 the defendant Pokorny called this to Himmler’s attention, and suggested that it should be developed and used against Russian prisoners of war. I quote one paragraph from Pokorny’s letter written at that time (_NO-035_): “If, on the basis of this research, it were possible to produce a drug which after a relatively short time, effects an imperceptible sterilization on human beings, then we would have a powerful new weapon at our disposal. The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, who are at present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens the most far-reaching perspectives.” As a result of Pokorny’s suggestion, experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates to test the effectiveness of the drug. At the same time efforts were made to grow the plant on a large scale in hothouses. At the Auschwitz concentration camp sterilization experiments were also conducted on a large scale by a Dr. Karl Clauberg, who had developed a method of sterilizing women, based on the injection of an irritating solution. Several thousand Jewesses and gypsies were sterilized at Auschwitz by this method. Conversely, surgical operations were performed on sexually abnormal inmates at Buchenwald in order to determine whether their virility could be increased by the transplantation of glands. Out of 14 subjects of these experiments, at least 2 died. The defendant Gebhardt also personally conducted sterilizations at Ravensbrueck by surgical operation. The defendant Viktor Brack, in March 1941, submitted to Himmler a report on the progress and state of X-ray sterilization experiments. Brack explained that it had been determined that sterilization with powerful X-rays could be accomplished and that castration would then result. The danger of this X-ray method lay in the fact that other parts of the body, if they were not protected with lead, were also seriously affected. In order to prevent the victims from realizing that they were being castrated, Brack made the following fantastic suggestion in his letter written in 1941 to Himmler, from which I quote (_NO-203_): “One way to carry out these experiments in practice would be to have those people who are to be treated line up before a counter. There they would be questioned and a form would be given them to be filled out, the whole process taking 2 or 3 minutes. The official attendant who sits behind the counter can operate the apparatus in such a manner that he works a switch which will start both tubes together (as the rays have to come from both sides). With one such installation with two tubes about 150 to 200 persons could be sterilized daily, while 20 installations would take care of 3,000 to 4,000 persons daily. In my opinion the number of daily deportations will not exceed this figure.” In this same report the defendant Brack related that, and I quote (_NO-203_): “* * * the latest X-ray technique and research make it easily possible to carry out mass sterilization by means of X-rays. However, it appears to be impossible to take these measures without having those who were so treated finding out sooner or later that they definitely had been either sterilized or had been castrated by X-rays.” Another letter from Brack to Himmler, in June 1942, laid the basis for X-ray experiments which were subsequently carried out at Auschwitz. The second paragraph of this letter forms a fitting conclusion to this account of Nazi depravity, and I quote (_NO-205_): “Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe there are, I figure, at least 2 to 3 millions of men and women who are fit enough to work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the labor problem presents us with, I hold the view that these 2 to 3 millions should be specially selected and preserved. This can, however, only be done if at the same time they are rendered incapable to propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that agents of mine have completed the experiments necessary for this purpose. I would like to recall these facts once more. Sterilization, as normally performed on persons with hereditary diseases, is here out of the question because it takes too long and is too expensive. Castration by X-rays, however, is not only relatively cheap but can also be performed on many thousands in the shortest time. I think that at this time it is already irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the effects.” J. Typhus (Fleckfieber) and Related Experiments From December 1941, until near the end of the war, a large program of medical experimentation was carried out upon concentration camp inmates at Buchenwald and Natzweiler to investigate the value of various vaccines. This research involved a variety of diseases—typhus, yellow fever, smallpox, paratyphoid A and B, cholera, and diphtheria. A dozen or more of the defendants were involved in these experiments which were characterized by the most cynical disregard of human life. Hundreds of persons died. The experiments concerning typhus—known in Germany as Fleckfieber or “spot fever”, but is not to be confused with American spotted fever—were particularly appalling. The typhus experiments at Natzweiler were conducted by Dr. Eugen Haagen, an officer in the Air Force Medical Service and a professor at the University of Strasbourg. In the fall of 1943, through the defendant Sievers, Haagen obtained 100 concentration camp prisoners for experiments with typhus vaccines. Two hundred more prisoners were furnished in the summer of 1944. These experiments caused many fatalities among the prisoners. The general pattern of these typhus experiments was as follows. A group of concentration camp inmates, selected from the healthier ones who had some resistance to disease, were injected with an anti-typhus vaccine, the efficacy of which was to be tested. Thereafter, all the persons in the group would be infected with typhus. At the same time, other inmates who had not been vaccinated were also infected for purposes of comparison—these unvaccinated victims were called the “control” group. But perhaps the most wicked and murderous circumstance in this whole case is that still other inmates were deliberately infected with typhus with the sole purpose of keeping the typhus virus alive and generally available in the bloodstream of the inmates. The typhus murders at Buchenwald were carried out in 1942 and 1943 under the direction of the defendants Genzken and Mrugowsky. Requests for the human guinea pigs were turned over to, and filled by, the defendant Hoven. The bulk of the actual work was done by an infamous physician known as Dr. Ding, who committed suicide after the war. But Dr. Ding’s professional diary has survived. The first entry in Ding’s diary, for 29 December 1941, reveals that here again the impetus for these murderous researches came from the Wehrmacht. This entry describes a conference sponsored by the defendant Handloser and Dr. Conti, respective heads of the military and civilian medical services of the Reich, which was also attended by the defendant Mrugowsky. Typhus had been making serious inroads on the German troops fighting in Russia. The account of this conference relates that, and I quote (_NO-265_): “Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out.” Other entries in the Ding diary quoted below are typical of those made over a period of 3 years, and give some idea of the mortality among the victims. (_NO-265._) “_10 Jan 42: Preliminary test B_: Preliminary test to establish a sure means of infection: Much as in smallpox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with virus through 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm. All of the humans used for this test fell ill with true typhus. Incubation period up to 6 days. “_20 Feb 42_: Chart of the case history of the preliminary tests to establish a sure means of infection were sent to Berlin. One death out of five sick. “_17 Mar 42_: Visit of Prof. Gildemeister and Prof. Rose (department head for tropical medicine of the Robert Koch Institute) at the experimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with typhus, except two, who, the fact was established later, already had been sick with typhus during an epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. “_9 Jan 43_: By order of the surgeon general of the Waffen SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS, Dr. Genzken, the hitherto existing typhus research station at the concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the ‘Department for Typhus and Virus Research’. The head of the department will be SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding. During his absence, the station medical officer of the Waffen SS, Weimar, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven will supervise the production of vaccines. “_13 and 14 Apr 43_: Unit of SS Sturmbannfeuhrer Dr. Ding ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G., Hoechst. Conference with Prof. Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber and Dr. Fussgaenger about the experimental series ‘Acridine Granulate and Rutenol’ in the concentration camp Buchenwald. Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Prof. Prigge in the institute for experimental therapeutics in Frankfurt-on-Main. “_24 Apr 1943_: Therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2) to carry out the therapeutic experiments Acridine Granulate and Rutenol, 30 persons (15 each) and 9 persons for control were infected by intravenous injection of 2 cc. each of fresh blood of a typhus sick person. All experimental persons got very serious typhus. “_1 Jun 1943_: Charts of case history completed. The experimental series was concluded with 21 deaths; of these, 8 were in Buchenwald, 8 with Rutenol and 5 control. “_7 Sep 1943_: Chart and case history completed. The experimental series was concluded with 53 deaths. “_8 Mar-18 Mar 1944_: It is suggested by Colonel of this air corps, Prof. Rose, the vaccine ‘Kopenhagen’, produced from mouse liver by the National Serum Institute in Kopenhagen, be tested for its compatibility on humans. Twenty persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular injection. * * * Ten persons were contemplated for control and comparison. “_16 Apr 1944_: The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 April by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood. The following feel sick: 17 persons immunized: 9 medium, 8 seriously. Nine persons from the control: 2 medium, 7 seriously. “_13 Jun 1944_: Chart and case history completed and sent to Berlin. Six deaths (3 ‘Kopenhagen’) (3 control). “_4 Nov 1944_: Chart and case history completed. Twenty-four deaths.” Copies of each of Dr. Ding’s official reports went to the defendants Mrugowsky and Poppendick as well as to the I. G. Farben laboratories at Hoechst. Nowhere will the evidence in this case reveal a more wicked and murderous course of conduct by men who claimed to practice the healing art than in the entries of Dr. Ding’s diary relating to the typhus experiments. K. Poison Experiments Here again the defendants were studying how to kill, and the scene is Buchenwald. Poisons were administered to Russian prisoners of war in their food, and German doctors stood behind a curtain to watch the reactions of the prisoners. Some of the Russians died immediately, and the survivors were killed in order to permit autopsies. The defendant Mrugowsky, in a letter written in September 1944, has provided us with a record of another experiment in which the victims were shot with poisoned bullets, and I quote (_NO-201_): “In the presence of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, Dr. Widmann and the undersigned, experiments with aconitin nitrate projectiles were conducted on 11 September 1944 on 5 persons who had been condemned to death. The projectiles in question were of a 7.65 mm. caliber, filled with crystallized poison. The experimental subjects, in a lying position, were each shot in the upper part of the left thigh. The thighs of two of them were cleanly shot through. Afterwards, no effect of the poison was to be observed. These two experimental subjects were therefore exempted. * * * * * “During the first hour of the experiment the pupils did not show any changes. After 78 minutes the pupils of all three showed a medium dilation, together with a retarded light reaction. Simultaneously, maximum respiration with heavy breathing inhalations set in. This subsided after a few minutes. The pupils contracted again and their reaction improved. After 65 minutes the patellar and achilles tendon reflexes of the poisoned subjects were negative. The abdominal reflexes of two of them were also negative. After approximately 90 minutes, one of the subjects again started breathing heavily; this was accompanied by an increasing motor unrest. Then the heavy breathing changed into a flat, accelerated respiration, accompanied by extreme nausea. One of the poisoned persons tried in vain to vomit. To do so he introduced four fingers of his hand up to the knuckles into his throat, but nevertheless could not vomit. His face was flushed. “The other two experimental subjects had already early shown a pale face. The other symptoms were the same. The motor unrest increased so much that the persons flung themselves up and then down, rolled their eyes and made meaningless motions with their hands and arms. Finally the agitation subsided, the pupils dilated to the maximum, and the condemned lay motionless. * * * Death occurred 121, 123, and 129 minutes after entry of the projectile.” L. Incendiary Bomb Experiments These experiments were likewise carried out at Buchenwald, and the Ding diary gives us the facts. In November 1943 five persons were deliberately burned with phosphorous material taken from an English incendiary bomb. The victims were permanently and seriously injured. M. Jewish Skeleton Collection I come now to charges stated in paragraphs 7 and 11 of the indictment. These are perhaps the most utterly repulsive charges in the entire indictment. They concern the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers. Sievers and his associates in the Ahnenerbe Society were completely obsessed by all the vicious and malignant Nazi racial theories. They conceived the notion of applying these nauseous theories in the field of anthropology. What ensued was murderous folly. In February 1942, Sievers submitted to Himmler, through Rudolf Brandt, a report from which the following is an extract (_NO-085_): “We have a nearly complete collection of skulls of all races and peoples at our disposal. Only very few specimens of skulls of the Jewish race, however, are available with the result that it is impossible to arrive at precise conclusions from examining them. The war in the East now presents us with the opportunity to overcome this deficiency. By procuring the skulls of the Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars, who represent the prototype of the repulsive, but characteristic subhuman, we have the chance now to obtain a palpable, scientific document. “The best, practical method for obtaining and collecting this skull material could be handled by directing the Wehrmacht to turn over alive all captured Jewish-Bolshevik Commissars to the Field Police. They in turn are to be given special directives to inform a certain office at regular intervals of the number and place of detention of these captured Jews and to give them special close attention and care until a special delegate arrives. This special delegate, who will be in charge of securing the ‘material’ has the job of taking a series of previously established photographs, anthropological measurements, and in addition has to determine, as far as possible, the background, date of birth, and other personal data of the prisoner. Following the subsequently induced death of the Jew, whose head should not be damaged, the delegate will separate the head from the body and will forward it to its proper point of destination in a hermetically sealed tin can, especially produced for this purpose and filled with a conserving fluid. “Having arrived at the laboratory, the comparison tests and anatomical research on the skull, as well as determination of the race membership of pathological features of the skull form, the form and size of the brain, etc., can proceed. The basis of these studies will be the photos, measurements, and other data supplied on the head, and finally the tests of the skull itself.” After extensive correspondence between Himmler and the defendants Sievers and Rudolf Brandt, it was decided to procure the skulls from inmates of the Auschwitz concentration camp instead of at the front. The hideous program was actually carried out, as is shown by a letter from Sievers written in June 1943, which states in part (_NO-087_): “I wish to inform you that our associate, Dr. Beger, who was in charge of the above special project, has interrupted his experiments in the concentration camp Auschwitz because of the existing danger of epidemics. Altogether 115 persons were worked on, 79 were Jews, 30 were Jewesses, 2 were Poles, and 4 were Asiatics. At the present time these prisoners are segregated by sex and are under quarantine in the two hospital buildings of Auschwitz.” After the death of these wretched Jews had been “induced” their corpses were sent to Strasbourg. A year elapsed, and the Allied armies were racing across France and were nearing Strasbourg where this monstrous exhibit of the culture of the master race reposed. Alarmed, Sievers sent a telegram to Rudolf Brandt in September 1944, from which I quote: “According to the proposal of 9 February 1942, and your approval of 23 February 1942, Professor Dr. Hirt has assembled a skeleton collection which has never been in existence before. Because of the vast amount of scientific research that is connected with this project, the job of reducing the corpses to skeletons has not yet been completed. Since it might require some time to process 80 corpses, Hirt requested a decision pertaining to the treatment of the collection stored in the morgue of the Anatomy, in case Strasbourg should be endangered. The collection can be defleshed and rendered unrecognizable. This, however, would mean that the whole work had been done for nothing—at least in part—and that this singular collection would be lost to science, since it would be impossible to make plaster casts afterwards. The skeleton collection, as such is inconspicuous. The flesh parts could be declared as having been left by the French at the time we took over the Anatomy and would be turned over for cremating. Please advise me which of the following three proposals is to be carried out: (1) The collection as a whole is to be preserved. (2) The collection is to be dissolved in part. (3) The collection is to be completely dissolved.” The final chapter of this barbaric enterprise is found in a note in Himmler’s files addressed to Rudolf Brandt stating that: “During his visit at the Operational Headquarters on 21 November 1944, Sievers told me that the collection in Strasbourg had been completely dissolved in conformance with the directive given him at the time. He is of the opinion that this arrangement is for the best in view of the whole situation.” These men, however, reckoned without the hand of fate. The bodies of these unfortunate people were not completely disposed of, and this Tribunal will hear the testimony of witnesses and see pictorial exhibits depicting the charnel house which was the Anatomy Institute of the Reich University of Strasbourg. I have now completed the sketch of some of the foul crimes which these defendants committed in the name of research. The horrible record of their degradation needs no underlining. But German medical science was in past years honored throughout the world, and many of the most illustrious names in medical research are German. How did these things come to pass? I will outline briefly the historical evidence which we will offer and which, I believe, will show that these crimes were the logical and inevitable outcome of the prostitution of German medicine under the Nazis. GERMAN MEDICAL ORGANIZATION Before 1933 Two years after the reconstitution of the German Reich, in 1871, the German Medical Association (Deutscher Aerztevereinsbund) was created, which tied together the older local medical associations. This society existed until it was abolished by the Nazi Government. Its structure was democratic, and its interests included problems of hygiene and public health, and to an increasing extent, socio-medical problems especially in the field of sickness and disability insurance. Bismarck’s legislation of 1881 established compulsory sickness insurance for workmen. In the course of the ensuing years, the vast bulk of the workmen were insured, and consequently most of the ordinary physician’s patients came to be insured patients. There were lists of physicians authorized to treat insured patients, and it was a matter of vital moment to every practicing physician to be listed. To protect their interest with respect to listing, fees, and other such problems, the German doctors founded a voluntary association for the defense of their economic interests known as the Hartmann Bund. Questions of professional ethics, medical malpractice, etc., were handled in Germany in two distinct sets of medical boards or “Courts.” An entirely unofficial and voluntary system was established by the German Medical Association. The other, which was endowed with semi-official status, was called the Reich Chamber of Physicians. These chambers were elected by vote of the members and were supported by an assessment. In addition to these organizations, there existed in Germany purely professional societies of doctors, where papers concerning scientific and practical problems were read and discussed, and which established connections with similar societies abroad. The German Government agencies which supervised the certification and licensing of physicians as well as their professional activities were the Ministry of Education and the Reich Health Office (Reichsgesundheitsamt) in the Ministry of the Interior. The latter supervised medical practice and licensing through the channels of the Ministries of the Interior of the various German states, although licensing was a federal function rather than a state function. Medical education and training were rather standardized but good. The students spent 5 or 6 years at one of several of the medical universities; they took a final examination covering their clinical studies and then spent a year at an authorized hospital under supervision. Thereafter the interns were licensed and permitted to establish a practice. After two more years they became eligible to treat insurance patients, and, after submitting a thesis, could obtain the degree of doctor from a university. Immediate Impact of Nazism on German Medicine In the years immediately preceding the Third Reich, physicians’ organizations devoted to Party politics sprang up. One of these was the National Socialist Physicians’ Society, founded in 1929, in which Conti played a leading role. There was a rival association of Social Democratic Physicians, and a Socialist Society of Physicians. These societies proposed candidates for election to the Physicians’ Chambers, and thus the National Socialist Physicians’ Society and the Socialist associations came to compete with each other. The notorious “boycott day” in Berlin, 1 April 1933, was a day of disgrace for German medicine. Members of the National Socialist Physicians’ Society, who knew the membership lists of the Socialist societies and the lists of Jewish physicians, broke into the apartments of their Socialist and Jewish colleagues in the early morning hours, pulled them out of their beds, beat them and brought them to the exhibition area near the Berlin Lehrter Station. There, all of them, including men up to 70 years old, were forced to run around the garden, as in a hippodrome, and they were shot at with pistols or beaten with sticks. There they had to stay for several days without sufficient food, and then were handed over to the SA which carried part of them to the cellars at the Hedemannstrasse jail for further tortures. Thereafter, the members of the Socialist Society of Physicians were barred from all insurance practice because of “Communist and subversive activities.” In the subsequent listings of physicians issued by the insurance companies, the Jewish physicians were included in a separate list headed “Enemies of the State or Jews.” Soon, the insurance companies, even private ones, were no longer permitted to pay fees to the Jewish physicians. Immediately thereafter, Jewish physicians were excluded from all professional and scientific societies. At first, those who were war veterans were nominally allowed to carry on their insurance practice, but patients who kept going to them were threatened and exposed to all kinds of unpleasantness on the part of the insurance officials. After the war began, certification and licensing were withdrawn from all Jewish physicians and they were degraded to the status of lay therapists. These physicians were forced to wear a blue shield with the Star of David and had to add a middle name such as “Sarah” or “Israel.” Their prescriptions likewise had to bear the Star of David, which exposed their patients to all kinds of unpleasantness when filling them at pharmacies, most of which had signs in their windows reading “Jews not wanted.” At first, the Aryan physicians were allowed to treat Jewish patients, but finally they were prohibited from doing so. Hospitals refused admission to Jewish patients, apart from a few courageous ones who admitted them in defiance of the law. Jews were admitted to mental institutions in separate wards, but usually were quickly transported elsewhere for extermination. In the early summer of 1943, Conti instigated and directed a wholesale persecution of doctors who were either foreigners or persons of so-called mixed blood and those related by marriage to Jews. At first, they were removed from their practice and sent off to posts under inferior Party doctors. In 1944, Conti went a step further and forbade these physicians to practice. They were drafted into the Speer organization, in which they were employed solely at manual labor, their living conditions being little better than those of concentration camp inmates. Prostitution of German Medicine Under National Socialism The totalitarian structure of the Nazi State demanded fundamental subordination of all principles of medicine to National Socialist population policy and racial concepts. The most emphatic and repelling expression of those new aims and goals came from the Nazi Director of Public Health in the Ministry of the Interior, Dr. Arthur Guett, who took office in 1933. In a book published in 1935 entitled “The Structure of Public Health in the Third Reich,” Guett announced that “the ill-conceived ‘love of thy neighbor’ has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures. It is the supreme duty of a national state to grant life and livelihood only to the healthy and hereditarily sound portion of the people in order to secure the maintenance of a hereditarily sound and racially pure folk for all eternity. The life of an individual has meaning only in the light of that ultimate aim, that is, in the light of his meaning to his family and to his national state.” The entire public health policy of the Third Reich was put in line with this pronouncement of principles. The Minister of the Interior, Frick, reorganized the Health Department in his ministry in such a way that police, public health, welfare administration and social services were all coordinated in pursuit of these goals. The beginnings of this reorganization started already in the summer of 1933 and were substantially completed by 1936. All these activities were concentrated under Dr. Guett, who was thus enabled to coordinate the practical application of his policy with his theoretical principles. Even psychiatric social service agencies, which did thorough and well-organized work prior to 1933, were reduced to mere screening stations for hereditary and racial selection. All government-employed physicians had to take a special new course lasting 18 months and had to be Party members. The German Red Cross was likewise drawn into the orbit of the Nazi Party and the SS, in view of Dr. Grawitz’ appointment as president of the Red Cross. In 1945, after Grawitz’ suicide, the defendant Gebhardt succeeded him. The Third Reich also completely reorganized the professional medical societies. The German Medical Association and the Hartmann Bund were abolished. All German physicians were reorganized through an organization derived from the Reich Physicians’ Chamber. This National Physicians’ Chamber was placed directly under a medical “fuehrer” with the title of “Reichsaerztefuehrer.” This position was also held by Conti. All doctors except those on active military duty were subordinate to him. His regional deputies were selected from the ranks of active National Socialists who terrorized the district branch societies. These deputies, who usually strutted about in SA or SS uniforms, were recruited mainly from the early members of the National Socialist Medical Association. It was their job to bring pressure on physicians to join and take part in various party organizations, such as the SA and SS. A command performance, especially for younger physicians, was attendance at the so-called Fuehrer-School of German Physicians at Altrehse in Mecklenburg, which had been organized by the defendant Blome. There physicians were indoctrinated in the National Socialist point of view and way of life. The so-called comradely association and sports activity were merely window dressing for political spying. These courses finally became compulsory and had to be attended for several months annually. The general respect, in which doctors were held, sunk in view of the decreasing level of general education and ability of the doctors. This was partly due to the constant occupation of the physicians’ time with Party functions, especially the time-consuming Party formations and marches which made it impossible for young physicians to develop scientific interests, so that recent graduates increasingly lost understanding and inclination for serious scientific study and long-range research. Medical School and Medical Training Under the Nazis On paper, medical training under the Nazis differed little from that of the pre-Nazi era. However, its fundamental spirit was ruinously distorted and medical standards suffered a dismal decline. Medical students had to be “Aryan,” and were required to belong to the National Socialist Students’ League. The students’ entire course of studies was constantly interrupted by the demands of the various party organizations to which they were forced to belong. A student whose knowledge of the racial theories and Nuernberg laws was not sufficient would fail his medical examinations. Chairs in the universities were filled in many cases by Nazi so-called “professors” who might or might not have a scientific background. The true scientific societies under the Nazi regime became less and less active, and the Nazi professors in the universities devoted more time and interest to their SA or SS organizations than to the teaching of medicine. These Nazi professors would don their brown SA or black SS uniforms on all possible occasions, exchanging them proudly for their academic gowns at all academic celebrations and meetings. The worst Nazi politicians, like Streicher, were given the free run of university clinics, such as at Erlangen. This submissiveness to lay politicians led to a general decline of respect for German academic medicine not only on the part of their own public and abroad but even on the part of the very same politicians before whom they kowtowed. This went so far that Streicher, when addressing a full faculty meeting at the University of Erlangen in 1936, called the assembled professors “complete idiots” to their faces. This was by no means an isolated occurrence. Particularly deplorable was the degradation of psychiatry. Psychiatric university teaching declined to the level of a mere rehashing of the Nuernberg and sterilization laws. The modern techniques of psychotherapy had been abandoned, and treatment deteriorated to pep talks full of Nazi indoctrination admonitions and threats. No wonder that these methods backfired against the best interest of the German war effort which they were foolishly intended to serve. The lack of proper understanding and treatment of German soldiers who developed combat fatigue or neuroses, on the part of their own medical personnel, drove many of them to surrender to the enemy; efforts to rehabilitate them and restore them to duty were frustrated by the ruinous infusion of Nazi doctrine. Summary The general decline of German medical conduct and the poisoning of German medical ethics which the Nazis brought about laid the basis for the atrocious experiments of which the defendants are accused. Many of these were experiments in name only; we will show them to have been senseless and clumsy and of no real value to medicine as a healing art. The Nazi medical world was flooded with preposterous and wicked notions about superior and inferior races and developed a perverted moral outlook in which cruelty to subjugated races and peoples was praiseworthy. Training in SA and SS formations was hardly calculated to develop physicians who could comprehend even the bare elements of the doctor-patient relationship. In this noxious garden of lies, the seeds of the experiments were planted. In the climate of Nazi Germany, they grew with horrible rapidity. CRIMES OF MASS EXTERMINATION; MURDER OF POLISH NATIONALS From the preaching of Guett and others sprang the notions which underlie the crimes to which we will now turn. Here we leave behind all semblance, however fictitious, of science and research. Under these teachings, life and livelihood became the birthright of no one. The weak and the physically handicapped are in the way and must be pushed aside. Inferior peoples are born to be exterminated by the Herrenvolk. The charges in paragraphs 8 and 13 of the indictment concern the defendants Blome and Rudolf Brandt. The original impetus for this terrible mass murder came from a fiend named Greiser, who was the German Governor of the northwest portions of Poland, which had been absorbed into the Reich under the name “Wartheland.” Early in 1942, Greiser was in the process of exterminating thousands of Jews in his territory, and he decided to turn his attention next to Poles infected with tuberculosis. I call the Tribunal’s special attention to the German word “Sonderbehandlung.” In the next document, as will be shown, it occurs frequently in Nazi correspondence and was used by them to mean extermination. In May 1942, Greiser wrote to Himmler as follows (_NO-246_): “The special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of about 100,000 Jews in the territory of my district approved by you in agreement with the Chief of the Reich Security Main Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, can be completed within the next 2 to 3 months. I ask you for permission to rescue the district immediately after the measures are taken against the Jews, from a menace, which is increasing week by week, and to use the existing and efficient special commandos for that purpose. “There are about 230,000 people of Polish nationality in my district who were diagnosed to suffer from tuberculosis. The number of persons infected with open tuberculosis is estimated at about 35,000. This fact has led in an increasing frightening measure to the infection of Germans, who came to the Warthegau perfectly healthy. In particular, reports are received with ever-increasing effect of German children in danger of infection. A considerable number of well-known leading men, especially of the police, have been infected lately and are not available for the war effort because of the necessary medical treatment. The ever-increasing risks were also recognized and appreciated by the deputy of the Reich Leader for Public Health (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer) Comrade Professor Dr. Blome as well as by the leader of your X-ray battalion SS Standartenfuehrer Professor Dr. Hohlfelder. “Though in Germany proper it is not possible to take appropriate draconic steps against this public plague, I think I could take responsibility for my suggestion to have cases of open TB exterminated among the Polish race here in the Warthegau. Of course only a Pole should be handed over to such an action, who is not only suffering from open tuberculosis, but whose incurability is proved and certified by a public health officer. “Considering the urgency of this project I ask for your approval in principle as soon as possible. This would enable us to make the preparations with all necessary precautions now to get the action against the Poles suffering from open tuberculosis under way, while the action against the Jews is in its closing stages.” Greiser’s proposal was supported in a letter from one, Koppe, the SS and police leader in that region, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, to which Brandt replied stating that the matter was under consideration and that the final decision would rest with Hitler. Late in June, Himmler sent a “favorable” reply to Greiser cautioning him, however, that the exterminations should be carried out inconspicuously. Thereafter, consultations as to how to carry out the measure occurred between Greiser, Dr. Hohlfelder, and the defendant Blome. The views of Blome are embodied in a letter from him to Greiser written in November 1942. This letter contains an indescribably brutal analysis of the situation, in which Blome expresses agreement with the view that extermination of the tubercular Poles is the simplest and most logical solution, and expresses doubt as to its desirability only in that it would be difficult to keep such widespread slaughter secret, and that Hitler might think the program politically inexpedient if the facts should ever come out. I quote from the letter of defendant Blome (_NO-250_): “It was calculated that in 1939 there were among the Poles about 35,000 persons suffering from open tuberculosis and, besides this number, about 120,000 other consumptives in need of treatment. * * * “With the settlement of Germans in all parts of the Gau an enormous danger has arisen for them. A number of cases of infection of settled children and adults occurs daily. * * * * * “Therefore, something basic must be done soon. One must decide the most efficient way in which this can be done. There are three ways to be taken into consideration: 1. Special treatment [Sonderbehandlung] of the seriously ill persons. 2. Most rigorous isolation of the seriously ill persons. 3. Creation of a reservation for all TB patients. “For the planning, attention must be paid to different points of view of a practical, political, and psychological nature. Considering it most soberly, the simplest way would be the following: Aided by the X-ray battalion [Roentgen Sturmbann] we could reach the entire population, German and Polish, of the Gau during the first half of 1943. As to the Germans, the treatment and isolation are to be prepared and carried out according to the regulations for Tuberculosis Relief [Tuberkulosehilfe]. “The approximately 35,000 Poles who are incurable and infectious will be ‘specially treated’ [sonderbehandelt]. All other Polish consumptives will be subjected to an appropriate cure in order to save them for work and to avoid their causing contagion. “According to your request I made arrangements with the offices in question, in order to start and carry out this radical procedure within half a year. You told me, that the competent office agreed with you as to this ‘special treatment’ and promised support. Before we definitely start the program, I think it would be correct if you would make sure once more that the Fuehrer will really agree to such a solution. * * * * * “There can be no doubt that the intended program is the most simple and most radical solution. If absolute secrecy could be guaranteed, all scruples—regardless of what nature—could be overcome. But I consider maintaining secrecy impossible. Experience has taught us that this assumption is true. Should those sick persons, having been brought, as planned, to the old Reich supposedly to be treated or healed, and they actually never return, the relatives of those sick persons in spite of the greatest secrecy would some day notice ‘that something was not quite right’. * * * * * “Therefore, I think it necessary to explain all those points of view to the Fuehrer before undertaking the program, as, in my opinion he is the only one able to view the entire complex and to come to a decision.” The prosecution will introduce evidence to show that the program was in fact carried out at the end of 1942 and the beginning of 1943, and that as a result of the suggestions made by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were ruthlessly exterminated and that others were taken to isolated camps, utterly lacking in medical facilities, where thousands of them died. EUTHANASIA On 1 September 1939, the very day of the German attack on Poland, and after a great deal of discussion between Dr. Karl Brandt, Dr. Leonardo Conti, Philipp Bouhler, the Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer, and others, Hitler issued the following authority to the defendant Karl Brandt (_630-PS_): “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M. D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physicians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be accorded a mercy death. [Signed] ADOLF HITLER” After the receipt of this order, an organization was set up to execute this program, Karl Brandt headed the medical section and Philipp Bouhler, the administrative section. The defendant Hoven, as chief surgeon of the Buchenwald concentration camp, took part in the program and personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish inmates of different nationalities, mostly non-German, to their death in the euthanasia station at Bernburg. The defendants Brack and Blome participated in their capacities as assistants to Bouhler and Conti. Questionnaires were forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior from the various institutes and were then submitted to Karl Brandt and his staff for an expert opinion in order to determine the status of each patient. Then each of those experts indicated his opinion as to the eventual disposition of the patient; that is, whether or not the patient should be transferred to a killing station. The questionnaires were supposedly returned to the Ministry of the Interior, which, in turn, sent lists of the doomed patients to the different insane asylums, ordering the directors of the asylums to hand over the patients to a thing called the General Sick Transport Corporation for transfer to the particular stations where the killings took place. This Transport Corporation was not a real organization, but one of the code names used to disguise the true nature of the activities. The patients were then transferred to the station where they were immediately killed. This entire procedure took place without the consent of the relatives, but the relatives did receive a death certificate on which the cause of death was falsified. The Euthanasia Program was an open secret in top Nazi circles. However, every possible effort had been made to keep it from the public in order to avoid intervention by the churches. In spite of all these precautions, it became commonly known in Germany as early as the summer of 1940 that these killings were going on and church authorities, as well as various legal officials, tried in vain to stop the killings. Typical of the letters reaching the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Interior is the following: Addressed to The Reich Minister of Justice: “I have a schizophrenic son in a Wuerttemberg mental institution. I am shocked about the following absolutely reliable information. “Since some weeks insane persons are being taken from the institutions allegedly on the grounds of military evacuation. The directors of the institutions are enjoined to absolute secrecy. Shortly afterwards the relatives are informed that the sick person has died of encephalitis. The ashes are available if so desired. This is plain murder just as in the concentration camps. This measure uniformly emanates from the SS in Berlin. The institutions dare not inform the authorities. Inquire at once at Rottenmuenster, Schassenried, Winzertal, all in Wuerttemberg. Have the lists of 2 months ago examined and submitted to you, check upon the inmates who are there now and ask where the missing persons went to. For 7 years now this gang of murderers have defiled the German name. If my son is murdered, woe! I shall take care that these crimes will be published in all foreign newspapers. The SS may deny it as they always do. I shall demand prosecution by the public prosecutor. “I cannot give my name nor the institution where my son is, otherwise I, too, won’t live much longer. Heil Hitler Oberregierungsrat N.” If this program had stayed within the bounds set forth in Hitler’s letter to Karl Brandt, it would have been bad enough. We may pass over as quite irrelevant any such question as whether mercy killing may not in some circumstances be desirable, and whether a statute authorizing mercy killings under proper safeguards would be valid. Such questions may be debatable, but they do not confront us here. No German law authorizing mercy killings was ever adopted. Hitler’s memorandum to Brandt and Bouhler was not a law, not even a Nazi law. It was not intended to be a law or regarded as such even by the top Nazi officials. That is why the program was carried out with the utmost secrecy. The program was known to be utterly illegal by those who were in charge of it; they knew it was nothing but murder. This is brought out very clearly in a letter from Himmler to the defendant Brack in December 1940 (_NO-018_): “Dear Brack: “I hear there is great excitement on the Alb because of the institution Grafeneck. “The population recognizes the gray automobile of the SS and think they know what is going on at the constantly smoking crematory. What happens there is a secret and yet is no longer one. Thus the worst feeling has arisen there, and in my opinion there remains only one thing, to discontinue the use of the institution in this place and in any event disseminate information in a clever and sensible manner by showing motion pictures on the subject of inherited and mental diseases in just that locality. “May I ask for a report as to how the difficult problem was solved.” But there are more fundamental matters here. The program did not stay even within the bounds of the secret Hitler authority. Euthanasia became merely a polite word for the systematic slaughter of Jews and many other categories of persons useless or unfriendly to the Nazi regime. The evidence before the International Military Tribunal proved this clearly, and the judgment states, and I quote:[11] “Reference should also be made to the policy which was in existence in Germany by the summer of 1940, under which all aged, insane, and incurable people, ‘useless eaters’, were transferred to special institutions where they were killed, and their relatives informed that they had died from natural causes. The victims were not confined to German citizens, but included foreign laborers, who were no longer able to work, and were therefore useless to the German war machine. It has been estimated that at least some 275,000 people were killed in this manner in nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums, which were under the jurisdiction of the defendant Frick, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior. How many foreign workers were included in this total it has been quite impossible to determine.” I quote one more paragraph from the decision:[12] “During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this judgment, came under Frick’s jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick and aged people, ‘useless eaters’, were being systematically put to death. Complaints of these murders reached him, but he did nothing to stop them. A report of the Czechoslovak War Crimes Commission estimated that 275,000 mentally deficient and aged people, for whose welfare he was responsible, fell victim to it.” As stated in the indictment, the defendants involved in the euthanasia program sent their subordinates to the eastern occupied territories to assist in the mass extermination of Jews. This will be shown by abundant evidence, including the following excerpt from a letter from the defendant Brack to Himmler in 1942 from which I quote a paragraph: “On the instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler I placed some of my men at the disposal of Brigadefuehrer Globocnik to execute his special mission. On his renewed request I have now transferred additional personnel. On this occasion Brigadefuehrer Globocnik stated his opinion that the whole Jewish action should be completed as quickly as possible so that one would not get caught in the middle of it one day if some difficulties should make a stoppage of the action necessary. You yourself, Reich Leader, have already expressed your view, that work should progress quickly for reasons of camouflage alone.” Protesting the lawless slaughter which even Himmler sought to “camouflage”, the Bishop of Limburg in 1941 foresaw that such insane carnage spelled the downfall of the Third Reich. (_615-PS._) He wrote: “And if anybody says that Germany cannot win the war, if there is yet a just God, these expressions are not the result of lack of love for the Fatherland but of a deep concern for our people. * * * High authority as a moral concept has suffered a severe shock as a result of these happenings.” SUMMARY I have outlined the particular charges against the defendants under count two, three, and four of the indictment; and I have sketched the general nature of the evidence which we will present. But we must not overlook that the medical experiments were not an assortment of unrelated crimes. On the contrary, they constituted a well-integrated criminal program in which the defendants planned and collaborated among themselves and with others. We have here, in other words, a conspiracy and a common design, as is charged in count one of the indictment, to commit the criminal experiments set forth in paragraphs 6 and 11 thereof. There was a common design to discover, or improve, various medical techniques. There was a common design to utilize for this purpose the unusual resources which the defendants had at their disposal, consisting of numberless unfortunate victims of Nazi conquest and Nazi ideology. The defendants conspired and agreed together to utilize these human resources for nefarious and murderous purposes, and proceeded to put their criminal design into execution. Numbered among the countless victims of the conspiracy and the crimes are Germans, and nationals of countries overrun by Germany, and gypsies, and prisoners of war, and Jews of many nationalities. All the elements of a conspiracy to commit the crimes charged in paragraphs 6 and 11 are present and all will be clearly established by the proof. There were many co-conspirators who are not in the dock. Among the planners and leaders of this plot were Conti and Grawitz, and Hippke whose whereabouts is unknown. Among the actual executioners, Dr. Ding is dead and Rascher is thought to be dead. There were many others. Final judgment as to the relative degrees of guilt among those in the dock must await the presentation of the proof in detail. Nevertheless, before the introduction of evidence, it will be helpful to look again at the defendants and their part in the conspiracy. What manner of men are they, and what was their major role? The 20 physicians in the dock range from leaders of German scientific medicine, with excellent international reputations, down to the dregs of the German medical profession. All of them have in common a callous lack of consideration and human regard for, and an unprincipled willingness to abuse their power over the poor, unfortunate, defenseless creatures who had been deprived of their rights by a ruthless and criminal government. All of them violated the Hippocratic commandments which they had solemnly sworn to uphold and abide by, including the fundamental principles never to do harm—“primum non nocere.” Outstanding men of science, distinguished for their scientific ability in Germany and abroad, are the defendants Rostock and Rose. Both exemplify, in their training and practice alike, the highest traditions of German medicine. Rostock headed the Department of Surgery at the University of Berlin and served as dean of its medical school. Rose studied under the famous surgeon, Enderlen, at Heidelberg and then became a distinguished specialist in the fields of public health and tropical diseases. Handloser and Schroeder are outstanding medical administrators. Both of them made their careers in military medicine and reached the peak of their profession. Five more defendants are much younger men who are nevertheless already known as the possessors of considerable scientific ability, or capacity in medical administration. These include the defendants Karl Brandt, Ruff, Beiglboeck, Schaefer, and Becker-Freyseng. A number of the others such as Romberg and Fischer are well trained, and several of them attained high professional position. But among the remainder few were known as outstanding scientific men. Among them at the foot of the list is Blome who has published his autobiography entitled “Embattled Doctor” in which he sets forth that he eventually decided to become a doctor because a medical career would enable him to become “master over life and death.” The part that each of these 20 physicians and their 3 lay accomplices played in the conspiracy and its execution corresponds closely to his professional interests and his place in the hierarchy of the Third Reich as shown in the chart. The motivating force for this conspiracy came from two principal sources. Himmler, as head of the SS, a most terrible machine of oppression with vast resources, could provide numberless victims for the experiments. By doing so, he enhanced the prestige of his organization and was able to give free rein to the Nazi racial theories of which he was a leading protagonist and to develop new techniques for the mass exterminations which were dear to his heart. The German military leaders, as the other main driving force, caught up the opportunity which Himmler presented them with and ruthlessly capitalized on Himmler’s hideous overtures in an endeavor to strengthen their military machine. And so the infernal drama was played just as it had been conceived in the minds of the authors. Special problems which confronted the German military or civilian authorities were, on the orders of the medical leaders, submitted for solution in the concentration camps. Thus we find Karl Brandt stimulating the epidemic jaundice experiments, Schroeder demanding “40 healthy experimental subjects” for the sea-water experiments, Handloser providing the impetus for Ding’s fearful typhus researches, and Milch and Hippke at the root of the freezing experiments. Under Himmler’s authority, the medical leaders of the SS—Grawitz, Genzken, Gebhardt, and others—set the wheels in motion. They arranged for the procurement of victims through other branches of the SS, and gave directions to their underlings in the SS medical service such as Hoven and Fischer. Himmler’s administrative assistants, Sievers and Rudolf Brandt, passed on the Himmler orders, gave a push here and a shove there, and kept the machinery oiled. Blome and Brack assisted from the side of the civilian and party authorities. The Wehrmacht provided supervision and technical assistance for those experiments in which it was most interested. A low-pressure chamber was furnished for the high-altitude tests, the services of Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher for the high-altitude and freezing experiments, and those of Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck for sea-water. In the important but sinister typhus researches, the eminent Dr. Rose appeared for the Luftwaffe to give expert guidance to Ding. The proper steps were taken to insure that the results were made available to those who needed to know. Annual meetings of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht held under Handloser’s direction were favored with lectures on some of the experiments. The report on the high-altitude experiment was sent to Field Marshal Milch, and a moving picture about them was shown at the Air Ministry in Berlin. Weltz spoke on the effects of freezing at a medical conference in Nuernberg, the same symposium at which Rascher and others passed on their devilish knowledge. There could, we submit, be no clearer proof of conspiracy. This was the medical service of the Third Reich at work. Among the defendants in the box sit the surviving leaders of that service. We will ask the Tribunal to determine that neither scientific eminence nor superficial respectability shall shield them against the fearful consequences of the orders they gave. I intend to pass very briefly over matters of medical ethics, such as the conditions under which a physician may lawfully perform a medical experiment upon a person who has voluntarily subjected himself to it, or whether experiments may lawfully be performed upon criminals who have been condemned to death. This case does not present such problems. No refined questions confront us here. None of the victims of the atrocities perpetrated by these defendants were volunteers, and this is true regardless of what these unfortunate people may have said or signed before their tortures began. Most of the victims had not been condemned to death, and those who had been were not criminals, unless it be a crime to be a Jew, or a Pole, or a gypsy, or a Russian prisoner of war. Whatever book or treatise on medical ethics we may examine, and whatever expert on forensic medicine we may question, will say that it is a fundamental and inescapable obligation of every physician under any known system of law not to perform a dangerous experiment without the subject’s consent. In the tyranny that was Nazi Germany, no one could give such a consent to the medical agents of the State; everyone lived in fear and acted under duress. I fervently hope that none of us here in the courtroom will have to suffer in silence while it is said on the part of these defendants that the wretched and helpless people whom they froze and drowned and burned and poisoned were volunteers. If such a shameless lie is spoken here, we need only remember the four girls who were taken from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp and made to lie naked with the frozen and all but dead Jews who survived Dr. Rascher’s tank of ice water. One of these women, whose hair and eyes and figure were pleasing to Dr. Rascher, when asked by him why she had volunteered for such a task, replied, “rather half a year in a brothel than half a year in a concentration camp.” Were it necessary, one could make a long list of the respects in which the experiments which these defendants performed departed from every known standard of medical ethics. But the gulf between these atrocities and serious research in the healing art is so patent that such a tabulation would be cynical. We need look no further than the law which the Nazis themselves passed on the 24th of November 1938 for the protection of animals. This law states explicitly that it is designed to prevent cruelty and indifference of man towards animals and to awaken and develop sympathy and understanding for animals as one of the highest moral values of a people. The soul of the German people should abhor the principle of mere utility without consideration of the moral aspects. The law states further that all operations or treatments which are associated with pain or injury, especially experiments involving the use of cold, heat, or infection, are prohibited, and can be permitted only under special exceptional circumstances. Special written authorization by the head of the department is necessary in every case, and experimenters are prohibited from performing experiments according to their own free judgment. Experiments for the purpose of teaching must be reduced to a minimum. Medico-legal tests, vaccinations, withdrawal of blood for diagnostic purposes, and trial of vaccines prepared according to well-established scientific principles are permitted, but the animals have to be killed immediately and painlessly after such experiments. Individual physicians are not permitted to use dogs to increase their surgical skill by such practices. National Socialism regards it as a sacred duty of German science to keep down the number of painful animal experiments to a minimum. If the principles announced in this law had been followed for human beings as well, this indictment would never have been filed. It is perhaps the deepest shame of the defendants that it probably never even occurred to them that human beings should be treated with at least equal humanity. This case is one of the simplest and clearest of those that will be tried in this building. It is also one of the most important. It is true that the defendants in the box were not among the highest leaders of the Third Reich. They are not the war lords who assembled and drove the German military machine, nor the industrial barons who made the parts, nor the Nazi politicians who debased and brutalized the minds of the German people. But this case, perhaps more than any other we will try, epitomizes Nazi thought and the Nazi way of life, because these defendants pursue the savage premises of Nazi thought so far. The things that these defendants did, like so many other things that happened under the Third Reich, were the result of the noxious merger of German militarism and Nazi racial objectives. We will see the results of this merger in many other fields of German life; we see it here in the field of medicine. Germany surrendered herself to this foul conjunction of evil forces. The nation fell victim to the Nazi scourge because its leaders lacked the wisdom to foresee the consequences and the courage to stand firm in the face of threats. Their failure was the inevitable outcome of that sinister undercurrent of German philosophy which preaches the supreme importance of the state and the complete subordination of the individual. A nation in which the individual means nothing will find few leaders courageous and able enough to serve its best interests. Individual Germans did indeed give warning of what was in store, and German doctors and scientists were numbered among the courageous few. At a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists held in Munich in 1931, when the poisonous doctrines of the Nazis were already sweeping Germany, there was a discussion of mercy killings and sterilization, and the Nazi views on these matters, with which we are now familiar, were advanced. A German professor named Oswald Bumke rose and made a reply more eloquent and prophetic than anyone could have possibly realized at the time. He said: “I should like to make two additional remarks. One of them is, please for God’s sake leave our present financial needs out of all these considerations. This is a problem which concerns the entire future of our people, indeed, one may say without being over-emotional about it, the entire future of humanity. One should approach this problem neither from the point of view of our present scientific opinion nor from the point of view of the still more ephemeral economic crises. If by sterilization we can prevent the occurrence of mental disease then we should certainly do it, not in order to save money for the government but because every case of mental disease means infinite suffering to the patient and to his relatives. But to introduce economic points of view is not only inappropriate but outright dangerous because the logical consequence of the thought that for financial reasons all these human beings, who could be dispensed with for the moment, should be exterminated, is a quite monstrous logical conclusion; we would then have to put to death not only the mentally sick and the psychopathic personalities but all the crippled including the disabled veterans, all old maids who do not work, all widows whose children have completed their education, and all those who live on their income or draw pensions. That would certainly save a lot of money but the probability is that we will not do it. “The second point of advice is to use utmost restraint, at least until the political atmosphere here in this country shall have improved, and scientific theories concerning heredity and race can no longer be abused for political purposes. Because, if the discussion about sterilization today is carried into the arena of political contest, then pretty soon we will no longer hear about the mentally sick but, instead, about Aryans and non-Aryans, about the blonde Germanic race and about inferior people with round skulls. That anything useful could come from that is certainly improbable; but science in general and genealogy and eugenics in particular would suffer an injury which could not easily be repaired again.” I said at the outset of this statement that the Third Reich died of its own poison. This case is a striking demonstration not only of the tremendous degradation of German medical ethics which Nazi doctrine brought about, but of the undermining of the medical art and thwarting of the techniques which the defendants sought to employ. The Nazis have, to a certain extent, succeeded in convincing the peoples of the world that the Nazi system, although ruthless, was absolutely efficient; that although savage, it was completely scientific; that although entirely devoid of humanity, it was highly systematic—that “it got things done.” The evidence which this Tribunal will hear will explode this myth. The Nazi methods of investigation were inefficient and unscientific, and their techniques of research were unsystematic. These experiments revealed nothing which civilized medicine can use. It was, indeed, ascertained that phenol or gasoline injected intravenously will kill a man inexpensively and within 60 seconds. This and a few other “advances” are all in the field of thanatology. There is no doubt that a number of these new methods may be useful to criminals everywhere and there is no doubt that they may be useful to a criminal state. Certain advance in destructive methodology we cannot deny, and indeed from Himmler’s standpoint this may well have been the principal objective. Apart from these deadly fruits, the experiments were not only criminal but a scientific failure. It is indeed as if a just deity had shrouded the solutions which they attempted to reach with murderous means. The moral shortcomings of the defendants and the precipitous ease with which they decided to commit murder in quest of “scientific results”, dulled also that scientific hesitancy, that thorough thinking-through, that responsible weighing of every single step which alone can insure scientifically valid results. Even if they had merely been forced to pay as little as two dollars for human experimental subjects, such as American investigators may have to pay for a cat, they might have thought twice before wasting unnecessary numbers, and thought of simpler and better ways to solve their problems. The fact that these investigators had free and unrestricted access to human beings to be experimented upon misled them to the dangerous and fallacious conclusion that the results would thus be better and more quickly obtainable than if they had gone through the labor of preparation, thinking, and meticulous preinvestigation. A particularly striking example is the sea-water experiment. I believe that three of the accused—Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng, and Beiglboeck—will today admit that this problem could have been solved simply and definitively within the space of one afternoon. On 20 May 1944 when these accused convened to discuss the problem, a thinking chemist could have solved it right in the presence of the assembly within the space of a few hours by the use of nothing more gruesome than a piece of jelly, a semi-permeable membrane and a salt solution, and the German Armed Forces would have had the answer on 21 May 1944. But what happened instead? The vast armies of the disenfranchised slaves were at the beck and call of this sinister assembly; and instead of thinking, they simply relied on their power over human beings rendered rightless by a criminal state and government. What time, effort, and staff did it take to get that machinery in motion! Letters had to be written, physicians, of whom dire shortage existed in the German Armed Forces whose soldiers went poorly attended, had to be taken out of hospital positions and dispatched hundreds of miles away to obtain the answer which should have been known in a few hours, but which thus did not become available to the German Armed Forces until after the completion of the gruesome show, and until 42 people had been subjected to the tortures of the damned, the very tortures which Greek mythology had reserved for Tantalus. In short, this conspiracy was a ghastly failure as well as a hideous crime. The creeping paralysis of Nazi superstition spread through the German medical profession and, just as it destroyed character and morals, it dulled the mind. Guilt for the oppressions and crimes of the Third Reich is widespread, but it is the guilt of the leaders that is deepest and most culpable. Who could German medicine look to to keep the profession true to its traditions and protect it from the ravaging inroads of Nazi pseudo-science? This was the supreme responsibility of the leaders of German medicine—men like Rostock and Rose and Schroeder and Handloser. That is why their guilt is greater than that of any of the other defendants in the dock. They are the men who utterly failed their country and their profession, who showed neither courage nor wisdom nor the vestiges of moral character. It is their failure, together with the failure of the leaders of Germany in other walks of life, that debauched Germany and led to her defeat. It is because of them and others like them that we all live in a stricken world. ----- [7] Tr. pp. 12-74. [8] This chart is contained in Section VI, Organization of the German Medical Service, NO-645, Pros. Ex. 3, p. 91. [9] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuremberg, 1947. [10] Ibid., p. 271. [11] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol I, p. 247, Nuremberg, 1947. [12] Ibid., p. 301. V. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT ON THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE MADE BY THE PROSECUTION, 10 DECEMBER 1946[13] MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal: Before any evidence is presented, it is my purpose to show the process whereby documents have been procured and processed in order to be presented in evidence by the United States. I shall also describe and illustrate the plan of presenting documents to be followed by the prosecution in this case. When the United States Army entered German territory it had specialized military personnel whose duties were to capture and preserve enemy documents, records, and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary document centers. Later each Army established fixed document centers in the United States Zone of Occupation where their documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloging was begun. Certain of these document centers in the United States Zone of Occupation have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers. When the International Military Tribunal was set up, field teams under the direction of Major William H. Coogan were organized and sent out to the various document centers. Great masses of German documents and records were screened and examined. Those selected were sent to Nuernberg to be processed. These original documents were then given trial identification numbers in one of five series designated by the letters: “PS”, “L”, “R”, “C”, and “EC”, indicating the means of acquisition of the documents. Within each series, documents were listed numerically. The prosecution in this case shall have occasion to introduce in evidence documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan. Some of these documents were introduced in evidence before the IMT and some were not. As to those which were, this Tribunal is required by Article XX of Ordinance No. 7 to take judicial notice thereof. However, in order to simplify the procedure, we will introduce photostatic copies of documents used in Case No. 1 before the IMT to which will be attached a certificate by Mr. Fred Niebergall, the Chief of our Document Control Branch, certifying that such document was introduced in evidence before the IMT and that the photostat is a true and correct copy thereof. Such documents have been and will be made available to defendants just as in the case of any other document. As to those documents processed under the direction of Major Coogan which were not used in the case before the IMT, they are authenticated by the affidavit of Major Coogan dated 19 November 1945. This affidavit served as the basis of authentication of substantially all documents used by the Office of Chief of Counsel before the IMT. It was introduced in that trial as USA Exhibit 1. Since we will use certain documents processed for the IMT trial, I would now like to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 1 the Coogan affidavit,[14] in order to authenticate such documents. This affidavit explains the manner in and means by which captured German documents were processed for use in war crimes trials. I shall not burden the court with reading it as it is substantially the same as the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall to which I shall come in a moment. I have thus far explained the manner of authenticating documents to be used in this case which were processed under the direction of Major Coogan. I now come to the authentication of documents processed not for the IMT trial, but for subsequent trials such as this one. These documents are authenticated by the affidavit of Mr. Niebergall which I offer in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 2. Since this affidavit explains the procedure of processing documents by the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, I shall read it in full: “I, Fred Niebergall, AGO, D-150636, of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I was appointed Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (hereinafter referred to as ‘OCC’) on 2 October 1946. 2. I have served in the U. S. Army for more than 5 years, being discharged as a 1st Lieutenant, Infantry, on 29 October 1946. I am now a Reserve officer with the rank of 1st Lieutenant in the Army of the United States of America. Based upon my experience as a United States Army officer, I am familiar with the operation of the United States Army in connection with seizing and processing captured enemy documents. I served as Chief of Translations for OCC from 29 July 1945 until December 1945, when I was appointed liaison officer between Defense Counsel and Translation Division of OCC as assistant to the executive officer of the Translation Division. In my capacity as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I am familiar with the processing, filing, translation, and photostating of documentary evidence for the United States Chief of Counsel. 3. As the Army overran German occupied territory and then Germany itself, certain specialized personnel seized enemy documents, records and archives. Such documents were assembled in temporary centers. Later fixed document centers were established in Germany and Austria where these documents were assembled and the slow process of indexing and cataloging was begun. Certain of these document centers have since been closed and the documents assembled there sent to other document centers. 4. In preparing for the trial before the International Military Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘IMT’) a great number of original documents, photostats, and microfilms were collected at Nuernberg, Germany. Major Coogan’s affidavit of 19 November 1945 describes the procedures followed. Upon my appointment as Chief of the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC, I received custody, in the course of official business, of all these documents except the ones which were introduced into evidence in the IMT trial and are now in the IMT Document Room in Nuernberg. Same have been screened, processed, and registered in accordance with Major Coogan’s affidavit. The unregistered documents remaining have been screened, processed, and registered for use in trials before Military Tribunals substantially in the same way as described below. 5. In preparing for trials subsequent to the IMT trial personnel thoroughly conversant with the German language were given the task of searching for and selecting captured enemy documents which disclosed information relating to the prosecution of Axis war criminals. Lawyers and research analysts were placed on duty at various document centers and also dispatched on individual missions to obtain original documents or certified photostats thereof. The documents were screened by German speaking analysts to determine whether or not they might be valuable as evidence. Photostatic copies were then made of the original documents and the original documents returned to the files in the document centers. These photostatic copies were certified by the analysts to be true and correct copies of the original documents. German-speaking analysts either at the document center or in Nuernberg, then prepared a summary of the document with appropriate references to personalities involved, index headings, information as to the source of the document, and the importance of the documents to a particular division of OCC. 6. Next, the original document or certified photostatic copy was forwarded to the Document Control Branch, Evidence Division, OCC. Upon receipt of these documents, they were duly recorded and indexed and given identification numbers in one of six series designated by the letters ‘NO,’ ‘NI,’ ‘NM,’ ‘NOKW,’ ‘NG,’ and ‘NP,’ indicating the particular Division of OCC which might be most interested in the individual documents. Within each series documents were listed numerically. 7. In the case of the receipt of original documents, photostatic copies were made. Upon return from the photostat room, the original documents were placed in envelopes in fireproof safes in the document room. In the case of the receipt of certified photostatic copies of documents, the certified photostatic copies were treated in the same manner as original documents. 8. All original documents or certified photostatic copies treated as originals are now located in safes in the document room, where they will be secured until they are presented by the prosecution to a court during the progress of a trial. 9. Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as hereinabove stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered, and processed as above outlined. [Signed] FRED NIEBERGALL.” The Niebergall affidavit is in substance the same as the Coogan affidavit which was accepted by the International Military Tribunal as sufficient authentication of documents used in Case No. 1. However, in addition to these affidavits, the prosecution in this case will attach to each document submitted in evidence, other than self-proving documents such as affidavits signed by the defendants, a certificate signed by an employee of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, reading, for example, as follows: “I, Donald Spencer, of the Evidence Division of the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, hereby certify that the attached document, consisting of one photostated page and entitled, ‘Letter from John Doe to Richard Rod, dated 19 June 1943,’ is the original of a document which was delivered to me in my above capacity, in the usual course of official business, as a true copy of a document found in German archives, records, and files captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces. “To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the original document is at the Berlin Document Center.” So much for the authentication of documents to be presented in this trial. I turn now briefly to the distribution of documents which we will use. The prosecution made available to the Defendants’ Information Center approximately a week ago three photostatic copies of the great bulk of the documents which will be used in our case-in-chief. These documents are of course in German. In addition, the prosecution has prepared document books in both German and English which contain, for the most part, mimeographed copies of the documents, arranged substantially in the order in which they will be presented in this court. Each document book contains an index giving the document number, description, and page number. A space is also provided for writing in the index number. Twelve official copies of the German document books will be filed in the Defendants’ Information Center at least 24 hours prior to the time that particular material will be introduced in court. In addition, defense counsel will receive seven so-called unofficial German document books, which will contain mimeographed copies prepared primarily for the German Press. Six official copies of the German document books will be presented to the Tribunal—one for each of the Justices on the bench and one for the Secretary General. Two of such document books will contain photostatic copies in order that the Tribunal may from time to time refer to the original. Document books will also be made available to the German interpreters and court reporters. The English document books will contain certified translations of the documents in the German document books. The documents will be numbered and indexed identically in both the English and German versions. The Defendants’ Information Center will receive four copies of the English document books at the same time the corresponding German document book is delivered. A representative group of the defense attorneys have agreed that four of the English document books are sufficient to meet their needs. The Tribunal will receive six English document books and sufficient copies will also be made available to the interpreters and court reporters. Copies of all documents introduced in evidence will thereafter be made available to the press. The prosecution will sometimes have occasion to use documents which have just been discovered and are not in document books. In such cases we will try to have copies in the Defendants’ Information Center a reasonable time in advance of their use in court. Now, I must point out to your Honors, and I do so without any embarrassment, that there will surely be some instances during the course of this trial when the prosecution fails to comply with one or the other of the court’s rulings in view of the fact that few of our personnel here were able to obtain experience and training in the technicalities in the course of Case No. 1 before the International Military Tribunal, but be that as it may, we shall constantly endeavor to present our case as fairly, as clearly, and as expeditiously as is humanly possible. The prosecution, when presenting a document in Court, will physically hand the original, or the certified photostatic copy serving as the original, to the clerk of the Tribunal, and give the document a prosecution exhibit number. In the IMT trial, the usual practice, to which there were many exceptions, was that only those documents or portions of documents which had been read aloud in Court were considered to be in evidence and part of the record. Now this was due to the fact that the IMT trial was conducted in four languages and only through that method were translations in all four languages ordinarily available. However, the IMT ruled several times, for example on 17 December 1945, that documents which had been translated into all four languages and made available to defense counsel in the Defendants’ Information Center were admissible in evidence without being read in full. The prosecution believed that, under the circumstances of this trial, which will be conducted in German and English only, and with all the prosecution’s documents translated into German, it will be both expeditious and fair to dispense with the reading in full of all documents or portions of documents. The prosecution will read some documents in full, particularly in the early stages of the trial, but will endeavor to expedite matters by summarizing documents when possible, or otherwise calling the attention of the Tribunal to such passages therein as are deemed important and relevant. With respect to the order of trial, the prosecution intends to follow, to a large degree, the order in which the various experiments are set forth in the indictment. There will be some exceptions to that; for instance, we will present the sea-water experiments, the proof of sea-water experiments following the malaria experiments, which will be third in order, and in time we will move to the proof of reading the Lost gas experiments because of the overlapping of the testimony of certain witnesses. Insofar as possible, we will endeavor to present all of the evidence relating to a particular experiment at the same time. This will be impossible, of course, where the testimony of a witness overlaps several experiments. ----- [13] Tr. pp. 75-83. [14] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. II, pp. 157-160, Nuremberg, 1947. VI. ORGANIZATION OF THE GERMAN MEDICAL SERVICES a. Introduction The opening statement of the prosecution (pp. 27-74) deals rather extensively with the organization of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, the Medical Service of the SS, and the Civilian Health Service. The Ahnenerbe Society and the Institute for Military Scientific Research, which was set up within the Ahnenerbe, are also mentioned. Evidence concerning the positions which the prosecution alleged the defendants held is contained in its document book number one. Selections from this document book are set forth on pages 81-91. b. Evidence Pros. Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NO-080 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, concerning 81 the Medical and Health Services. NO-081 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 September 1943, 83 concerning the Medical and Health Services. NO-082 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August 1944, concerning 83 the appointment of a Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services. NO-227 11 Fuehrer Decree of 7 August 1944, concerning 84 the reorganization of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. NO-303 32 Table of Organization of the “Ahnenerbe” 88 from the files of the Ahnenerbe Society. NO-422 33 Letter from Himmler to Sievers, 7 July 89 1942, concerning the establishment of an “Institute for Military Scientific Research” within the Ahnenerbe Society. NO-894 38 Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, concerning the 90 Reich Research Council. NO-645 3 Table of organization of the Reich 91 Commissioner for Health and Medical Services, drawn by the defendant Karl Brandt. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-080 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 5. FUEHRER DECREE, 28 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 515 Fuehrer Decree of 28 July 1942, Concerning the Medical and Health Services The utilization of personnel and material in the field of medical and health matters demands a coordinated and planned direction. Therefore, I order the following: 1. For the Wehrmacht I commission the Medical Inspector of the Army, in addition to his present duties, with the coordination of all tasks common to the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and the organizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, as Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is to represent the Wehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all common medical problems arising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS, and organizations and units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, and will protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures taken by the civilian authorities. For the purpose of coordinated treatment of these problems, a medical officer of the Navy and a medical officer of the Luftwaffe will be assigned to work under him, the latter in the capacity of chief of staff. Fundamental problems pertaining to the Medical Service of the Waffen SS will be worked out in agreement with the Medical Inspectorate of the Waffen SS. 2. In the field of the Civilian Health Service, the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior and Reich Chief for Public Health, Dr. Conti, is responsible for coordinated measures. For this purpose he has at his disposal the competent departments of the highest Reich authorities and their subordinate offices. 3. I empower Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt, subordinate only to me personally and receiving his instructions directly from me, to carry out special tasks and negotiations to readjust the requirements for doctors, hospitals, medical supplies, etc., between the military and the civilian sectors of the health and medical services. 4. My plenipotentiary for health and medical services is to be kept informed about the fundamental events in the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht and in the Civilian Health Service. He is authorized to intervene in a responsible manner. Fuehrer Headquarters, 28 July 1942 The Fuehrer ADOLF HITLER The Chief of the OKW KEITEL The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery DR. LAMMERS TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-081 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 6 SECOND FUEHRER DECREE, 5 SEPTEMBER 1943, CONCERNING THE MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES 1943 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 533 Second Fuehrer Decree of 5 September 1943, Concerning the Medical and Health Services In amplification of my decree concerning the Medical and Health Services of 28 July 1942 (RGBL. I, p. 515) I order: The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health Services, General Commissioner Professor Dr. med. Brandt is charged with centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities of the entire Medical and Health Services according to instructions. In this sense this order applies also to the field of Medical Science and Research, as well as to the organizational institutions concerned with the manufacture and distribution of medical material. The Plenipotentiary for the Medical and Health services is authorized to appoint and commission special deputies for his spheres of action. Fuehrer Headquarters, 5 September 1943 The Fuehrer ADOLF HITLER The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery DR. LAMMERS TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-082 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 7 FUEHRER DECREE, 25 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE APPOINTMENT OF A REICH COMMISSIONER FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES 1944 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 185 Fuehrer Decree of 25 August 1944, Concerning the Appointment of a Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services I hereby appoint the General Commissioner for Medical and Health matters, Professor Dr. Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Sanitation and Health [Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services] as well, for the duration of this war. In this capacity his office ranks as highest Reich Authority. The Reich Commissioner for Medical and Health Services is authorized to issue instructions to the offices and organizations of the State, Party, and Wehrmacht which are concerned with the problems of the medical and health services. Fuehrer Headquarters, 25 August 1944 The Fuehrer ADOLF HITLER The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery DR. LAMMERS The Head of the Party Chancellery M. BORMANN The Chief of the OKW KEITEL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-227 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT II FUEHRER DECREE OF 7 AUGUST 1944, CONCERNING THE REORGANIZATION OF THE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE WEHRMACHT Copy The Fuehrer and Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944 Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht [Chief OKW] Ops. Staff of the Wehrmacht (WFSt) Org. (I) No. 5008/44g To obtain a better concentration of powers in the field of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, I order in extension of my decree of 28 July 1942: 1. The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht will direct, as far as the special field is concerned, the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and the organizations and services installed within the framework of the Wehrmacht. He is authorized to issue orders, within the special field of his jurisdiction. 2. I approve the service regulation for the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht issued by the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. It will replace the one of 28 July 1942, which was in effect up to now. 3. The personal union of the Chief of Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army/Army Physician [Heeressanitaetsinspekteur/Heeresarzt] is herewith cancelled as of September 1944. [Signed] ADOLF HITLER The Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht Reference No. 5008/44 secret Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 August 1944 SERVICE REGULATION for the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht[15] [Chef W San] I Subordination and Powers 1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will be directly under the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht. He will have the position of an office chief [Amtschef] and the disciplinary power according to paragraph 18 of the Wehrmacht Regulation for Disciplinary Action (WDSTO) and the other powers of a Commanding General. 2. He has authority according to No. 1 of the Fuehrer Decree over the following: _a._ The Chief of the Army Medical Service, the Chief of the Navy Medical Service, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and the medical chiefs of the organizations and services employed within the framework of the Wehrmacht while they are acting in the area of command of the Wehrmacht. _b._ All scientific medical institutes, academies, and other medical institutions of the services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS. II Duties 1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is the adviser of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht in all questions concerning the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and of its health guidance, 2. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will direct all the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht[16] as far as the special field is concerned, with regard for the military instructions of the Chief of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces and the general rules of the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Departments. [page 2 of original] 3. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht will inform the Fuehrer’s Commissioner General about basic events in the field of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. He will represent the Wehrmacht to the civilian authorities in all mutual medical affairs and he will protect their interests in connection with the health measures of the civilian administrative authorities. He will represent the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht to the medical services of foreign powers. 4. Other duties of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht will be: _a. In the medical-scientific field_: Uniform measures in the field of health guidance, research and the combating of epidemics, and all medical measures which require a uniform ruling within the Wehrmacht. Evaluation of medical experiences. Medical matters of the recruiting system, of welfare and maintenance and of prisoners of war. The presidency of the Scientific Senate of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. _b. In the organization and training system_: Uniform and planned direction of the allocation of persons and material. Unification of the tables of organization and the tables of equipment of the medical troops and the equal provision of the forces with medical personnel.[17] Direction of a uniform development of the medical equipment.[A1] Unification in the sphere of hospital matters, balanced planning, and allocation of hospitals. Direction of the distribution of wounded and sick soldiers to the hospital installations of the Wehrmacht. Direction of the voluntary sick-nursing within the Wehrmacht. Assimilation of the organization and of the training of the new generation of medical officers. Balancing of the proportion according to the requirements of the services. Supervision of the ideological and political training of the new generation of medical officers during the course of their studies in cooperation with the Reich Student Leader. Training and advanced training of medical officers. Direction of a uniform training of the medical subaltern personnel.[A2] _c. In the field of matériel_: Centralized procurement and direction of fresh supplies of medical matériel of all kinds for the Wehrmacht. _d. General and fundamental pharmaceutical matters._ III Special Powers 1. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht is entitled to request from the services all records necessary for the performance of his assignments. 2. He is entitled to express his view on the appointment of medical officers or medical leaders in the Wehrmacht and also in the units of the Waffen SS which are subordinated to the Wehrmacht—if the position is that of a Generalarzt or a higher position. Before filling these positions, his opinion has to be heard. 3. He is entitled to inspect the medical service, the medical units, the medical troops and installations of the Wehrmacht after having informed the high command of the service concerned or the headquarters of the units concerned. He is entitled to give orders on the spot in the field of medical service, if these are necessary for the removal of emergencies and do not disagree with fundamental orders of the services. He has to inform the high commands of the services concerned about the results of the inspections and about the issued orders. 4. Fundamental changes in the organization of the medical service, in the subordination of medical officers, noncommissioned officers, and enlisted men and of the officials and employees of the medical service require the consent of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. 5. Deputy of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht shall be the senior Medical Inspector or the Medical Chief of one of the services. The Chief of Staff will act as his deputy for routine duties. 6. The Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht issues orders necessary for the performance of his assignments under the name: “Supreme Command of the Wehrmacht, Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht.” As far as necessary the services will execute his orders and requests through army channels. 7. For the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht the new table of organization of 1 April 1944 is taking effect. The necessary personnel are to be taken from the services, etc., above all from their medical inspectorates or offices. [Signed] KEITEL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-303 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 32 TABLE OF ORGANIZATION OF THE “AHNENERBE” FROM THE FILES OF THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY “THE AHNENERBE” _The President_ The Reich Leader SS H. HIMMLER _Trustee_ SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. WALTHER WUEST _The Reich Business Manager_ SS Hauptsturmfuehrer WOLFRAM SIEVERS _Reich Business Management_ _Deputy Reich Business Manager_ SS Obersturmfuehrer HERBERT MENZ _Consultant Secretary_ Dr. GISELA SCHMITZ-KAHLMANN _The Special Commissioner of the Reich Leader SS_ Sturmbannfuehrer BRUNO GALKE _Administration_ SS Untersturmbannfuehrer HANS-ULRICH HUEHNE Graduate of a Business College ALFONS EBEN The task of the Research and Instruction Group “The Ahnenerbe” is investigation of space, spirit, accomplishments, and heritage of the Indo-Germanic peoples of Nordic race, the vivification of the results of their research and their transmission to the people. Realization Establishment of instruction and research centers Assignment of research work and conduct of research expeditions Publication of scientific works Support of scientific work Organization of scientific congresses The Ahnenerbe Foundation The purpose of the Foundation is to further the endeavors of “The Ahnenerbe”, registered society, by donations from the proceeds of the capital of the Foundation and from the capital itself. To interest people who declare themselves willing to put certain contributions either once or at fixed intervals at the disposal of the Foundation. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-422 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 33 LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO SIEVERS, 7 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN “INSTITUTE FOR MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH” WITHIN THE AHNENERBE SOCIETY The Reich Leader SS Fuehrer Headquarters, 7 July 1942 AR 48/6/42 [Stamp] 1. Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives, File No. AR/22/21 SECRET! 1. To the Reich Manager of the Ahnenerbe SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers _Berlin-Dahlem_ I request the Ahnenerbe 1. to establish an Institute for Military Scientific Research, 2. to support in every possible way the research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, and to promote all corresponding research and undertakings, 3. to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to procure them, 4. to make use of the facilities available in Dachau, 5. to contact the Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office [Wirtschaftsverwaltungshauptamt] with regard to the costs, which can be borne by the Waffen SS. [Signed] H. H. [HEINRICH HIMMLER] 2. Copy forwarded to the Chief of the Economic and Administrative Main Office, SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl Berlin—Lichterfelde—West with the request to take note. By order, [Signed] BRANDT SS Obersturmbannfuehrer M. 7.7. Certified True Copy: Signed M. SS Obersturmfuehrer 7.7. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-894 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 38 FUEHRER DECREE, 9 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL 1942 REICHSGESETZBLATT, PART 1, PAGE 389 Fuehrer Decree of 9 June 1942 Concerning the Reich Research Council The necessity to expand all available forces to highest efficiency in the interest of the state requires, not only in peace time but also, and especially, in war time, the concentrated effort of scientific research and its channellization toward the goal to be aspired. Therefore, I commission the Reich Marshal Hermann Goering to establish as an independent entity a Reich Research Council, which is to serve this purpose, to take over its chairmanship himself and to give it a charter. Leading men of science above all are to make research fruitful for warfare by working together in their special fields. The hitherto existing Reich Research Council which was under the Reich Minister for Science and Education [Wissenschaft, Erziehung und Volksbildung] is to be absorbed by the new organization. The means needed for research purposes are to be established in the Reich budget as far as they will not be raised from contributions (for research) of circles interested in research. Fuehrer Headquarters, 9 June 1942 The Fuehrer ADOLF HITLER The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery DR. LAMMERS TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-645 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 3 [Illustration: Table of Organization of the Reich Commissioner for Health and Medical Service, drawn by the defendant Karl Brandt] ----- [15] To Wehrmacht in this connection belong: Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS units under orders of the Wehrmacht and the organizations and services engaged within the framework of the Wehrmacht. [Footnote in original document.] [16] Same as Footnote 15 above. [17] As to the Navy these rules will not apply or will apply with restrictions only to personnel _on board_. [Footnote in original document.] VII. EXTRACTS FROM ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE A. Medical Experiments 1. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving high-altitude experiments (par. 6 (_A_) of the indictment). During the course of the trial, the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Karl Brandt, Handloser, Poppendick, and Mrugowsky. Only the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Sievers were convicted on this charge. The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the high-altitude experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It appears below on pages 114 to 140. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 140 to 198. b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANTS RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ_ Early in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct research in the field of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings reached by the Allied fighter planes. This created the problem of availability of human experimental subjects, inasmuch as animal experimentation was considered inadequate. The heights involved were 12,000 meters to over 20,000 meters, hence it goes without saying that such experiments were very dangerous and, as indicated by the evidence, volunteers were not to be had. This difficulty was overcome by the use of concentration camp inmates without their consent. The first indication of this criminal plan appears in a letter from Dr. Sigmund Rascher, a Luftwaffe physician, in a letter to the Reich Leader SS dated 15 May 1941: “For the time being, I have been assigned to the Luftgau Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection course. During this course, where research on high-altitude flying plays a prominent part, determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes, considerable regret was expressed that no experiments on human beings have so far been possible for us because such experiments are very dangerous, _and nobody is volunteering_. I therefore put the serious question: is there any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be made available for these experiments?” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1602, PS, Pros. Ex. 44._) It further appears in this Rascher letter of 15 May 1941 that Rascher had conferred with another Luftwaffe physician and that a tentative agreement had been reached wherein it was determined that the experiments on the concentration camp inmates, in which the experimental subjects were expected to die, would be performed at the “Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe” at Munich: “The experiments are being performed at the Ground Station for High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe [Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at Munich. The experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot, as it had been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, because monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had an absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments. He also is of the opinion that the problems in question can only be solved by experiments on human beings.” (_1602-PS, Pros. Ex. 44._) * * * * * Weltz testified that a meeting took place in the summer of 1941 on the occasion of a visit by Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke to Luftgau VII. (_Tr. p. 7056._) In a discussion between Weltz, Kottenhoff, and Hippke, Hippke gave his approval in principle to the experiments if they were deemed necessary. (_Tr. p. 7065._) In the course of the summer of 1941, Rascher went to Weltz and proposed the slow-ascent experiments, but Weltz turned them down as unnecessary. (_Tr. p. 7176._) This testimony of the defendant Weltz clearly indicates the jurisdiction Weltz had over Rascher’s activities. This refusal to permit the performance of slow-ascent experiments bears out the contention of the prosecution that the defendant Weltz had the power and the authority to intervene at any time. Weltz’ actions throughout the entire development of the plans for the experiments were not merely negative. He was in full accord with the entire enterprise and he realized that Rascher did not possess the necessary qualifications to conduct these experiments without the assistance of a specialist in this particular field of aviation medicine. Furthermore, although Rascher was attached to Weltz’ Institute he had no other definite work. (_Tr. pp. 7078 and 7187._) To find a specialist to collaborate with Weltz and Rascher proved to be a difficult task. Weltz first approached members of his own institute, namely Lutz and Wendt, men of considerable reputation in this field, but to no avail. Wolfgang Lutz appeared before this Tribunal and testified that Weltz requested his assistance, as well as the assistance of Wendt, but that they both refused on moral grounds. (_Tr. p. 269._) Weltz did not deny this, but contended that his questions to Lutz were purely rhetorical. (_Tr. p. 7069._) The inability to interest a specialist in the field of high-altitude research to collaborate with Rascher explains the cause for the lapse of time between the date of the authorization by Himmler and the actual date of the commencement of the experiments, viz, July 1941 to February 1942. Weltz was not a specialist in high-altitude research. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania, and Rascher was comparatively a novice in this field. The next step taken by Weltz, which led to the completion of the plans to conduct the high-altitude experiments on human beings at the Dachau concentration camp, was his invitation to the defendants Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. These two men were experts in this field and were interested in further research in altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters. Weltz testified that he made a trip to Berlin and that Ruff accepted his invitation to collaborate with Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7188._) The evidence shows that Weltz approached Ruff and Romberg as he needed expert assistance. (_NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _NO-191, Pros. Ex. 43_.) The defendant Ruff stated that he first heard of the plan to carry out research on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp from the defendant Weltz and that Weltz desired collaboration between Romberg and Rascher and between Weltz’ Institute and Ruff’s Institute. (_Tr. p. 6653._) Furthermore, Ruff testified that Weltz stated: “It is, of course, best if you or Romberg take part in these experiments because Romberg had already carried out such parachute descent experiments and is therefore the man who knows about the whole problem of rescue from high altitudes.” (_Tr. pp. 6654-5._) Ruff further testified that Weltz suggested that a new series of experiments in parachute descents from great heights should be carried out at Dachau on prisoners. (_Tr. p. 6653._) From this moment on, the experimental program started to move as a mutual undertaking. This is better stated by the defendant Weltz: “This was to be a mutual undertaking, during which Ruff was to detail Romberg and I was to detail Rascher. Ruff naturally was to be chief of Romberg and I, as a matter of course, was to be Rascher’s chief. Ruff couldn’t give any orders to Rascher. Rascher was a captain in the Medical Corps and Ruff was a civilian. I couldn’t give any orders to Romberg because Romberg was a civilian while I was a soldier. Naturally, this is how the distribution was. It had to be that way. Furthermore, it was clear that I couldn’t in any way retire. I could not just leave Rascher to Ruff. It was quite clear that I had to participate in these experiments by exercising supervision, but not by actively participating.” (_Tr. p. 7079._) This evidence certainly rebuts Weltz’ vague contention that he was not in search of specialists in high-altitude research to collaborate with him and Rascher. Without the efforts of Weltz the experiments could never have taken place. In brief, to conduct these experiments at altitudes exceeding 12,000 meters Weltz found it necessary to secure the assistance of experts in the field, as well as a low-pressure chamber which would meet his needs. Ruff and Romberg possessed both, and in the above manner Weltz skillfully engineered the whole plan. Immediately after Weltz had completed his negotiations with Ruff, he called a meeting at his institute in Munich, wherein discussions of a technical nature concerning the experiments were held. At this meeting, Ruff, Romberg, Rascher, and Weltz were in attendance. This meeting was at Weltz’ Institute and Weltz presided over the meeting. It was further decided that a second meeting was to be held at Dachau a few days later in order to make the necessary arrangements with the camp commander. This trip took place in order to discuss technical preparations with the camp commander, and to arrange details concerning the selection of the experimental subjects. Again, Weltz, Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher were in attendance, in addition to Piorkowski, the camp commander, and Schnitzler of the staff of the Reichsfuehrung SS. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40_; _NO-437, Pros. Ex. 42_; _NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47_; _Tr. pp. 7086-7_.) After the arrangements with the camp authorities at Dachau had been completed, the shipment of the low-pressure chamber from Berlin was the next problem to overcome. As pointed out earlier, Weltz desired the low-pressure chamber which was possessed by Ruff and Romberg for use in the experiments at Dachau. It is interesting to note that Weltz had had a low-pressure chamber available in his own institute from 1938 on (_Tr. p. 7178._), and that Weltz testified that volunteers from his student body or from the Luftwaffe were available. (_Tr. pp. 7180-83._) Despite this, it was necessary to resort to the concentration camp for inmates and, in order to conduct the experiments, a mobile pressure chamber had to be brought down from the Ruff Institute in Berlin, as the low-pressure chamber in the Weltz Institute was not mobile. The mobile low-pressure chamber from Ruff’s Institute at Berlin was driven to Weltz’ Institute in Munich and arrived in the late afternoon. This chamber was driven to Munich by employees of the DVL and turned over to Weltz. On the following day, SS drivers came from Dachau, received the keys to the chamber and drove it to the concentration camp. (_Tr. p. 7199._) The purpose in camouflaging this activity was to deceive the employees of the DVL because Weltz and Ruff did not want them to know that the low-pressure chamber was to be used in an experimental program at a concentration camp. This is borne out by the fact that a completely new set of drivers came from the concentration camp to take the chamber to Dachau. This particular action of secrecy is noticeable when it is considered that Dachau is merely 12 kilometers from Munich and actually the DVL drivers had to go out of their way to deliver the chamber to the Weltz Institute. Ruff testified that the secrecy in the transfer of the chamber to Dachau was for security reasons. (_Tr. p. 6550._) From the evidence thus far summarized, and indeed from Weltz’ own admission, it is clear that he must be found guilty of the high-altitude crimes committed in Dachau. This was a criminal undertaking from its inception. It was known to all concerned that the proposed experiments were certain to result in deaths and that they were to be performed on nonvolunteers. That is proved by the very first letter to Himmler. Weltz supported the ambition of his subordinate, Rascher, to perform the experiments on behalf of the Weltz Institute. He secured the collaboration of Ruff and Romberg. He obtained the consent of Hippke and a research assignment from the Referat for Aviation Medicine under Anthony and Becker-Freyseng. He took care of the technical arrangements and participated in conferences with Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher which decided on the experiments to be performed. Weltz did more in having the experiments performed than anyone else. His guilt is clearly established on this evidence alone. It is not disputed that Rascher was subordinated to him until February 1942. Weltz’ main defense is that he had Rascher transferred from his institute late in February 1942 and, hence, cannot be held responsible for what happened thereafter. Even if true, this is no defense. Weltz had long since participated in the criminal enterprise. He cannot be heard to say that “Yes, I did all that, but I’m not responsible for the actual consequences which my acts were expected to bring about.” The deaths which occurred in these experiments were foreseeable from the beginning. Weltz does not escape responsibility for those deaths, even if it were true that Rascher was not subordinated to him when they occurred. But that is not true, as the evidence proves. The actual date of the commencement of the experiments at Dachau was 22 February 1942, which was recalled by the witness Neff because it was his birthday. (_Tr. p. 606._) From this point on, the defendant Weltz takes the position that he had no knowledge of the work and that, in fact, Rascher was relieved from his command. Weltz admitted that it was his obligation to supervise Rascher and that the existing arrangement between Ruff and Weltz was that this was to be a joint undertaking. Ruff exercised supervision over Romberg, and Weltz was to exercise supervision over Rascher. Weltz conceded that he was Rascher’s disciplinary superior and was responsible for the scientific programs to which he assigned Rascher. (_Tr. p. 7088._) Despite this chain of command and working agreement, Weltz takes the position that Rascher endeavored to work independently and that he did not desire to report to Weltz. (_Tr. pp. 7088-9._) It became necessary for Weltz to order Rascher to report to him twice a week and, as a result of this order, Weltz alleges that Rascher came to him in the middle of February and that they had their first conversation since the meeting in Dachau and on that occasion, Rascher informed Weltz that the experiments had not even started yet and that he had nothing to report. (_Tr. p. 7089._) Weltz testified that Anthony, under whom Becker-Freyseng worked in the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate, in Berlin, telephoned him to inquire how the Dachau experiments were progressing and that he could only reply that nothing had been reported to him. Rascher reported to him for the second time, whereupon Weltz informed Rascher that a telephone call had come through from Berlin and that he wanted to have some clarification as to how things stood at Dachau. Rascher did not want to report anything to Weltz at the second conversation, and Weltz maintains that he told Rascher that he was going to Berlin to clear up the situation and obtain a clear decision whether or not Rascher was to report to him. Then, on the occasion of the third visit from Rascher, Weltz, expecting a sharp argument, asked Wendt of his office to come into the room, and on that occasion he confronted Rascher with the alternative either to report to him or to leave the institute. Weltz asserts that at that time Rascher showed him a telegram from Himmler, which read: “Experiments are to be kept secret from everyone.” (_Tr. p. 7089._) Thereupon, Weltz maintains that he ordered Rascher from his institute and that he then composed a letter, together with Wendt, to the Luftgau and asked for Rascher’s immediate transfer and that within a few days Rascher’s assignment had ended. (_Tr. p. 7090._) The memorandum of Nini Rascher to Himmler of 24 February 1942 shows that at that time Rascher was still subordinate to Weltz. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) She reviewed the history of the experiments and pointed out that on 24 July 1941 Rascher, Kottenhoff, and Weltz were to be in charge. Kottenhoff was transferred to Romania in August and thereby excluded from the group. She stated that it was Weltz’s task to initiate the technical execution of the experiments. Apparently because of a fear of moral objections on the part of Hippke, Weltz had postponed the beginning of the experiments but had finally secured Ruff and Romberg to collaborate with Rascher. A conference took place in Dachau between Piorkowski, Schnitzler, Weltz, Rascher, Romberg, and Ruff. Weltz had given the assurance that he would take care of the authorization for Rascher. Mrs. Rascher complained that on 18 February, after Rascher had carried out all the preparatory work, Weltz stated: “Now that you have removed all obstacles from the path of Romberg with the SS, the authorization must be handled differently.” Mrs. Rascher stated that both Romberg and Rascher agreed that Weltz was not needed anymore and that both opposed his attempts to oust Rascher in favor of himself. Weltz contended that the truth of the matter was that he wished to get rid of Rascher, and that Mrs. Rascher had misrepresented this to Himmler so that it would appear that he was trying to eliminate Rascher in order to keep the work exclusively to himself. (_Tr. p. 7099._) There can be no question that Mrs. Rascher was quite correct in her analysis of the situation. What possible reason could Weltz have for desiring, just before the experiments began, to eliminate Rascher unless he wished to participate himself personally and thus secure a larger share of the scientific credit? Certainly he had supported Rascher from the very inception of the proposal to perform the experiments. Be that as it may, the proof shows that Rascher continued to participate in the experiments as a subordinate of Weltz. This is clearly proved by a file memorandum of Schnitzler of the SS office in Munich, dated 28 April 1942. (_NO-264, Pros. Ex. 60._) This memorandum shows that Rascher was still subordinated to Weltz, and that Weltz was insisting on active participation in the experiments and full responsibility. The RLM [Reich Air Ministry] had inquired of Weltz how long the experiments would last, and whether it was justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long. Rascher, who was chafing under his subordination to Weltz, requested that his assignment be changed to the DVL [German Aviation Research Institute], Dachau Branch. Weltz’ only reaction to this document was that the date was wrong and should read 28 February 1942 instead of 28 April 1942. (_Tr. p. 7099 ff._) Weltz conceded on cross-examination that, assuming the date 28 April 1942 was correct, then of course Rascher was still his subordinate at that time. (_Tr. p. 7232._) The file memorandum of Sievers dated 3 May 1942 settled this question beyond any doubt. This memorandum reads as follows: “SS Untersturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher reported in Munich on 29 April 1942 about the result of the conference with Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz. Weltz requested that Dr. Rascher be withdrawn if by Friday, 1 May 1942 he (Weltz) were not taken into consultation regarding the experiments. The Reich Leader SS was informed accordingly. He ordered SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff on 30 April 1942 to send a telegram to Field Marshal Milch requesting that Dr. Rascher be ordered to the German Aviation Research Institute [Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt], Dachau Branch, and there to be at the disposal of the Reich Leader SS.” (_NO-1359, Pros. Ex. 493._) After having been confronted with this document Weltz in effect conceded that his previous testimony about the transfer of Rascher had been, to say the least of it, incorrect. He said: “Yes, now the entire matter looks somewhat different. If I had this file note of Sievers in addition to my other documents, I would have known that the note of Schnitzler was correct, and that there must be another possibility to explain Mrs. Nini Rascher’s letter. This letter, on the other hand, cannot be explained now. I can only try to reconstruct the dates from the documents which were available here, since I no longer know them today.” (_Tr. p. 7239._) On redirect examination by his defense counsel, Weltz was asked again to clarify the situation with respect to Rascher’s subordination, and he replied: “Since my first attempt to clarify this contradiction came to naught, I should not like to try again. I simply can see no way to clarify it on the basis of the material before me.” (_Tr. p. 7251._) In a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Wolff it is again made evident beyond any doubt that Rascher was subordinate to Weltz: “In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.) Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. C.) Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps.” (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) Thus it is clear that Weltz must be held responsible for the numerous murders which resulted during the high-altitude experiments in Dachau. Not only did he participate in plans and enterprises involving the commission of these experiments, but he also was the direct superior of Rascher who, together with Ruff and Romberg, actually executed the experiments. _Status of Prisoners Used in the Experiments_ After Weltz had successfully secured the collaboration of Ruff and Romberg, he held a meeting at his institute in Munich late in December 1941, or early in January 1942. (_Tr. p. 6657_; _Tr. p. 7086_.) Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher attended this meeting primarily to lay the groundwork for the technical arrangements necessary to perform the work at Dachau. It is alleged by all the defendants that the question regarding the status of the prisoners to be used was discussed and that Rascher had assured them that the subjects would be exclusively volunteers. (_Tr. p. 7086_; _Tr. p. 6232_; _Tr. p. 6869_.) In fact, the defendants state that Rascher exhibited a communication from Himmler which provided that the subjects must be volunteers under all circumstances. (_Tr. p. 6869._) Unfortunately, this letter has not been produced by the defense. Needless to say, the defendants take the position that such experiments were to be performed on habitual and condemned criminals and that considerations were to be offered to said “volunteers” in the event of their surviving the experiments. As a matter of fact, Romberg explicitly states that he saw the “Himmler letter” and he was able to observe the words “criminal” and “volunteer” therein. (_Tr. p. 6870._) The assertion on the part of the defendants that Himmler had ordered that the criminals used be volunteers is ridiculous and incredible when one considers that Himmler instructed Rascher to pardon these unfortunate inmates only if they could be recalled to life after having been subjected to the type of experiments outlined in Rascher’s first interim report, wherein it is shown that the experimental subjects had stopped breathing altogether and their chests had been cut open, i. e., autopsy had been actually performed on them. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) In this instance, Himmler graciously stated: “3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart, the experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life.” (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51._) It is absurd to give any weight to the allegation that Himmler provided that the subjects were to be volunteers. These men knew that volunteers could not be secured and that was the very reason for going to Himmler. This is shown in the letter from Rascher to Himmler requesting that criminals be made available due to the fact that “nobody is volunteering.” The defendant Ruff admitted on the stand that the experiments conducted on themselves and colleagues in Berlin concerned altitudes up to 12,000 meters and that the question of what would happen between 12,000 and 20,000 meters was subsequently investigated at Dachau. (_Tr. p. 6679._) It is obvious, therefore, that Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, and Rascher were unwilling to perform such investigations on themselves. The evidence has proved that the subjects used in the high-altitude experiments were not, with a few minor exceptions, volunteers. The inmates were simply selected at random in the camp and forced to undergo the experiments. Russians, Poles, Jews of various nationalities, and Germans were used. Russian prisoners of war were included, as were many political prisoners. Approximately 180 to 200 inmates were experimented on, about 70 to 80 being killed as a result. Not more than 40 of these had been “condemned to death.” Among those killed were political prisoners. (_Tr. pp. 613-18_; _also Tr. p. 432_.) This testimony of Neff, who was the inmate assistant in the experiments and who identified Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz, is corroborated by Rascher’s cable asking if Himmler’s amnesty rule applied to Russians and Poles who had been extensively used in the experiments. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) The nationality and status of inmates were easily discernible from the badges worn on their uniforms. Ruff and Romberg could have told from these that foreign nationals and political prisoners were being used. (_Tr. pp. 616-7._) The witness Neff’s testimony reveals that approximately 10 prisoners were selected as permanent, experimental subjects, but they were not volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 611, 622, and 430._) There were, however, a few “volunteers” according to Neff. He stated that “there were certain volunteers for these experiments, because Rascher promised certain persons that they would be released from the camp if they underwent these experiments.” (_Tr. p. 614._) Neff clearly pointed out that in view of the way the prisoner subjects were selected and used it was not possible to know who were volunteers, if any, and who were not volunteers. (_Tr. pp. 606-26._) They were not brought in and used as a separate group. Moreover, the evidence shows that these promises were not kept. (_Tr. p. 615._) The only evidence of a release is the case of Sabota, as outlined by Neff, and in that case he was sent to an undesirable special SS commando group. No death sentences were commuted. The defense claims for Ruff and Romberg that the experiments at Dachau were divided into two groups. The first group, the so-called Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments, was noncriminal, while the second group, the Rascher experiments, encompassed all the crimes. They contend that the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments were conducted independently of the Rascher experiments and that the 10 original subjects mentioned by Neff and Vieweg were used exclusively for the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments. Despite the testimony of the witnesses and the weight of the documentary evidence, they would have the Tribunal believe that by a wondrous working of fate these were all volunteers and no crimes occurred. This defense is of course inapplicable to Weltz. Rascher was subordinated to and subject to his orders. It should be noted that Romberg and Rascher who tested themselves in the altitude chamber at Dachau with an air pressure equivalent to 12,500 and 13,500 meters altitude respectively, for 30 to 40 minutes, discontinued these experiments on themselves because of intense pain. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Yet, these men proceeded, as proved by their own joint report, to conduct experiments on prisoners which they would not perform on themselves. The experimenters took no responsibility or even interest in seeing to it that the alleged promises made to the subjects to induce them to “volunteer” were kept. (_Tr. p. 6993._) Although Romberg said he had no channel to Himmler, he also admitted he visited Himmler with Rascher in July 1942. (_Tr. pp. 7015-6._) In this connection, we must consider the convenient line of the defense. By limiting the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experiments to the 10 subjects, we find that they further allege that no deaths occurred in those experiments as opposed to a considerable number of deaths in the Rascher work. But the witness Neff, in describing the first day of the experiments, emphatically stated that the first series of experiments _was not carried out on volunteers_. Furthermore, the defendant Ruff was also present during these experiments. (_Tr. p. 622._) The defendants’ contention that the experiments were in two groups is _explicitly denied_ by Neff. He testified that Romberg not only experimented with Rascher on the original 10 subjects, but also on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction fabricated by the defendants cannot possibly be credited in the light of Neff’s testimony. On being asked the question whether Romberg experimented only on the 10 original subjects, Neff replied: “Experiments were conducted not only with these ten persons but, for example, in a series of experiments which Romberg also conducted on a large number of other prisoners. The distinction which the defense counsel tries to make between experiments included in the report to the Luftgau or of death—it is impossible for me to make this distinction and to distinguish between those which fell into one category or the other.” (_Tr. p. 691._) Which is to be believed, the testimony of Neff, plus one’s common sense, or the self-serving statements of the defendants? This is a question the Tribunal must answer. There is no such thing as half a murderer. These defendants are responsible for those murders or they are not responsible. There is not one scintilla of evidence to support the ridiculous contention that a group of volunteers, segregated for use by Romberg, wore different colored shirts so he could tell them apart and were treated with the greatest deference. But that is just what Ruff and Romberg ask the Tribunal to find. It is absolutely impossible in the face of the record. This, alleged disassociation of Ruff and Romberg from the “crimes committed exclusively by Rascher” is in complete contradiction to the acts of these defendants during the experiments, which after all speak much louder than their present testimony. Neff testified that Romberg personally witnessed at least five deaths during the experiments, and that he made no effort to stop them nor did he even protest after the event. (_Tr. p. 619._) Romberg admitted seeing three deaths and that he knew that five to ten other murders took place in his absence. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first death Romberg saw, he said, occurred in April. He reported this to Ruff. _Yet the experiments were not discontinued._ They went on to the end of June and still more deaths occurred which Romberg saw. _To say the least of it, these defendants made themselves a party to murder by continuing the experiments._ This is true no matter how innocent they may have been up to the first death. They were duty bound to stop the experiments immediately, remove the chamber, and force a court martial of Rascher. They did none of these simple and obvious things. They did not for the very reason that deaths were expected from the very beginning and were a part of the experimental plan. Romberg saw these men die and did absolutely nothing. It was within his power to save them at the time. He said he was operating the electrocardiograph. He knew precisely by their heart action when the subjects were in danger of dying. He also knew this from his knowledge of reaction to high altitudes. He could see and read the pressure gauges. He could have turned the pressure down and saved their lives by simply moving the gauge which was within arm’s reach. He was a bigger man than Rascher. Force could have been used if necessary. Not only did he do nothing while the helpless victims died before his very eyes, but he assisted in the autopsies. After all these murders had occurred and were known to them, Ruff and Romberg still went on. They issued a joint report on the experiments in the name of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher in July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) They were still collaborating with this admitted murderer and gave him the cover of their scientific reputation. Romberg received a medal for his work in the experiments on the recommendation of Rascher. (_1607-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 65._) Romberg was still supporting Rascher in September 1942 and was to have made an oral report to Milch on the experiments with Rascher. He wrote a memorandum on Rascher’s behalf explaining that the report was not given because Milch was unable to receive them at the scheduled time. This same memorandum, signed by Romberg, proves that _he was anxious to continue high-altitude experiments with Rascher and asked for Milch’s permission_. He wrote: “Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to the State Secretary (Milch) our wishes concerning the distribution of the report and the continuation of the experiments. * * * Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on 11 September, our wishes concerning distribution and confirmation of the experiments to the State Secretary. The State Secretary had approved the distribution schedule, and said that a continuation of the experiment was not urgent.” (_NO-224, Pros. Ex. 76._) In the meantime, the murderous freezing experiments had been started with the Luftwaffe team of Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher. Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz all heard the report of those experiments in Nuernberg in October 1942. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Hippke himself wrote his special thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942, and said: “When the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be allowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher?” (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72._) * * * * * _Analysis of the Experiments_ The experiments at Dachau in the field of high-altitude research were conducted to determine human reactions to altitudes above 12,000 meters. The defendant Romberg stated that four series of experiments were conducted (_a_) slow descent without oxygen, (_b_) slow descent with oxygen, (_c_) falling without oxygen, and (_d_) falling with oxygen. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) The first two tests were designed to simulate descent with parachute open while the latter two a free fall from an airplane before the parachute opens. As pointed out in Dr. Rascher’s first interim report on the experiments, an additional problem was to be solved, namely, the determination whether the theoretically established norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings breathing air with only a small portion of oxygen and subjected to low pressure correspond with the results obtained by practical experience. This interim report of Rascher’s states as follows: “2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been conducted at all, since it has been a foregone conclusion that the human experimental subject (Versuchsperson-VP) would suffer death.” The experiments conducted by myself _and Dr. Romberg_ proved the following: “Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type were carried out in which none of VP died. Very severe bends together with unconsciousness occurred, but completely normal functions of the senses returned when a height of 7 km. was reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering during the experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time the experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they did not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days. The extent to which deterioration of the organism may occur due to continuously repeated experiments can only be established at the end of the series of experiments. _The extreme fatal experiments will be carried out on specially selected VP’s otherwise it would not be possible to exercise the rigid control so extraordinarily important for practical purposes._” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) Thus, it is clear that the experiments were planned and executed with the _intention_ that some were to terminate fatally. This report covered the period up to the first week in April and mention of deaths and autopsies is made. This quite obviously was the instance when Romberg says he saw his first death and autopsy, although he tends to place the date as the latter part of April. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) If the experiments had been stopped there the lives of many subjects would have been saved. The defendants argue that, while the experiments may have killed persons, they did not involve torture and pain. This is on the theory that the subjects lost consciousness before any sensation of pain. This anomalous defense is completely disproved by the photographic exhibits showing the expressions of pain of the subjects. (_NO-610, Pros. Ex. 41._) as well as the defendants’ own report on the experiments. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The reaction of one subject was described in terms such as “severe altitude sickness, spasmodic convulsions”. In a self-experiment by Romberg and Rascher, the latter’s reactions were described as follows: “After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg which increased continually as though Ra’s [Rascher’s] whole right side were being crushed between two presses. At the same time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe so that at last the discontinuation of the experiment became necessary.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) There is no case on record where an experiment on an inmate was discontinued because of pain. Ruff and Romberg take the position that they would be most unwilling to kill prisoners in the course of an experiment. They insist that their experiments with Rascher were concerned with the problem of explosive decompression and on parachute descent from high altitudes, whereas Rascher alone worked on sojourn or a more prolonged stay at high altitudes, and that it was in Rascher’s experiments that prisoners were killed. This again is the artificial division of the experiments into the criminal and noncriminal which has already been proved to be spurious. But here again, the two self-experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher included in their joint final report as mentioned above _were experiments on prolonged stay at high altitude, a subject which they now claim was exclusively Rascher’s_. The only reason that this experiment did not end fatally was the fact that it was interrupted in time because of intense pain. Moreover, on page 11 of the final report by Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz the following is said: “This is worthy of special attention because in this case a person has fully recovered mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. (27,230 ft.), after 3 minutes of the most severe lack of oxygen, _while in altitude endurance experiments_ at this altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Here, again, it is proved from their own report that Ruff and Romberg, as well as Rascher, were concerned with sojourn at high altitudes. Experiments, in which prisoners were killed, are reported in Rascher’s report to Himmler of 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) Some prisoners were killed by keeping them at 12,000 meters without oxygen for 30 minutes; one was killed at 20,000 meters when exposed there for about 6 minutes without oxygen. These prisoners were autopsied to ascertain if bubbles of gas, called air embolism in Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942, were present in the blood vessels of the brain and other organs when dissected under water. Some “Jewish professional criminals” who had committed “Rassenschande” (race pollution)[18] were killed for another reason: “To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.” (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) It should be noted that these murders were committed in connection with the _parachute descending tests_, not prolonged stay at high altitudes, and this was the very subject being studied by Ruff and Romberg. Romberg testified that he was present at the death of three of these prisoners, one in April and two in May 1942, and witnessed an autopsy of one, in which gas bubbles were present in the blood vessels of the brain. He reported these deaths to Ruff. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff testified Romberg was present in five cases where fatalities occurred (_Tr. pp. 619, 692._) and Romberg admitted that he knew that five to ten other experimental subjects were killed while he was not present. (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40._) Neff stated that Romberg actively participated in the majority of the experiments. He observed the experiments, took notes, and studied the electrocardiogram and thus was able to determine when an experimental subject in the chamber was about to die. (_Tr. p. 651._) It is incredible that Dr. Ruff was not informed regarding the finding of bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain since such observations in human beings who have died following too rapid atmospheric decompression is a very, very unique event, though bubbles had been observed many times prior to 1942 in the blood vessels of laboratory animals. It is inconceivable that Dr. Ruff, or anyone else in the field of aviation medicine, had not heard of the bubble theory of the cause of joint pains, coughing, blindness, or paralysis, or the symptoms of the pressure drop sickness, which may occur on exposure to high altitude, since this theory was well known in literature and text books of aviation medicine available since 1938. How else would Rascher have had occasion to look for the bubbles? He either learned of the theory during a course in aviation medicine or was told about it by Ruff and Romberg, who knew much more than Rascher about aviation medicine. It is fantastic that Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher did not have in mind the observations of bubbles in the blood vessels of the murdered prisoners, when, in the final joint report of 28 July 1942, they wrote: “In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack”. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with decompression or pressure-drop sickness may be due to the formation of gas bubbles (air embolism) in the blood vessels of the brain or in the regions of the joints or in the blood vessels of the lungs. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain, they are supposed to cause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas bubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause pain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks of coughing. That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 years, and an expert in the field of aviation medicine could not have been unaware of it. (_Tr. pp. 9098-9._) Since Rascher had observed bubbles as is described in his report of 11 May 1942, and since Ruff and Romberg had complete knowledge of the deaths, obviously these important findings of Rascher on air embolism did not escape the attention of Ruff and Romberg. It can only be concluded that these findings, which resulted from intentioned deaths, form the basis of the paragraph quoted above from the final report. Because of the nature of the subject matter, and a prior knowledge of the observations in the autopsies in the experiments, the ideas expressed in the paragraph quoted above cannot be separated from those in the Rascher report of 11 May. So testified the expert witness Dr. A. C. Ivy. (_Tr. p. 9151._) All of this proves again that the testimony of Ruff and Romberg to the effect they had nothing to do with the so-called “Rascher experiments” is completely false. Even though deaths are not specifically mentioned in the joint report of 28 July, it is clear from Dr. Ivy’s testimony that the findings in the death cases form the basis for a part of that report. Ruff and Romberg would have the Tribunal believe that the experiments were completed and the chamber removed from Dachau by 20 May 1942. Since Romberg knew of and reported on the deaths to Ruff in April, there clearly was no excuse whatever to leave the chamber in Dachau for even another day. But according to their own story, it stayed until 20 May and Romberg saw two more men killed. They attempted to gloss over their criminal participation in these later murders by saying that the chamber could not be moved without orders from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. Be that as it may, such a technical violation of moving the chamber without orders is hardly comparable to the crime of leaving the chamber for further experiments by a man whom they admit they knew to have been a murderer. Indeed, any decent superior who was not himself a party to the crime, as they actually were, would undoubtedly have court-martialed Ruff and Romberg for leaving the chamber there, not to speak of Rascher. But it is not true that the chamber left Dachau on 20 May 1942 as they perjuriously stated. They seized upon this date from Milch’s letter to Wolff stating that the chamber was needed elsewhere. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) There clearly was an intention to transfer the chamber, but it was _not_ in fact moved and this was undoubtedly due to the joint efforts of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher. Romberg was anxious to continue his criminal work with Rascher in September 1942 as has been pointed out above. In any event, on 4 June 1942, Milch authorized retention of the chamber in Dachau _for two more months_. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) On 25 June this order was passed on to Rascher by Heckenstaller, adjutant to Wolff, reference being made to a letter of 5 June from Rascher. (_NO-284, Pros. Ex. 64._) These documents prove beyond doubt that the chamber remained in Dachau until July 1942. The testimony of Neff not only proves that the experiments continued until July 1942 but also that Romberg was presented with a remarkable opportunity to discontinue the experiments without any trouble whatever. Neff stated that Romberg told him in the latter part of May that the chamber was to be transferred (undoubtedly as a result of Milch’s letter of 20 May which was later countermanded) and, under the impression that Romberg might not be in favor of any continuation of the experiments, he sabotaged the chamber by breaking a glass barometer in order to make sure the chamber would be sent away. Instead of seizing this opportunity for stopping the experiments by removing the damaged chamber, Romberg rushed to Berlin, obtained spare parts, and in a matter of 2 weeks had the chamber functioning again for more murderous experiments. (_Tr. pp. 623-4._) The chamber was used for another 3 weeks after it was repaired and five persons were killed on the last day of the experiments. (_Tr. p. 624._) Although the defense attacked Neff on cross-examination concerning the sabotage of the chamber (_Tr. p. 663_), by the time Romberg took the stand they admitted the chamber was damaged but moved the whole incident to the month of May instead of June. (_Tr. p. 6905._) This was obviously done on the theory that the Tribunal could be deceived into believing that very few experiments could have been conducted in May since they contend the chamber was moved on 20 May. But the documents and Neff’s testimony clearly established that the chamber was there until July. Moreover, it matters little whether the chamber was damaged in May or June. Romberg in no event took the opportunity to stop the experiments on the ground of unavailable spare parts, although this opportunity would not have been needed if he really wanted to discontinue them. He need have done nothing more complex than to have sent the chamber away or left himself. Ruff’s and Romberg’s guilt is beyond doubt when we consider that they did not take the opportunity to withdraw after the first death of an experimental subject in April 1942. Romberg admitted his presence at the death of this first subject. (_Tr. p. 6924._) He was studying the electrocardiogram at the time of the experiments (_NO-476, Pros. Ex. 40_), but he would have the Tribunal find that he was an innocent bystander who was privileged to do nothing. This was just another “SS experiment” according to Romberg. But Romberg admitted that he was working the electrocardiogram and was studying the point of light that follows the heart. When he saw that the critical point had been reached, he said he spoke to Rascher (_Tr. p. 6927_), but to no avail as Rascher continued the experiment until death resulted. This testimony of assumed impotence when a man was slowly killed before his eyes is an insult to one’s intelligence. Romberg was the senior scientist and was fully aware of the fact that the danger zone had been reached as he was thoroughly familiar with the equipment being used. He has outlined for the Tribunal the proximity of the electrocardiogram to the controls of the chamber (_Tr. p. 6929_), and it is inconceivable that Romberg could not have taken the necessary action to have spared this experimental subject’s life if he had so desired. The inescapable fact is that these deaths were part of the plan and Romberg not only had no desire to interfere but was very much interested in the cause of death through air embolism. Assuming that Romberg was opposed to this fatal experiment, it is impossible to understand why he did not take the appropriate action to have Rascher prosecuted for this premeditated murder. The fact of the matter is that Romberg merely reported this death to Ruff (_Tr. p. 6932_), and no appropriate action was taken by Ruff either. Although alleging an objection to this fatality, Romberg admits participation in the autopsy of the unfortunate victim. This autopsy clearly bore out the fact that air embolism was the cause of death. When asked if he participated in this autopsy, Romberg answered, “Yes, I watched one autopsy. That was my duty.” (_Tr. p. 6924._) Romberg testified that he saw two other deaths and that air embolism also caused those. (_Tr. pp. 6925-6._) Ruff and Romberg lay great stress on the point that deaths are not mentioned in the joint report of 28 July 1942 of Romberg, Ruff, and Rascher. This, of course, is a very understandable omission, but it in no way proves that they are not responsible for those murders. Indeed, the joint report of 28 July 1942 (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66_) is identical with Rascher’s report of 11 May 1942 (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) except for the specific mentioning of the deaths. For example, paragraph 3 of the Rascher report is a summary of part III-1, pages 3 to 18, and part III-2, pages 18 to 19 of the joint final report. Paragraph 4 of Rascher’s report contains results set out in part III-4, pages 21 to 22, of the joint final report. Paragraph 5 of Rascher’s report is identical with part III-3, pages 19 to 21, of the joint final report. Paragraph 6 of the Rascher report where the pervitin experiments are mentioned is alluded to in the pervitin data in the joint final report on page 18. Paragraph 7 of the Rascher report contains the conclusions incorporated in the joint final report and gives details on the gas bubble data which are referred to on pages 16 to 18 of the joint final report, but from which is omitted reference to the autopsy results of the murdered prisoners. These various passages were compared by the witness Ivy and he concluded that they refer to the same subject matter. (_Tr. p. 9097._) Ruff attempts to explain the omission of mention of deaths in the final report on the ground that the deaths did not occur as a result of their experiments on rescue from high altitudes (i. e., parachute descending tests), but rather in Rascher’s own experiments with which they had nothing to do (i. e., prolonged stay at high altitudes). (_Tr. p. 6592._) It has already been proved that the basic premise to this spurious argument is completely false, since Ruff and Romberg themselves were not interested in sojourn at high altitudes. The self-experiments of Romberg and Rascher were just such tests and they are specifically mentioned in the final report. These involved a stay of 30 to 40 minutes at altitudes between 12 and 13.5 kilometers (39,400 to 44,290 feet). But so also is the minor premise wrong. _Deaths were deliberately brought about in the course of the parachute descending tests._ In these tests it had been noted that the subjects suffered from spasmodic and clonic convulsions together with paralysis. This is reported in paragraph 3 of Rascher’s memorandum of 11 May 1942 on the experiments and also on pages 13 through 18 of the final report. In his memorandum, Rascher stated: “To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such _a parachute descending test_ had taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) _This proves beyond any doubt that murders were committed in the parachute descending tests of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher._ Ruff again tried to deceive the Tribunal by testifying that it was substantially impossible for air embolism to form in parachute descending tests. This is obviously disproved by the statement of Rascher quoted above and by the reference in the final report, already mentioned above, which alludes to this same problem. But the lie was also squarely nailed by the expert witness Ivy, who testified that it was possible for air embolism to form in subjects who were at altitudes above 12,000 meters (39,400 feet) only 3 minutes, that is to say, subjects who bailed out at 15,000 meters. Bubbles may form as low as 30,000 feet. (_Tr. p. 9102._) Thus, the defense that no deaths occurred during the experiments concerning rescue from high altitudes is completely spurious. Moreover, it should be noted that while the joint final report does not describe any of the death cases, it also _does not deny_ that deaths occurred. On page 25 of the original, it says: “In conclusion, we must make it particularly clear that, in view of the extreme experimental conditions in this whole experimental series, no fatality and no lasting injury _due to oxygen lack occurred_.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) The deaths described in Rascher’s report quoted above _were not due to lack of oxygen_ but were deliberate killings to investigate air embolism. But even the experiments which Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz admit were planned and performed under their responsibility were highly dangerous to the life and health of the subjects. Both Ruff and Romberg agreed that 12,000 meters was the upper limit of safety and that experiments of the type they performed above that altitude were hazardous. The description of the reaction of the subjects as set forth in the final report proves that the subject suffered severe convulsions and prolonged periods of disorientation. The expert witness Ivy pointed out that the experiments described in the final report of Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz were highly dangerous for the following reasons: “I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to which to expose the brain. I agree that * * * the electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of these subjects was not momentarily affected or significantly affected by this prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is learning, and we know that the learning process is rather sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged exposure to oxygen lack would have been to have determined the I. Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a prolonged period of oxygen lack.” (_Tr. p. 9036._) Dr. Ivy testified that the experiments described in the final report had reached the physiological limit and that work was being done in a very dangerous and hazardous zone as far as the welfare of the experimental subjects was concerned. He said that he should be reluctant to perform such experiments even on himself and that he would prefer to depend upon that degree of accuracy which could be obtained from calculations of the results of animal experiments. (_Tr. pp. 9081, 9112, and 9197._) Finally it should be noted that the experiments were neither necessary nor a scientific success. “Necessity of the State” has been much used by the defendants as if it were a defense. This is clearly unfounded even though necessity, military or otherwise, be assumed. It is to be supposed that each defendant _thought_ there was some necessity to what he was doing. This is no defense. Rascher thought the same thing. It was deemed necessary to incarcerate hundreds of thousands of persons in concentration camps. It was deemed necessary to murder millions of Jews. The slave labor policy was bottomed on necessity. If that is a defense, then these trials lose all meaning. But, on the other hand if it is proved that these experiments were not necessary, not of scientific value, then it makes the guilty even more guilty. The brutal sacrifice of human life was to no avail. And such was the case here. Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, when writing his thanks to Himmler on 8 October 1942 said the following: “It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important factor, namely, cold has so far not yet been taken into consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in actual practice will very likely prove to be far more unfavorable than in the present experiments.” (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72._) When asked his opinion concerning the necessity for the typical experiment described on page 13 of the final report of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher, the witness Ivy testified: “I do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to bail out of an airplane at high altitude.” (_Tr. p. 9035._) The witness Ivy stated further that the information which was obtained by these experiments on concentration camp inmates could have been obtained from animals as indicated by the results of Lutz’ and Wendt’s animal work referred to in the final report. The differences in the reactions of human subjects and animals, as reported by Lutz and Wendt, were not sufficient to warrant the carrying out of these hazardous experiments on human beings. (_Tr. p. 9036._) * * * * * c. Selections From the Argumentation of the Defense _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT RUFF_[19] * * * * * Certainly Dr. Ruff gave his agreement and approval to high-altitude tests with a low-pressure chamber of the Reich Air Ministry being performed by his collaborator of many years, Dr. Romberg, together with Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, in a concentration camp, using concentration camp inmates as experimental subjects. He agreed after the performance of urgent experiments in the Dachau concentration camp had already been agreed upon in principle and approved by Professor Dr. Hippke and Professor Dr. Weltz. Therefore, the question arises whether these high-altitude experiments were already illegal for the reason that they were performed on concentration camp inmates. This question must be denied for only such inmates were used for the experiments as had volunteered for them, or who at least were regarded by Ruff as volunteers and could be regarded as such in view of the whole situation, and no one could reproach him for having erred in this respect because other persons had perhaps deceived him about these facts. There are, however, some witnesses who apparently maintain that the prisoners used in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were not volunteers. Above all the witnesses Vieweg and Neff are of this opinion. During his direct examination on 13 December 1946 the witness Vieweg mentioned a series of various experiments which were performed at the Dachau concentration camp. Referring in particular to the high-altitude experiments there, which alone can be considered in the indictment against Dr. Ruff, he states firstly that high-altitude experiments with the low-pressure chamber were performed on 10 patients; “for these experiments frequently patients and also male nurses were used who during the experiments were seen in the corridor of the adjacent hospital ward.” By this Vieweg apparently wanted to point out that these “patients” and “also the nurses” were not volunteers. These 10 “official experimental subjects” had been well fed and supplied with smokes, but in addition to these 10 so-called “exhibition patients”, a large number of people had been selected from the camp who were again and again sent to the high-altitude experiment institute. That happened to a block leader who probably had pneumonia a few hours later and ended in the sick bay mortuary. The same happened in the malaria department of the witness Vieweg. One day a patient who had some differences with Zill, the leader of the camp, concerning protective custody, was sent to the experimental institute, and he (Vieweg) found him in the mortuary the next day. He (Vieweg) knows by hearsay that, “a great number of patients who took part in these experiments died, and ended up in the sick bay mortuary.” (_German Tr. p. 476._) Between the lines of this rather obscure and vague statement one may read that, according to Vieweg’s statement, these further experimental subjects, and especially those who had died during the experiments, did not belong to the 10 “official experimental subjects” and had not been volunteers. However, in the direct examination by the prosecution the witness Vieweg did not express himself explicitly about this alleged compulsion of the so-called experimental subjects. During the cross-examination by the defense counsel of Dr. Romberg, the witness Vieweg explained his expression, the “10 exhibition patients”. (_German Tr. p. 485._) The 10 selected patients who were used for the high-altitude tests had been accommodated in a special room and had been well nourished; they had been exhibited, and they had been presented to Himmler during one of his visits. Himmler made them big promises; if they survived, they would be set free * * * these 10 patients had been drawn into the experiments * * * they had told him (Vieweg) that they were very exhausted by the whole affair, but as far as he could remember “they all survived” (_German Tr. pp. 486, 489_). On being questioned the witness Vieweg repeatedly stated (_German Tr. pp. 486, 487, 489_), that as far as he could remember Dr. Rascher had carried out the experiments himself. The only thing Vieweg could state about participation of “Luftwaffe officers” in these high-altitude experiments, was that some Luftwaffe officers “had also been there”. But he could not say anything about the actual participation of the Luftwaffe officers. From the description on page 501 (German Transcript) these two gentlemen of the Luftwaffe certainly were not identical with Buff and Romberg. He himself (Vieweg) had only talked with these 10 official experimental subjects, the so-called “exhibition patients”, but not with any of the other experimental subjects. He himself had never observed that these other prisoners were used for high-altitude tests, but he had been told about it frequently. Vieweg repeatedly stated that the 10 official experimental subjects had still been alive at the end of the experiments (_German Tr. p. 489_), that no deaths had occurred among them. So much for the statement of the witness Vieweg. It is, of course, unreliable because it does not establish a clear distinction between the high-altitude experiments authorized by Ruff and carried out with the cooperation of Dr. Romberg, and other experiments in the low-pressure chamber which Rascher undertook by order of Himmler, without the authorization or previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff and without the cooperation of Dr. Romberg. This distinction, which is of decisive importance in judging this case, only appears in Vieweg’s statement insofar as the 10 official experimental subjects (the so-called “exhibition patients”) were exclusively used for the first experiments (Ruff-Romberg-Rascher), whereas other prisoners were used for the other experiments (by Rascher alone). Of course, the significance of this distinction was not clear to Vieweg at that time and could not be observed by him because Vieweg did not know anything at all about Dr. Ruff’s activity and since he did not know anything at all about the agreements which had been reached between Dr. Ruff and Dr. Rascher. Apart from these obscurities one has to regard the statement of the witness Vieweg with the greatest reserve for another reason. Vieweg is the witness who, with unusual unscrupulousness, committed plain perjury in the sessions of 13 and 16 December 1946. He tried first (_German Tr. p. 474_) to give the impression that he had been sent to the concentration camp without any reason, that he had been committed for “political protective security”. This representation of the witness Vieweg is completely in accordance with his previous behavior, because formerly he had generally pretended to be politically persecuted—an innocent man who had been thrown into a concentration camp without ever having learned the reason. Under this false pretense he offered himself as witness for this trial, and because of this misrepresentation he was presented as a witness by the prosecution whom he had deceived. However, during cross-examination, Vieweg had to admit that in 1934 he was sentenced to 4 and to 6 years’ penal servitude for forgery of documents and fraud, that is to say for common crimes which, as a rule, have nothing to do with politics. On repeated questioning the witness Vieweg stated again and again (_German Tr. pp. 483 ff._) that he could not remember having received any other previous conviction in addition to those 4 and 6 years’ penal servitude. He insisted on this statement, even though he had been repeatedly reminded that he was under oath. His stereotype phrase was, he could not remember; he even emphasized that he had deposed to this or that under oath (_German Tr. p. 484_), and he continued to insist on his statement, even though he was told that his previous convictions could be determined without difficulty since his files had been sent for. Now, let us compare the testimony given under oath with the list of convictions of the witness Vieweg, which was submitted as Document Ruff 24. Besides the 4 and 6 years of penal servitude which he admitted, the witness Vieweg received in reality not less than 6 prison terms prior to 1934, among them 5 years’ penal servitude and 5 years’ loss of civil rights for repeated grave thefts. This extract from the penal register shows why the witness Vieweg had such a “bad memory”. He never was politically persecuted, as he pretended to be, but he is the type of incorrigible professional criminal who could not be changed or educated even by the most severe penalty. If anybody deserved to be sent to a concentration camp it was this Vieweg. But even the 5 years he spent in the concentration camp did not help. For now he is again in prison, in Bamberg, where charges were brought against him on 5 March 1947 at the District Court for forgery of documents and fraud, as well as for five cases of repeated theft, for attempted abortion, for active bribery, and for black market dealings. This incorrigible professional criminal allowed himself to be presented here as a star witness for the prosecution against an honorable, blameless citizen, as which Dr. Ruff emerged in the course of this trial. Can the Court base its verdict on the statements of a person like Vieweg, who on top of everything shamelessly lied to the Tribunal and committed the worst possible perjury. The other witness presented by the prosecution for the Dachau experiments is Walter Neff.[20] He is at present in the Dachau camp for war criminals and will soon have to stand trial himself before the American Tribunal, for experiments in which he took an active part. This witness Neff, who not only continuously participated in the successful experiments of Dr. Romberg, but also in the inhuman freezing experiments, in the deadly “severe experiments” of Rascher, and who cooperated in many other cruelties, is, I think the last who should appear as a witness against a man like Dr. Ruff, or condemn him. Let us recall what this witness said about himself at the close of his testimony. According to his own admission, he produced three prisoners (a certain Robert Wagner, a prisoner named Hutterer, and a man named Sammendinger) for deadly experiments, on his own initiative without being ordered to do so. According to his own testimony, he delivered these three people over to a violent death; he murdered them. It is characteristic of his ethics that he even boasted of this act here in the courtroom! (_German Tr. pp. 737-739._) That does not trouble his conscience, as he himself declared under oath (_German Tr. p. 737_); he is just the type of those inmates who, to quote his own words “were often worse than the SS in their cruelty and brutality”. (_German Tr. p. 737._) That is the second witness who was presented against Dr. Ruff by the prosecution. The one, an unscrupulous swindler, an incorrigible habitual criminal, an old jailbird; and the other a murderer many times over whose hands are stained with much blood—a murderer who boasts that he has no conscience. Is the Court to lend credence to such people? These witnesses quite obviously believed they would be able to elude the hangman’s noose by saddling other defendants with untrue, fabricated statements. All those facts are a warning that Neff’s testimony, too, must be regarded with considerable caution. At any rate, his testimony has a certain importance for Dr. Ruff inasmuch as Neff (_German Tr. p. 652_) confirms that Dr. Ruff was in Dachau only on one single occasion during the high-altitude experiments. Thus the truth of Dr. Ruff’s own testimony has been established. Furthermore, the witness Neff, states in his testimony of 17 December 1946 that “10 prisoners, designated as permanent experimental subjects, were taken to the station and told that nothing would happen to them; they were especially assured of this”. (_German Tr. p. 711._) The witness Neff then told of the killing of the 16 Russians who were sentenced to death and who were murdered by Dr. Rascher. However, according to Dr. Neff, this act was carried out by Dr. Rascher together with the two members of the SS, while Dr. Romberg was not even present on that day. (_German Tr. pp. 654, 656._) Special importance must be attached to the witness Neff’s further assertion regarding a Jewish tailor who worked in the sick bay. Neff called Dr. Romberg’s attention to the fact that this man was not sentenced to death, and Romberg thereupon immediately went to Rascher with Neff in order “to set matters straight”. Upon intervention by Dr. Romberg, Rascher then actually sent the tailor back; when the accompanying SS man again threatened the Jew, Rascher again intervened and “immediately had the man (the tailor) brought to safety in the bunker”. (_German Tr. p. 655._) Again, in the case of a second inmate, a Czech, who wrongly and without his consent had been brought in for the experiments, Dr. Romberg, according to Neff’s report, intervened on behalf of the prisoner, with the result that Dr. Rascher entered a complaint against the criminal SS man with the camp commander, Piorkowski. Thereupon, the SS man was immediately transferred to Lublin. In that way the Czech was saved from certain death by Dr. Romberg. This testimony of the witness Neff plays an important part in answering the question whether or not the experimental subjects used were volunteers, and also, what Dr. Romberg, and therefore Dr. Ruff, knew about them and what Dr. Romberg’s attitude was toward this question. In this connection, Neff said: “Romberg, Ruff’s deputy, therefore, did not want any dangerous experiments. He tolerated no murder and considered only experiments with volunteers.” However, the further assertions of the witness Neff suffer from the same shortcomings as those of the witness Vieweg; for Neff also did not know that only part of the high-altitude experiments in Dachau were carried out with the approval of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg; nor did Neff have any knowledge of the agreements made by the participating physicians, and he therefore treated all high-altitude experiments equally, without distinguishing whether or not Dr. Ruff had agreed to them that there “were 180 to 200 inmates who participated in high-altitude experiments” (_German Tr. p. 656_) and that “during the altitude flight experiments, 70 to 80 people lost their lives.” These figures may be correct, but they refer to the whole of the Dachau low-pressure chamber experiments; that is, they also include the experiments which Dr. Rascher made on his own authority, without the prior knowledge of Dr. Ruff, and in which alone all the fatalities occurred; while in the legitimate experiments—that is, those approved by Dr. Ruff—no fatality occurred at all. Of course, Neff could not know all this. As he said himself it was impossible for him to distinguish “from whom the order came for the individual experiment, and in whose interest the experiment was made.” (_German Tr. p. 715._) The same shortcoming is demonstrated by Neff’s testimony with regard to the nationality of the experimental subjects (_German Tr. pp. 656, 657_) and the manner of their “selection”. However, Neff’s testimony does show that the selection of the experimental subjects was carried out in two different ways: For the “_dangerous experiments_” Rascher ordered the subjects through the local headquarters, and they were produced by the SS; they were therefore people condemned to death (_German Tr. p. 663_), for the “_serial experiments_”. On the other hand, and “for most of the other experiments which took place, the people were brought to the experimental station from the blocks, that is, from the camp” (_German Tr. p. 657_) by the block leaders. (_German Tr. p. 663._) These “serial experiments” were obviously the experiments approved by Ruff, and Neff expressly establishes that “_volunteers reported for these experiments_”! (_German Tr. pp. 657, 712._) He even gives the reasons why the prisoners volunteered: As Rascher, and Himmler too, had promised various inmates that, “if they, participated in the experiments, they would be given a better labor assignment”, and as Himmler promised that they might even be released, volunteers reported to Rascher on their own initiative as he went through the camp, without any special efforts being necessary to find volunteers (_German Tr. p. 657_). There can be no doubt that these volunteers, estimated by Neff to number about 10, are identical with the 10 “official experimental subjects” or “exhibition patients” mentioned already by the witness Vieweg, and it is noteworthy that Dr. Ruff, too, in his testimony always spoke of 10 or 12, or at the most 15 persons from the very beginning (of course he did not count them himself), who were regularly called in for the high-altitude experiments, and whom he saw himself when he was once present to observe and check the experiments in Dachau. This number Dr. Ruff had mentioned at a time when Neff’s and Vieweg’s testimony was not yet available. He therefore could not have anticipated that these witnesses would confirm his figures as correct. To be sure, the witness Neff testified in another place (_German Tr. p. 666_) that the first 10 experimental subjects were not volunteers. But this statement is obviously in direct contradiction to his other testimony which, in the last analysis implied—and could not be interpreted otherwise—that the so-called “10 official experimental subjects” were those prisoners who had voluntarily offered themselves, who were given all possible privileges in return, who were promised rewards for their service by Rascher as well as by Himmler, and who were repeatedly reassured that nothing would happen to them during the experiments. This whole presentation would be incomprehensible if one were to assume that these 10 persons were involuntary subjects as well, that they were simply ordered to take part in the experiments, forced to participate, for them all this would not have been necessary at all, since at that time nobody in a concentration camp would have thought of troubling himself about these people, if they had been forced against their will to take part in the experiments. In a concentration camp, according to the opinion of Himmler and his men, 1,000 people were of no consequence. Therefore, if efforts were made to obtain these inmates for the experiments, and to get them willingly, if even a Himmler found kind words to say to them and promised them rewards, then as we know today, this can only be explained by the assumption that even in concentration camps, for some reason, it was desirable to obtain voluntary subjects for the experiments and to induce them to go through the experiments voluntarily. This assumption is not refuted by the contrary assertion of Neff (_German Tr. p. 666_). For 1½ days, during his examination on 17 and 18 December 1947, Neff did not know that these first 10 experimental subjects had not been volunteers. For 1½ days he did not dare to make such an assertion here in the witness box, and only during the cross-examination did he finally go so far as to make this assertion, thereby completely overthrowing his previous statements. This allegation of the multiple murderer Neff now stands, however, completely isolated. There can be no doubt that, if these statements by Neff were true, it would have been easy for the office of the public prosecutor to produce numerous other witnesses who, likewise, had been inmates of the concentration camp at Dachau, who had perhaps experienced these experiments themselves, or who had spoken to subjects of these experiments or had even observed the experiments. However, not a single outsider, not a single incontestable witness has been produced, although half a year has elapsed since the days when, here in the courtroom, one could not fail to realize to what an unreliable and untrustworthy class persons of the caliber of Vieweg and Neff belong. This fact very strongly indicates that obviously no other witnesses are available, or could be made available, who could confirm that the experimental subjects who were used in the Ruff-Romberg altitude tests were not volunteers. Let the fact be mentioned here, for the sake of comparison, that in the case of the Gebhardt sulfanilamide operations for example, half a dozen incriminating witnesses were brought from Poland and Russia and were interrogated here as witnesses. Why was not a single trustworthy witness produced from among the Dachau experimental subjects and placed in the witness box? Because no one could be found, who could confirm the untrue allegations of a Vieweg and a Neff. On the other hand, during the trial, a whole series of persons who deserve a great deal more belief than Vieweg and Neff affirmed with certainty that all the experimental subjects in the Ruff-Romberg experiments were volunteers, and that from the very beginning the indispensable condition which was demanded and assured was that the subjects would be voluntary. The witness Dr. Lutz for example, who was introduced by the office of the public prosecutor and therefore recognized by it as a credible witness, confirmed here on oath, “it was a tacit assumption that the criminals would volunteer”; and he added that he could almost say that, in a way, a favor was being conferred upon the criminals, because “they were given a chance of pardon by participating in the experiments,” and it is significant that this witness deposed further: “subsequently, we were very much surprised when, probably during the later stages of the experiments, as far as I recall now, no further mention was made of it,” namely, of the fact that only volunteers were to be used for the altitude experiments (_German Tr. p. 320_). These depositions by the witness Dr. Lutz conform in every respect with the general impression received from all the pertinent descriptions. At first, only the altitude experiments approved by Dr. Ruff regarding the problem of “rescue from high altitudes” were carried out. These experiments were not dangerous as proved by their successful outcome; the inmates volunteered for them. Gradually, however, Rascher misused more and more the presence of the chamber in order to conduct his arbitrary experiments on Himmler’s orders for entirely different problems, namely, to conduct his notorious “difficult experiments” which had numerous fatal results. These were Rascher’s more cruel, painful experiments; naturally, no more volunteers reported for these because word was passed quickly through the camp that the experiments which Rascher himself conducted were dangerous, while the mere presence and cooperation of Dr. Romberg gave assurance to the inmates that his experiments were conscientiously conducted and were not dangerous. Other witnesses also, not named by Dr. Ruff, have confirmed that the experimental subjects for the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments were voluntary, namely, the witness Dr. Hielscher (_German Tr. pp. 6025-26, 6041, 6062_). Testimony on similar lines is given by the codefendant Sievers (_German Tr. pp. 5471, 5881_); and Dr. Hippke (_German Tr. p. 793_) “Prisoners who might volunteer”; (_German Tr. p. 795_) “these persons had to volunteer for the experiments.” Also the witness Karl Wolff, (_Ruff 21, Ruff Ex. 20_) “volunteer concentration camp inmates who were to be given compensatory privileges * * * the inmates, about 10 in number, appeared quite relaxed and, in their turn, willingly entered the low-pressure chamber which had been driven up * * * the inmates reported to Himmler, in my presence, that in this manner they could at least voluntarily * * * give a proof of their genuine good will * * * I never learned through Himmler, nor, as far as I remember, by any other means that later low-pressure chamber experiments * * * took place on a nonvoluntary basis * * * I only knew about voluntarily low-pressure chamber experiments and these were made, without doubt, on a voluntary basis.” Finally, the witness Herbert Wilschewske (_Ruff 11, Ruff Ex. 9_). While the previous witness Wolff was only present for 1 day during the experiments, the witness Wilschewske, during the 2 years he spent in the concentration camp, spoke repeatedly to inmates who “had volunteered for the medical experiments”, and who, by reason of his repeated conversations with the prisoners, could give the following as reason for the willingness to volunteer for experiments “they could earn thereby their own liberty and rehabilitation as well as privileges for their family.” The witness Wilschewske is certainly an absolutely reliable witness with regard to his statements. He is a Polish Communist, served 2 years in Dachau concentration camp for this, and was proved to be only a political prisoner. If one considers all these statements by witnesses, which certify that the experimental subjects in the Dachau high-altitude experiments of Drs. Ruff and Romberg were volunteers, it cannot be doubted that the concordant statements by Dr. Ruff, Dr. Romberg, and Dr. Weltz were absolutely true. They are defendants, it is true; but from all sides testimony is given of their irreproachable professional integrity. Although they are now sitting in the dock, their precise and clear statements deserve far more belief than the changing and contradictory statements of a habitual criminal who has committed downright perjury in this Court, or of a murderer who is actually more deserving of a place in this dock than these defendants are. The correctness of this conception is confirmed again on the one hand by the fact—already mentioned in another connection—that Dr. Romberg, as has been proved repeatedly, actively intervened and prevented the use of experimental subjects for experiments by Rascher when he could see that nonvoluntary experimental subjects were to be used, and on the other hand, it was known that in the high-altitude experiments which Dr. Ruff had carried out with Dr. Romberg only voluntary experimental subjects could be used, and only with voluntary experimental subjects could the experiments succeed. The whole idea of this type of high-altitude experiment (the Ruff-Romberg method) was based on the theory that the experimental subject, immediately on recovering from the state of unconsciousness—the “high-altitude malady”—reaches up with his arm and pulls down the handle of the parachute, which in practice reduces the speed of the fall, insuring the flier of a smooth landing on the ground. All this necessitated active cooperation on the part of the experimental subject; one was absolutely dependent on his cooperation, otherwise each of these experiments would have been useless right from the start. Naturally, Dr. Ruff knew this, as did Dr. Romberg, and therefore for them the first and most important condition for each experiment of this type was that the experimental subject should be voluntary (_see Ruff’s statement in German Tr. pp. 6638-40_). There are therefore also important inherent reasons why the statements by Ruff and Romberg are correct. Actually the high-altitude experiments carried out in Dachau were successful. They were of considerable help in clarifying the problem of “rescue from great heights”, and this was only possible when the experimental subjects themselves cooperated when they took part in the experiments voluntarily and took an interest in them. This was, by the way, also the reason why this type of high-altitude experiment could not be made with animals as experimental subjects, a fact which, for example, Ruff and Romberg pointed out in their summary report of 28 July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) I come, therefore, to the following conclusion: There can be no doubt that the experimental subjects for the Dachau high-altitude experiments were volunteers, at least as far as the experiments authorized by Ruff are concerned. Whether volunteers reported for the special experiments continued by Dr. Rascher or whether the prisoners were forced into the experiments by Dr. Rascher does not need to be examined, because Ruff and Romberg did not participate in those experiments in any way. But even if any doubt as to their being volunteers were possible, it cannot be denied that Ruff and Romberg were firmly convinced that all their experimental subjects actually were volunteers. This was stipulated from the very beginning, and in all the discussions of Dr. Ruff with Hippke, Weltz, and the representative of the SS, Ruff was consequently convinced that only volunteers were actually concerned. Dr. Ruff’s conviction was strengthened through personal conversation with various prisoners on that day on which he himself went to Dachau to control the execution of the experiments and to ascertain that everything was carried out in a completely orderly manner. And finally in this connection it cannot be overlooked that Dr. Ruff, as he has stated under oath and as is confirmed by numerous affidavits, had never at any other time in his life worked with nonvoluntary experimental subjects. Just because he considered it indispensable for the success of the experiments that the experimental subjects were volunteers, that they themselves cooperate, Dr. Ruff never thought that the Dachau prisoners were not fully and completely in agreement with the experiments. * * * * * It is obvious that the voluntary character of these experimental subjects, whether an actual fact or whether Dr. Ruff deluded himself into believing that this was the case, does not in itself relieve him of all responsibility. On the contrary, Dr. Ruff himself is of the opinion that, besides voluntariness, several other conditions would have to be fulfilled before the experiments and the way in which they were performed could be considered lawful: 1. The experiment would have to be _necessary_, particularly necessary in the interests of aviation and thus essential to the fatherland’s war effort. This condition is obviously fulfilled. This is confirmed above all by the statement of the witness Dr. Hippke who stated that it was Dr. Ruff’s duty to work on the research tasks assigned to him by the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and to submit reports on them to the Medical Inspectorate. The experiments carried out by Ruff were necessary, for “high-altitude experiments in particular have been undertaken intensively in America, too, because the question of pressure drop [Drucksturz] and the cabin development is of particular importance.” (_Ruff 23, Ruff Ex. 22._) Dr. Hippke developed this point of view not only during the trial but stated it very clearly in his letter to Himmler, dated as early as 8 October 1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_), where he writes: “These-experiments represent a very valuable and important supplement. The fact that such an extreme deficiency of oxygen can be endured at all for some time is very encouraging for further research.” Dr. Hippke’s opinion about the necessity of the high-altitude experiments is therefore extremely important because Hippke was the highest official expert in that field in Germany at that time. But most of all, the absolute necessity of Ruff’s experiments is acknowledged by all experts who testified in this trial in connection with these problems. I recall, for example, the statements of the witness Dr. Scheiber that “at a later judgment of Dr. Ruff’s scientific work, his name will be remembered together with the names of all of those well-known scientific research workers who, by personal, devoted, and heroic effort, rendered immeasurable service to the advance of science and therewith to the welfare of humanity.” Professor Dr. Strughold expresses himself in a similar way in his affidavit. He was chief of a German institute for aviation medicine for several years and writes concerning Dr. Ruff that “he (Ruff) can be considered as a man who surpasses by far many academically proficient and recognized scientists as far as scientific experience and scientific success is concerned.” Of particular importance, however, seems to be the opinion of Dr. Grauer, who is at present in America as a research worker and experimenter in matters of aviation medicine. * * * * * According to the opinion of the Air Force General, Adolf Galland, and the statements of all the other experts, it is an established fact that the Dachau experiments of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were absolutely necessary. This necessity does not cease to exist because the people concerned realized that with this first series of experiments, carried out in Dachau in the spring of 1942, the problem in question (rescue from high altitudes) was not yet entirely solved. Ruff and Romberg pointed out in their final report of 28 July 1942, that the “danger of freezing has to be considered.” On the basis of this final report the medical inspector, Dr. Hippke, later pointed out in his letter to Himmler of 10 October 1942 (_NO-289, Pros. Ex. 72_) that in the Dachau high-altitude experiments of Ruff and Romberg of spring 1942, “a very important factor was not yet taken into consideration, namely freezing.” He remarked, however, at the same time that “the necessary supplementary work was started meanwhile.” Hippke did not leave any doubt that this fact would not impair the value and the importance of the Dachau high-altitude experiments, which he stressed; for it is in the nature of such experiments that both parts of the problem, high altitude and freezing temperatures, cannot be dealt with simultaneously, but that at first only one part must be considered, then the other. This was Ruff’s plan from the very beginning, and the special experiments with regard to the influence of freezing temperatures on descent from high altitudes were carried out according to plan in the Berlin institute of Dr. Ruff in the summer and fall of 1942. (Compare this with Dr. Grauer’s affidavit of 28 January 1947.) Another prerequisite for the justification of the high-altitude experiments undertaken by Ruff and Romberg lies in the requirement that the experiments should not be extended any further than is necessary for the solution of the problems presented. This requirement, too, was fulfilled by Dr. Ruff. It is confirmed by his own testimony (_German Tr. p. 6704_), as well as by the testimony of Dr. Romberg (_German Tr. pp. 6879-80_), that Dr. Romberg was sent by Dr. Ruff to Dachau with a definite program which carefully outlined the kind as well as the extent of the experiments to be carried out. Only the problem of “rescue from high altitude” was to be investigated. Only experiments for this purpose were ordered by Dr. Ruff. Dr. Romberg was not allowed to undertake experiments for any other purposes, and the experiments were to be carried on only until either the problem was solved or its solution found impossible. Had Dr. Romberg not adhered to this program, which had been strictly outlined, had he carried out further experiments behind Dr. Ruff’s back, the latter could in no case have been responsible for them. Since he was not told of such further experiments by Dr. Romberg, he could not stop them. However, it must be stated expressly that Dr. Romberg adhered to Dr. Ruff’s orders; he did not carry out more extensive experiments than he had been permitted and had been ordered; this was done alone and solely by Dr. Rascher. The latter, however, was in no way subordinated to Dr. Ruff, nor to Dr. Romberg; moreover, he would certainly not have taken any orders from either of them. _The final report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942_ (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66_) furnishes clear proof of the fact that Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg were at all times conscious of their duty to restrict experiments to the extent which seemed absolutely necessary in order to explore a problem which was all-important at the time and to carry out no experiments which could not be considered especially important and of great consequence. Even the introduction to this report of 28 July 1942 is significant for the delineation of the tasks set for these experiments. It reads: “Considering the urgency of finding a practical solution to this important problem [the rescue of airplane crews from high altitude], particularly in view of the prevailing experimental conditions, it was necessary to forego for the time being a detailed clarification of the purely scientific problems involved.” Here the basic tendency of all the experiments finds its clear expression. Only such practical requirements of aviation which could not be postponed during time of war should be solved, while investigations of purely scientific nature, without great practical significance, were to be excluded. This restriction of solutions sought demonstrates that the scientists in question (Ruff and Romberg) were not subject to the unbridled desire for experimentation which may be found in people of Rascher’s type. * * * * * Were the Ruff-Romberg high-altitude experiments in Dachau dangerous to life? If it is demanded that experiments on humans are carried out as humanely as possible, pain avoided wherever possible, and damage to health eliminated, it is obvious that deaths must be prevented in every way possible. The conscientious research worker will always start from the standpoint that experiments can only then be carried out when, according to human estimation and the experience of science, death can in no way be expected. According to German Law (Article 216 of the German Penal Code) the intentional killing of a person would not be legalized through his agreement, not even at his expressed desire. To this question the presentation of evidence has shown the following: 1. In the Summary Report Ruff-Romberg-Rascher of 28 July 1942, it is “expressly stated that in the whole series of experiments no death and likewise no permanent oxygen deficiency damage occurred.” (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) In direct contradiction to this appears to be, at least at first glance, the intermediary report which Dr. Rascher alone made on his experiments on 5 April 1942 to the Reich Leader SS Himmler (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) and also the following secret report, which likewise Dr. Rascher alone sent to Himmler on 11 May 1942. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) These two special reports by Dr. Rascher prove that in the experiments described by Rascher alone several deaths occurred. The explanation of the apparent contradiction is shown clearly by the presentation of evidence: In the experiments authorized by Dr. Ruff and carried out with his approval not a single death occurred. Only the arbitrary experiments which Rascher carried out without the approval of Dr. Ruff and against his will, and which were ordered by Himmler, were deadly. This can be seen from Rascher’s intermediary report of 5 April 1942. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) It falls into two parts. In the first part Dr. Rascher describes the experiments carried out with Dr. Ruff’s approval. He states expressly, “the experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg,” and he confirms that even “in a total of 15 extreme experiments, none of the experimental subjects died. Severe high-altitude sickness with unconsciousness occurred; however, the subject was always fully capable of action when approximately 7 km. was attained in the descent.” In the second part, Rascher then describes his arbitrary experiments of which Ruff knew nothing, and was permitted to know nothing. This second part of the report is much more extensive and detailed than the first. That can be explained without difficulty because the experiments mentioned in this second part were carried out by Rascher himself; here he could describe the “merit” of the results he apparently gained all by himself. From this second part he obviously also hoped for complete new results for science, which he emphasized in the accompanying letter to Himmler of 5 April 1942, and he was obviously very proud that following his suggestions (as he emphasized) such “interesting standard experiments” were carried out. All this referred exclusively to the arbitrary experiments mentioned in the second part of the report, which Rascher carried out alone without the assistance of Dr. Romberg and without the authorization and previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) Rascher himself made this distinction in his report (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_): He contrasts in the second part of his report the “extremely dangerous experiments” with the “experiments carried out by myself (Rascher) and Romberg,” while he specially asked for an “SS doctor from the camp as witness” for the arbitrary experiments of the second part of his report, as “I carried out these experiments by myself.” But surely Dr. Rascher had his reasons for specially requesting “a camp doctor as a witness” for these experiments (which are described in the second part of his report), but intentionally kept Dr. Romberg away. Dr. Rascher indicates these reasons in his accompanying letter of 5 April 1942, talking about difficulties which the Luftwaffe created for him up to that time, whose removal he hopes for by the intervention of SS Fuehrer Sievers. These difficulties which hindered the research work of Rascher were discussed in various other documents which concerned the use of the low-pressure chamber and its return to Dachau, which the SS tried to arrange but never succeeded. If Dr. Rascher in his intermediary report (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) emphasized that “only continuous experiments are fatal at heights above 10.5 km.”, this plainly confirms, in Dr. Rascher’s own words, what Ruff and Romberg stated from the very beginning, that two kinds of high-altitude experiments were carried out in Dachau with the low-pressure chamber. The one kind, which Dr. Romberg took part in and Dr. Ruff knew about, was carried out completely humanely and without any pain, and nothing happened; and the other kind, which Rascher carried out alone by order of Himmler, without Romberg and without the previous knowledge of Dr. Ruff, to which at one time an SS doctor was even asked to attend as a witness and which caused several fatalities. This result is confirmed by the second report, which Rascher again alone (without the participation of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg) submitted to Himmler, dated 11 May 1942, as a secret report (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_). He describes here the experiments which he carried out jointly with Dr. Romberg and again states: “On the average, the experimental subjects were in complete accord of their actions at 12-13 km.; no disturbances of any kind in the general condition occurred in any of these experiments,” and even less, of course, a fatality. Only among the experiments described under figures 6 and 7 of this secret report of Rascher’s did fatalities occur, and that “during a continued high-altitude experiment, for example after half an hour in an altitude of 12 km.” But these experiments (according to figures 6 and 7) were the arbitrary experiments in which Rascher had other aims in mind, which had nothing to do with Ruff’s problem of “saving from high altitudes,” and which were carried out by Rascher alone. It is also interesting that Rascher still mentions the partial assistance of Dr. Romberg in his first report (of 5 April 1942) (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49_) but does not say anything more in the final second report (of 11 May 1942), (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61_) where he described the affair as though he alone had carried, out the experiments. Compare page 81, line 21: “Experiments carried out by myself”; or page 79, lines 15-16: “_My_ heart experiments * * * that a very big sphere of work opened up for _me_,” etc. By that Rascher has clearly expressed that he did not have any assistance from Dr. Romberg in the experiments he thought particularly valuable, when he explains as particularly valuable his heart experiments and his observations concerning air embolism. Those were all experiments in which Ruff and Romberg had not the least interest, in which they never participated, and for which they would never have risked the health and the life of an experimental subject. Even specialists like Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg could never understand the scientific or other aim which Rascher had in mind in the case of those arbitrary experiments with fatal endings. Even the layman can easily recognize the basic difference between the two categories of experiments. The legal experiments which had been authorized by Dr. Ruff were always restricted to a very short period of a few moments; but the fatal experiments of Dr. Rascher were, as he emphasized himself, continuous experiments without oxygen, therefore experiments lasting over 30 minutes. It is easily understandable that experiments of such a length without the administration of oxygen may be fatal. To prove this it would not have been necessary to sacrifice even one single human life in these experiments. Serious research workers like Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg had therefore never carried out and never authorized such experiments. That was also well known to Rascher, and this explains the fact as stated by Neff (_German Tr. pp. 668, 670, 671_) that Rascher kept Dr. Romberg intentionally away from his arbitrary experiments; furthermore that he even carried out his experiments at night to keep them secret from Dr. Romberg, and that he also did not ask Romberg to sign his intermediary report of 5 April 1942, nor his summarizing secret report of 11 May 1942, which Romberg would surely have refused to do. * * * * * It would therefore be quite wrong to attribute to Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg the intention of wanting to suppress something in their final report of 28 July 1942. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) For it is a proven fact that not only Himmler was informed by Rascher of the cases of death which had occurred, but that Dr. Ruff had also reported the cases of death for which Dr. Rascher was guilty, to his supreme superior, the Inspector of the Medical Service [of the air force], Dr. Hippke. For this same reason he had caused the low-pressure chamber to be removed from Dachau and had asked the witness, Dr. Hippke, to consent to this. These proven facts show that Dr. Ruff did not conceal anything and had nothing to conceal. The fact that the cases of death were not mentioned in the final report of 28 July 1942 has therefore nothing to do with any concealment but is only due to the fact that those experiments which had fatal results had nothing whatsoever to do with the experiments of Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg and their problem. For the same reasons it is not surprising at all that Dr. Ruff did not inform Dr. Weltz of the fatal accidents during the special experiments of Rascher. Weltz was neither Ruff’s superior nor his subordinate, and at the time when Dr. Ruff learned of the deaths which had occurred during Rascher’s experiments, Dr. Rascher had already been transferred from the Weltz Institute. * * * * * The defense, therefore, arrives at the following conclusion: Dr. Ruff only did what his superiors ordered him to do. If they have failed, they should be taken to account. Dr. Ruff had no doubts concerning the orders of his superiors for his assignment was urgently necessary in the interest of his country, engaged in the most difficult war, and of its aviation. If Dr. Ruff at the time had been able to read all the international literature about medical experiments on human beings he would have learned that experiments much more exacting and much more dangerous than those with which he was familiar—which he knew and planned—were being conducted everywhere, also on prisoners; and perhaps they are still being conducted without the competent authorities or medical societies declaring them impermissible and intervening against them. Over many years, Dr. Ruff proved himself to be a particularly conscientious and considerate man of research who devoted his entire activity primarily to save endangered human lives. Neither can he be blamed for having collaborated for a short time with Dr. Rascher. He (Rascher) had been assigned to him as associate by his highest superiors; he had to rely upon that. If they ordered him to work together with a man who, later on, turned out to be a criminal, no liability can be charged to Dr. Ruff. When Dr. Ruff saw through his colleague who was forced upon him and realized his criminal activities, he immediately cut off all relations to him on his own initiative, avoided any further collaboration with him, and thus probably prevented much further disaster. Field Marshal Milch was acquitted as far as the Dachau altitude tests are concerned.[21] Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke was not indicted at all. Under these circumstances justice demands that Dr. Ruff be acquitted. * * * * * _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ * * * * * _Low-Pressure Experiments_ Low-pressure experiments (high-altitude experiments) were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp from 22 February to the end of May 1942. The first plans to carry out experiments “for rescue from high altitudes” were discussed already in 1941. The experiments were an affair of the Luftwaffe. (_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._) The carrying out of experiments for “rescue from high altitudes” was agreed upon, as far as the Dachau concentration camp was concerned, by the Reich Minister for Aviation (represented by State Secretary and Field Marshal Milch) and the Reich Leader SS Himmler. (_German Tr. p. 274. Also judgment of Military Tribunal II, Nuernberg in case of Field Marshal Milch. See Vol. II._) The witness Neff gave the exact date of the start of the experiments. The experiments were started on 22 February 1942. The witness could remember this date so well because it was his birthday. (_German Tr. p. 606._) After a few interruptions the experiments ended in the second half of May. (_German Tr. p. 6779._) When answering the question whether the experiments could inflict torture and death on the experimental subjects, one has to distinguish between the experiments which according to the detailed instructions of Dr. Ruff were carried out by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg in the Dachau concentration camp, and the experiments which Rascher carried out either with the knowledge and permission of Himmler, or without his permission on his own responsibility. With regard to the first experiments it has to be said that they caused the experimental subjects some discomfort through high-altitude sickness, but that on no account did they mean torture and death for the experimental subjects. (Evidence of Dr. Ruff in direct examination.) On the other hand the experiments which Rascher conducted on his responsibility have, according to Prosecution Document 1971-A-PS (_Pros. Ex. 49_), apparently to be judged in a different manner. Sievers came in contact with the low-pressure experiments only; in the second half of March 1942. By letter of 21 March 1942 Rudolf Brandt replied to an inquiry of the Reich business manager of the Ahnenerbe of 9 March 1942 concerning Rascher, and informed him that low-pressure experiments were carried out in the Dachau camp: “The Reich Leader SS gave his permission on condition that Dr. Rascher would participate.” (_1581-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 48._) The cause of Sievers’ letter of 9 March 1942 was the statement of Dr. Rascher to the curator Wuest, according to which certain research work which he carried out for the Luftwaffe in Dachau, and of which he could give no details, was to be supported by the administration of the “Ahnenerbe”. (_German Tr. p. 5671._) Following this, Sievers went to Dachau in late March or on 1 April 1942. (_German Tr. p. 5672._) Thus this date was the earliest on which Sievers could possibly have gained knowledge about the carrying out of high-altitude experiments in Dachau. It is important that at this time the experiments had already been under way for over a month. The cunning Rascher took the first visit of Sievers as an opportunity to invite Sievers to have a look at the experiments directed by him, in spite of the fact that Sievers had nothing at all to do with the carrying out of the experiments. Sievers watched two experiments. He took the opportunity to speak to the two persons who were subjected to the experiments on that day. Both told Sievers that they had volunteered for the experiment. A few minutes after the experiment both experimental subjects did not show any after-effects and finished the experiment without suffering any bodily or physical damage. (_German Tr. p. 5741._) The following proceeding shows the special care which was taken in the carrying out of these experiments: It was agreed with the experimental persons that in case of earache they were to point with the hand to the ear. When one of the experimental subjects did this, Dr. Romberg immediately altered the pressure conditions, and the behavior of the experimental subject showed that he had no more discomfort. (_German Tr. pp. 5743 and 6845._) Since the question of the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects may be of significance in the case of all experiments, a comprehensive presentation of the most important depositions on this subject is given here. Himmler stated at the Easter conference in 1942, in answer to the scruples of Sievers, that only volunteers were to be allowed to be drawn upon for the experiments, and if the experiments were fraught with danger to life then only major criminals under sentence of death and no political prisoners would be taken. (_German Tr. p. 5677._) The witness Neff testified that volunteers presented themselves for the experiments. (_German Tr. p. 614._) Dr. Craemer of the Mountain Institute for Psychology of the Army Mountain Medical School [Gebirgspsychologisches, Institut der Heeres-Gebirgs-Sanitaets-Schule] has, in an affidavit, reported a conversation with Dr. Rascher in the course of which the latter said: “Human experimental subjects. It is a question of major criminals under valid sentence of death who come forward voluntarily for the experiments in Dachau in order to have life and liberty given to them if they survive an experiment.” (_Handloser 37, Handloser Ex. 18._) The witness Meine declared: “* * * since, furthermore, I knew from the series of experiments in Oranienburg that the prisoners had come forward voluntarily in crowds * * * my suspicion was not aroused during these years.” (_German Tr. p. 4864._) Dr. Mrugowsky deposed the following in his direct examination regarding yellow-fever experiments: “Only volunteers were used, and Dr. Ding states in his declaration (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) that he knew of a list, and that for these kinds of cases always hundreds of volunteers offered themselves because they would not need to work for 4 weeks and were better fed.” (_German Tr. p. 5195._) Further, I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, which was submitted by Dr. Mrugowsky’s defense counsel, Mrugowsky 32 (_Mrugowsky Exhibit 26_): “At the conference with Dr. Ding I learned that the human experimental subjects came forward voluntarily for these experiments. * * * In the case of the prisoner whose treatment I chanced to watch with others, I had the definite impression that he was a volunteer.” (_German Tr. p. 5228._) In connection with the high-altitude experiments in Dachau, I quote the following from Dr. Ruff’s deposition: “Professor Dr. Weltz told me that these human experimental subjects were professional criminals who were allowed to volunteer for the experiments.” (_German Tr. p. 6532._) “Hippke told me also in this conversation that it was a question of major criminals who could offer themselves voluntarily for the experiments and who, following the experiments, were then to receive in some form a mitigation of their punishment, either reduction or remission.” (_German Tr. p. 6534._) The chief of Himmler’s personal staff, SS General Karl Wolff, gave an affidavit in London on 21 November 1946, which is of special importance because Wolff himself watched experiments in Dachau together with Himmler, and also reported to Hitler concerning the experiments: “They (namely, the human experimental subjects) protested to Himmler in my presence that—after their request to be sent to the front had been turned down—they wanted to render a modest voluntary service to Germany and thereby give proof of the good will they really possessed. * * * That later low-pressure experiments are said to have taken place on prisoners on a nonvoluntary basis—of that I received no knowledge either from Himmler nor in any other way.” (_German Tr. pp. 6757-58._) Dr. Romberg declared in direct examination: “In the course of time, not exactly on the first day, but as time went on, I spoke of course with all of them more often and in greater detail; then they told me gradually what previous sentences they had had, what prisons and penitentiaries they had already been at before coming to the camp. They told me also the reasons why they had come forward and had placed themselves voluntarily at the disposal of the experiments.” To the question: “Do you mean by that, that all the human experimental subjects who were used for the altitude experiments were voluntarily human experimental subjects?” Dr. Romberg answered with a clear, “Yes.” (_German Tr. pp. 6787-88._) The following is quoted from Dr. Weltz’ deposition: “When I first heard anything from Kottenhoff concerning Rascher’s proposals, Kottenhoff spoke already of volunteers. Later, after this conversation with Hippke I spoke again with Rascher. Rascher also spoke of volunteers. We then had Rascher at our joint consultation with Ruff and Romberg in my institute. There, too, he spoke of volunteers. In the observations that he made at the Nuernberg conference in connection with Holzloehner’s lecture, he spoke of volunteers. He spoke further of volunteers, on the return journey from the Nuernberg conference, with Dr. Craemer from St. Johann. * * * Thus I never heard Rascher speak otherwise than of volunteers, and, as I said already, that was the reason why we did not speak for a long time at all concerning compulsory experiments with Hippke.” (_German Tr. p. 7064._) The affidavit of the Polish Communist Wilschewske, an inmate of Dachau concentration camp, which was read on 28 April 1947, deposes as to the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects: “Prisoners who came forward for these experiments did so, as far as I know, voluntarily, because they could thereby gain their own freedom and rehabilitation, and also favorable treatment for their relatives.” (_German Tr. p. 6555._) Dr. Becker-Freyseng deposed the following in his direct examination: “Rascher spoke unequivocally of prisoners or criminal characters who were available because of special sanctions * * * by Hitler and Himmler, and through volunteering.” (_German Tr. pp. 7850-51._) The witness Dorn, a former prisoner in Buchenwald, deposed in answer to the following question: Were these people now forced into these experiments or was there a possibility of volunteering? “I should like to give you an answer to that. Imagine the position of a prisoner who perhaps for years had not had enough to eat to satisfy him, and who perhaps learns from a camp conversation that if he were to offer himself for this or that experiment he would receive a double or triple amount of food. You can imagine that hundreds or more presented themselves merely from the purely human urge to eat their fill once again.” (_German Tr. p. 8620._) Dr. Beiglboeck likewise makes assertions in his direct examination concerning the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects, and declares in conclusion: “I had at that time absolutely no reason to doubt that this information was correct. Superiors, officers of the SS, and the human experimental subjects themselves admitted this to me. And I do not know what more I could have done in order to assure myself still further.” (_German Tr. p. 8701._) The voluntary status of the prisoners is likewise confirmed in his affidavit by the witness Dr. Lesse, who worked as a doctor with Dr. Beiglboeck in Dachau. (_Beiglboeck 14, Beiglboeck Ex. 20._) The witness Mettbach has also confirmed the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects in connection with the sea-water experiments. Finally reference is made to the deposition of the witness Nales, who was examined by the prosecution on 30 June 1947 in the second half of the forenoon session, and who testified to the voluntary status of the human experimental subjects used in the Lost gas experiments. The evidence produced has not given the slightest grounds for believing that Sievers had any knowledge at all that nonvoluntary human experimental subjects were compelled to undergo experiments, or that the experiments would be painful or fraught with danger to life. As a precaution let us also examine the question as to what further activity Sievers developed in connection with the low-pressure experiments. From the document book presented by the prosecution it appears that Sievers passed on letters which came to his office. Sievers is mentioned in some documents. The following separate letters are at hand: In connection with the altitude experiments, the prosecution’s document book contains the following documents in which the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe is mentioned in one way or another. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) Letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leadership SS dated 24 February 1942: “Rascher requests SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Schnitzler to acquaint the Reich Leader with the events and to say at the same time that Rascher, as a member of the Ahnenerbe, definitely wishes to participate scientifically in the experiments.” From this it is seen how very keen even Frau Rascher was that her husband should participate in the experiments in Dachau. This was at a time when Sievers had as yet no knowledge at all of the altitude experiments. Letter from the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt, dated 26 August 1942 (_NO-221, Pros. Ex. 68_). This letter contains a copy of a letter from Rascher which had as its subject a report by Rascher and Romberg to Field Marshal Milch. The second part of the letter contains the report and the assent to the publication of the scientific results. Here the date of the letter must be pointed out, 26 August 1942, which was many weeks after the altitude experiments had come to an end, in May 1942. Dr. Brandt’s reply to Sievers, dated 29 August 1942 (_NO-222, Pros. Ex. 69_): “The letter of the Reich Leader SS, with which he has forwarded the report to Field Marshal Milch, was only signed and sent off a few days ago. Copy of the letter of the Reich Leader SS dated 25 August 1942 is enclosed for your information.” Here it is to be observed that this letter likewise was written long after the conclusion of the altitude experiments and, like the preceding one, contains nothing at all concerning the experiments. It cannot be inferred from the letter dated 29 August 1942 that a copy of the report sent to Field Marshal Milch was also sent to the Ahnenerbe. Brandt sends Sievers a copy of his letter to Dr. Rascher dated 6 September 1942 (_NO-223, Pros. Ex. 71_). It contains the information that Field Marshal Milch will ask Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg to meet shortly and report. Letter from Rascher to Himmler, dated 9 October 1942 (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex. 73_). Sievers is mentioned in connection with the unsuccessful report to Milch. It is worth noting that Rascher asks that the low-pressure chamber may still be left at his disposal for further experiments. Letter from the Reich Business Manager of the “Ahnenerbe” to the personal staff, for the attention of Dr. Brandt, dated 21 October 1942 (_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_ (_Pros. Ex. 110 in Milch case_); _1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 111 in Milch case_). This letter contains the information that the freezing experiments are finished and that the altitude experiments desired by the Reich Leader SS can now be continued. For this purpose the low-pressure chamber will be needed again, and the Reich Leader SS is to write personally to Field Marshal Milch. The rough draft of a letter of the Reich Leader SS to Field Marshal Milch was enclosed with this letter. This rough draft is submitted by the prosecution as NO-226, Prosecution Exhibit 75. This draft was submitted by Sievers because of an assignment given to him by Himmler. The rough draft was drawn up in accordance with Rascher’s suggestions. (_German Tr. p. 5682._) This letter, dated 13 December 1942, contains several research commissions given personally by Himmler to Rascher (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_). Number 5 reads: “The procuring of the apparatus necessary for all experiments is to be discussed separately with the offices of the Reich Physician SS of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office, and with the Ahnenerbe Registered Association.” A copy went to the Ahnenerbe. This is a letter from the Vorstand [Board of Directors] of the Siemens-Schuckert-Werke, Berlin, and concerns the ordering of an electrocardiograph (_NO-3675, Pros. Ex. 548_). This apparatus was never delivered because the “SS priority grade” was not certified. Let it be remarked here, for the sake of understanding, that the designation “SS priority grade” was in general use and had nothing to do with the “SS”, the so-called “Schutzstaffeln” of the NSDAP. Letter from Sievers to the Rector of the University of Munich concerning the loan of different pieces of apparatus (_NO-3674, Pros. Ex. 549._) Dr. Wuest was, as repeatedly pointed out, office chief of the Ahnenerbe. As such he had exact information concerning the research commissions of the Institute for Military Scientific Research. A simple way to obtain the apparatus would have been an agreement made over the telephone. If Sievers chose to do it by letter it was only because of the delaying tactics practiced by him. This is seen clearly from the postscript intended for Rascher, telling him not to participate. It is also worthy of note that the apparatus was to be used in Munich and not in Dachau. Sievers had no right to issue orders or instructions in connection with the low-pressure experiments, as is seen from part III of the closing brief. Sievers had not the slightest influence on the carrying out of the experiments. Sievers could have had no knowledge that the experiments might be inhuman, because he, or the Ahnenerbe, was only brought in when the experiments had already been in progress for over a month. The question still to be examined is whether and when Sievers received knowledge of Rascher’s reports concerning his experiments. To this the following details are pointed out: On 5 April 1942 Rascher sent an interim report on his low-pressure experiments direct to Himmler. He asked that the report should be treated as secret. (_1971-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 49._) The acknowledgment of the receipt did not go through the Ahnenerbe but went directly from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher. (_1971-C-PS, Pros. Ex. 50._) It is nowhere mentioned that a copy went to the Ahnenerbe. From the distribution of the order issued by Himmler thereon (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51_), it is clearly seen that the Ahnenerbe received no copy of the order. On 11 May 1942 Rascher sent a further secret report direct to Himmler, so that Sievers here too had no possibility of acquiring any knowledge of this report. (_NO-220, Pros. Ex. 61._) On 22 September 1942 the German Experimental Station for Aviation sent copies of Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report “Experiments on Rescue from High Altitudes” as “top secret” matter to the Reich Leader SS “to be filed there”. (_NO-402, Pros. Ex. 66._) Even if the first page of the report bears the note, “The investigations were conducted in conjunction with the Research and Instruction Association the Ahnenerbe”, no kind of proof is thereby furnished that a copy of the report reached the Ahnenerbe. It is true that Sievers does not exclude the possibility that such a report came to the Ahnenerbe, but he denies that he read such a report, because it did not concern him, and it also did not interest him as it dealt with medical matters. If he did read any of it, it was at the most the short summary to be found at the end. (_German Tr. p. 5681._) It must also be pointed out that there is nothing in this report which could lead to the conclusion that the experiments had fatal results. The prosecution’s expert Professor Ivy also confirmed this in answer to the Court’s question: “Is there anything mentioned in the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher report about experiments concerning which it can be asserted with absolute certainty that fatalities, permanent injury, or great pain have resulted in the case of human experimental subjects?” The expert’s answer was “No.” (_German Tr. p. 9217._) In addition this report was sent to Himmler on 22 September 1942, thus, long after the close of the experiments. Sievers cannot then have gained any insight into Rascher’s criminal activity from Rascher’s reports. Sievers had not the power or the opportunity of preventing Rascher’s criminal experiments or of bringing them to a standstill. It is true that at the Easter conference in 1942 he tried to move Himmler to discontinue all experiments in the concentration camps, or at least to bring about the suppression of the research of Rascher and Professor Dr. Hirt, which were not in harmony with the character of the Ahnenerbe. Both his suggestions were refuted by Himmler’s declaration that “all that” was no concern of Sievers and that he (Himmler) bore the sole responsibility. (_German Tr. p. 5714._) In spite of Himmler’s declaration, Sievers endeavored to halt further low-pressure experiments, when the low-pressure chamber had been removed from Dachau at the beginning of June 1942. Already on 27 November 1942, the chief of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS, SS General Wolff, had applied to Field Marshal Milch in order to make possible Rascher’s further experiments in Dachau. In the closing sentence of this letter the loan of the low-pressure chamber is once again requested. (_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_ (_Pros. Ex. 118 in the Milch Case_).) That General Wolff by Himmler’s orders laid great stress on making further experiments possible is seen from the fact that a copy of the letter went also to SS Oberfuehrer Dr. Wuest, who was office chief of the Ahnenerbe. Thereby the special importance of the affair was to be shown also to the Ahnenerbe, on which the obligation rested to procure the requisite apparatus in accordance with figure three of Himmler’s order of 7 July 1942 (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33_) and repeated later under figure five of Himmler’s order of 13 December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_). When the Luftwaffe did not make the low-pressure chamber available again, Sievers was commissioned to buy a special portable low-pressure chamber for the SS. (_German Tr. p. 5800._) And then Sievers did something unheard of and rang up Dr. Romberg of the German Experimental Station for Aviation. Romberg was very much surprised at this telephone call. (_German Tr. pp. 6839-40._) Through his communication that he had been commissioned by Himmler to procure a low-pressure chamber for Rascher, who at that time was still a member of the Luftwaffe, he aroused the attention of the Luftwaffe. For Dr. Romberg communicated this news to his superior Dr. Ruff, who, on his side, informed Dr. Becker-Freyseng of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. pp. 6607-08, 7878_; _Becker-Freyseng 24, Becker-Freyseng Ex. 11_.) This was what Sievers counted upon. The consent of the Luftwaffe would have been necessary for the purpose of sanctioning the requisite priority grade for a low-pressure chamber. The Luftwaffe denied this necessity and thus the low-pressure chamber under consideration for Rascher was not procured. When Himmler in the year 1943—probably at Rascher’s urging—ordered Sievers again to procure a low-pressure chamber, Sievers was able once more to prevent one from being procured. This time he pointed out that the research management of the Luftwaffe did not consider it necessary to continue with altitude experiments. Sievers advanced this statement at random, profiting by the fact that Rascher, though probably known to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, was not known to the research management of the Luftwaffe. (_German Tr. p. 5801._) _Summary_ Criminal action on the part of Sievers cannot be proved in connection with the low-pressure experiments. The carrying out of the experiments was neither ordered nor arranged for by him. He did not come into contact with the experiments until they had been in progress for over a month. What Sievers saw, heard, and read about the experiments could not in any way give him the knowledge that inadmissible experiments were being made. Sievers had no knowledge of Rascher’s criminal experiments while the experiments were in progress, because Rascher kept these experiments completely secret. Sievers’ activity was of a completely subordinate nature. Apart from that, however, Sievers helped to prevent Rascher (whom Sievers could not bear, for he was a pompous fellow and a protégé of Himmler) from being put again in a position to carry on further low-pressure experiments. There is no criminal guilt then on the part of Sievers, as far as Sievers’ contact with the low-pressure experiments is concerned. d. Evidence _Prosecution Documents_ Pros. Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page 1602-PS 44 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 15 May 1941, 141 concerning high-altitude experiments on human beings. 1582-PS 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, undated, 143 nforming him that prisoners would be made available for high-altitude research. 1581-A-PS 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Sievers, 21 March 144 1942, concerning Rascher’s participation in high-altitude experiments. 1971-A-PS 49 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 5 April 1942, 144 and report, undated, on high-altitude experiments. 1971-C-PS 50 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 April 147 1942, regarding his success with high-altitude experiments. 1971-B-PS 51 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 13 April 1942, 148 requesting a repetition of high-altitude experiments on prisoners condemned to death. 1971-D-PS 52 Teletype from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 20 149 October 1942, requesting clarification on the pardon granted by Himmler. 1971-E-PS 53 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt to Schnitzler, 21 149 October 1942, concerning the pardon granted by Himmler. NO-218 56 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 April 1942, 150 reporting on high-altitude experiments with fatal results and on experiments conducted together with Romberg. NO-264 60 File note for SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler, 151 28 April 1942. NO-220 61 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 11 May 1942, 152 and secret report concerning high-altitude experiments. NO-402 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, and report, 28 July 155 1942, from Romberg and Ruff to Himmler concerning experiments on rescue from high altitudes. 343-A-PS 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, 20 May 1942, 172 regarding continuation of experiments. 343-B-PS 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, 31 August 1942, 172 acknowledging receipt of reports by Rascher and Romberg on high-altitude experiments. NO-289 72 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 8 October 1942, 173 thanking the latter for his assistance in high-altitude experiments in Dachau. NO-224 76 Note by Romberg on showing of film in office 174 of State Secretary Milch and proposed report to Milch, 11 September 1942. 1612-PS 79 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to Rascher, 13 176 December 1942, and Himmler’s order assigning Rascher to high-altitude experiments. NO-610 41 Inmates of the Dachau concentration camp in 898 different stages of simulated altitude in the low-pressure chamber; postmortem dissections of experimental subjects who died from the effects of high-altitude experiments. (_See Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution._) _Testimony_ Extracts from the testimony of tribunal witness Walter Neff 177 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rudolf Brandt 183 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Romberg 186 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1602-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 44 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 15 MAY 1941, CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS [Stamp] Sigmund Rascher, M. D. Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Archives File No. Secret/58 Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 15 May 1941 Highly esteemed Reich Leader, My most sincere thanks for your cordial wishes and flowers on the birth of my second son. This time, too, it is a strong boy, though he arrived 3 weeks too early. I shall take the liberty and send you a small picture of both children some time. Since I want a third child very soon, I feel very grateful to you that with your help, highly esteemed Reich Leader, the wedding is made possible. Today I was informed by SS Standartenfuehrer Sollmann on the telephone that the 165 marks as required for a wedding will be charged to the account “R” and will be transmitted by the Ahnenerbe. I thank you heartily! I only need a short certificate concerning Aryan descent for the Luftwaffe, where the permit was already submitted. Tomorrow, prior to my departure, I shall dictate a rough text to Nini D; she will then forward the note to you, highly esteemed Reich Leader. I also thank you very cordially for the generous regular allowance of fruit; this is at present extremely important for mother and children. For the time being, have been assigned to the Luftgau Kommando VII, Munich, for a medical selection course. During this course, where research on high-altitude flying plays a prominent part, determined by the somewhat higher ceiling of the English fighter planes, considerable regret was expressed that no experiments on human beings have so far been possible for us because such experiments are very dangerous and nobody is volunteering. I therefore put the serious question: is there any possibility that two or three professional criminals can be made available for these experiments? The experiments are being performed at the Ground Station for High-Altitude Experiments of the Luftwaffe [Bodenstaendige Pruefstelle fuer Hoehenforschung der Luftwaffe] at Munich. The experiments, in which the experimental subject of course may die, would take place with my collaboration. They are absolutely essential for the research on high-altitude flying and cannot, as it has been tried until now, be carried out on monkeys, because monkeys offer entirely different test conditions. I had an absolutely confidential talk with the representative of the Luftwaffe physician who is conducting these experiments. He also is of the opinion that the problems in question can only be solved by experiments on human beings. (Feeble-minded individuals also could be used as experimental material.) For the time being, SS men and some SS officers as well are detailed to the antiaircraft school IV, for studying the range-finding technique. The material is excellent. Nevertheless, I suggest that selection of range-finding men among SS troops should be carried out according to the methods of examination as used by the Luftwaffe. A still better selection would thus be the result. I am able to judge because I am the specialist for medical selection with the Luftwaffe range-finding unit, and all those detailed to these courses once more have to pass my examination. I therefore take the liberty to send to you from Schongau the method of selection as drafted by me. For this, I received the War Merit Cross, 2d Class, with Swords. It will not be a note for instruction but a draft for a lecture. I prefer to have it forwarded the direct way rather than that any SS officer should put it down in a mutilated way during my lectures. A similar instructional note was submitted to the Reich Ministry for Aviation. Thanks to your generosity, the cancer research is progressing well, in spite of the war. I do hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are in perfect health, in spite of your tremendous amount of work! With my most hearty wishes, I am with Heil Hitler! [handwritten] Yours, gratefully devoted, [Signed] S. RASCHER [Handwritten] RUSH TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1582-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 45 LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, UNDATED, INFORMING HIM THAT PRISONERS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR HIGH-ALTITUDE RESEARCH AK/104a/LO Bra/V [Stamp unintelligible May 2 (?) 1941] SS Untersturmfuehrer Sigmund Rascher M. D. Munich Trogerstr. 56 Dear Dr. Rascher: Shortly before flying to Oslo, the Reich Leader SS gave me your letter of 15 May 1941, for partial reply. I can inform you that prisoners will, of course, be gladly made available for the high-flight researches. I have informed the Chief of the Security Police of this agreement of the Reich Leader SS, and requested that the competent official be instructed to get in touch with you. I want to use the opportunity to extend my cordial wishes to you on the birth of your son. I shall refer as soon as possible to the second part of your letter. By order Heil Hitler! [initials] R BR [Rudolf Brandt] SS Sturmbannfuehrer [illegible markings] TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1581-A-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 48 LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SIEVERS, 21 MARCH 1942, CONCERNING RASCHER’S PARTICIPATION IN HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS The Reich Leader SS Personal Staff Journal No. AR 704/2 A/Bn. [Stamp] Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Documentary Administration Record number AR/704/2 A/Bn. 58 Fuehrer Headquarters, 21 March 1942 To the Reich Chief Manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of the “Ahnenerbe” SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers Berlin—Dahlem Dear Comrade Sievers, I refer to your inquiry of 9 March 1942 B/151/r1 S/Wo—concerning Dr. Rascher. Reference is made to the subatmospheric pressure experiments which are being carried out on concentration camp inmates in the Dachau camp by the air force. The Reich Leader SS has approved these experiments under the condition that SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, who is an Obersturmfuehrer of the air force, takes part in them. I am sure that Dr. Rascher will be able to give you further details.[22] Heil Hitler! [Signed] BRANDT SS Sturmbannfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-A-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 49 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 5 APRIL 1942, AND REPORT, UNDATED, ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS Sigmund Rascher, M. D. 5 April 1942 [Marginal note] Very interesting. 8-4-42. [Apparently by Himmler] Highly esteemed Reich Leader: Enclosed is an interim report on the low-pressure experiments so far conducted in the concentration camp of Dachau. May I ask you respectively to treat the report as secret? A few days ago Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] Professor Dr. Grawitz made a brief inspection of the experimentation plant. Since his time was very limited, no experiments could be demonstrated to him. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to watch some of the interesting standard experiments and may have given you a brief report. I believe, highly esteemed Reich Leader, that you would be extraordinarily interested in those experiments. Is it not possible that on the occasion of a trip to southern Germany you have some of the experiments demonstrated to you? If the results so obtained by the experiments are confirmed by further experimentation, entirely new data will be secured for science; simultaneously, entirely new aspects will be opened to the Luftwaffe. I hope that, thanks to the intended efforts of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, the Luftwaffe will make no difficulties from now on. I am very much indebted to Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very active interest in my work in every respect. I thank you respectfully, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for the generous realization of my proposition to conduct such experiments in the concentration camp. With my best wishes for your personal well-being, I am With Heil Hitler Gratefully yours, [Signed] S. RASCHER _FIRST INTERIM REPORT ON THE LOW-PRESSURE CHAMBER EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMP OF DACHAU_ 1. The object is to solve the problem of whether the theoretically established norms pertaining to the length of life of human beings breathing air with only a small proportion of oxygen and subjected to low pressure correspond with the results obtained by practical experiments. It has been asserted that a parachutist, who jumps from a height of 12 km. would suffer very severe injuries, probably even die, on account of the lack of oxygen. Practical experiments on this subject have always been discontinued after a maximum of 53 seconds, since very severe bends [Hoehenkrankheit] occurred. 2. Experiments testing the length of life of a human being above the normal breathing limits (4, 5, 6 km.) have not been conducted at all, since it has been a foregone conclusion that the human experimental subject [Versuchsperson—VP] would suffer death. The experiments conducted by myself and Dr. Romberg proved the following: Experiments on parachute jumps proved that the lack of oxygen and the low atmospheric pressure at 12 or 13 km. altitude did not cause death. Altogether 15 extreme experiments of this type were carried out in which none of VP’s died. Very severe bends together with unconsciousness occurred, but completely normal functions of the senses returned when a height of 7 km. was reached on descent. Electrocardiograms registering during the experiments did show certain irregularities, but by the time the experiments were over the curves had returned to normal and they did not indicate any abnormal changes during the following days. The extent to which deterioration of the organism may occur due to continuously repeated experiments can only be established at the end of the series of experiments. The extreme fatal experiments will be carried out on specially selected VP’s, otherwise it would not be possible to exercise the rigid control so extraordinarily important for practical purposes. The VP’s were brought to a height of 8 km. under oxygen and then had to make 5 knee bends with and without oxygen. After a certain lapse of time, moderate to severe bends occurred and the VP’s became unconscious. However, after a certain period of accustoming themselves to the height of 8 km. all the VP’s recuperated and regained their consciousness and the normal functions of their senses. Only continuous experiments at altitudes higher than 10.5 km. resulted in death. These experiments showed that breathing stopped after about 30 minutes, while in 2 cases the electrocardiographically charted action of the heart continued for another 20 minutes. The third experiment of this type took such an extraordinary course that I called an SS physician of the camp as witness, since I had worked on these experiments all by myself. It was a continuous experiment without oxygen at a height of 12 km. conducted on a 37-year-old Jew in good general condition. Breathing continued up to 30 minutes. After 4 minutes the VP began to perspire and to wiggle his head, after 5 minutes cramps occurred, between 6 and 10 minutes breathing increased in speed and the VP became unconscious; from 11 to 30 minutes breathing slowed down to three breaths per minute, finally stopping altogether. Severest cyanosis developed in between and foam appeared at the mouth. At 5-minute intervals electrocardiograms from three leads were written. After breathing had stopped, the electrocardiogram was continuously written until the action of the heart had come to a complete standstill. About ½ hour after breathing had stopped, dissection was started. _Autopsy Report_ When the cavity of the chest was opened the pericardium was filled tightly (heart tamponade). Upon opening of the pericardium 80 cc. of clear yellowish liquid gushed forth. The moment the tamponade had stopped, the right auricle began to beat heavily, at first at the rate of 60 actions per minute, then progressively slower. Twenty minutes after the pericardium had been opened, the right auricle was opened by puncturing it. For about 15 minutes, a thin stream of blood spurted forth. Thereafter clogging of the puncture wound in the auricle by coagulation of the blood and renewed acceleration of the action of the right auricle occurred. One hour after breathing had stopped, the spinal marrow was completely severed and the brain removed. Thereupon the action of the auricle stopped for 40 seconds. It then renewed its action, coming to a complete standstill 8 minutes later. A heavy subarchnoid oedema was found in the brain. In the veins and arteries of the brain a considerable quantity of air was discovered. Furthermore, the blood vessels in the heart and liver were enormously obstructed by embolism. The anatomical preparations will be preserved and so I shall be able to evaluate them later. The last-mentioned case is to my knowledge the first one of this type ever observed on man. The above-described heart actions will gain particular scientific interest, since they were written down with an electrocardiogram to the very end. The experiments will be continued and extended. Another interim report will follow after new results have been obtained. [Signed] DR. RASCHER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-C-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 50 LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942, REGARDING HIS SUCCESS WITH HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS 1174/42 BRa/V Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942 Top Secret SS Untersturmfuehrer Rascher, M. D. Munich, Trogerstrasse 56 Dear Comrade Dr. Rascher, Your report of 5.4.1942 has been seen by the Reich Leader SS today. The tests on which SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers gave a brief report interested him very much. For the further tests I wish you a continuation of the success you have had so far. Best regards also to your wife. Heil Hitler! Yours, [Signed] B. [R.] BRANDT SS Sturmbannfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-B-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 51 LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 13 APRIL 1942, REQUESTING A REPETITION OF HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS ON PRISONERS CONDEMNED TO DEATH The Reich Leader SS Fuehrer Headquarters, 13 April 1942 SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher Munich 27, Trogerstrasse 56 Dear Dr. Rascher: I want to answer your letter with which you sent me your reports. Especially the latest discoveries made in your experiments particularly have interested me. May I now ask you the following: 1. This experiment is to be repeated on other men condemned to death. 2. I would like Dr. Fahrenkamp to be taken into consultation on these experiments. 3. Considering the long-continued action of the heart the experiments should be specifically exploited in such a manner as to determine whether these men could be recalled to life. Should such an experiment succeed, then, of course, the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life. Please keep me further informed on the experiments. Kind regards and Heil Hitler! Yours [Signed] H. HIMMLER 2. Chief of the Security Police and SD. 3. SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks. Copy for your information. by order [I. A.] [initialed] BR. [Rudolf Brandt] SS Sturmbannfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-D-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 52 TELETYPE FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 20 OCTOBER 1942, REQUESTING CLARIFICATION ON THE PARDON GRANTED BY HIMMLER REICH SECURITY MAIN OFFICE Communication Communication No. 11194 Urgent RFSS Munich—Teletype No. 2020, 20 October 1942, 5:25 p. m. To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt Field Command Post [Feldkommandostelle] Hegewald Highly esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer: Will you please clarify the following case with the Reich Leader SS as soon as possible? In communication RFSS [Reich Leader SS] of 13-1-42 under paragraph 3 it is ordered that if prisoners in Dachau condemned to death live through experiments which have endangered their lives, they should be pardoned. As up to now only Poles and Russians were available, some of whom had been condemned to death, it is not quite clear to me yet as to whether the above-mentioned paragraph also applies to them, and whether they may be pardoned to concentration camp for life after having lived through several very severe experiments. Please answer by teletype via Adjutant’s Office, RFSS, Munich. Obedient Greetings, Heil Hitler! Yours [Signed] S. RASCHER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1971-E-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 53 TELETYPE FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO SCHNITZLER, 21 OCTOBER 1942, CONCERNING THE PARDON GRANTED BY HIMMLER TELETYPE To SS Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler Munich Please inform SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher with regard to his teletype inquiry that the instruction given some time ago by the Reich Leader SS concerning amnesty of test persons does not apply to Poles and Russians. [Signed] BRANDT SS Obersturmbannfuehrer 21 October 1942 Bra/Dr. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-218 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 56 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 APRIL 1942, REPORTING ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS WITH FATAL RESULTS AND ON EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED TOGETHER WITH ROMBERG Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 16 April 1942 Highly esteemed Reich Leader: May I thank you for your letter of 13 April. I am delighted with the great interest which you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, are taking in the experiments and their results. I thank you for the inspiration you have given me in your letter. The experiment described in the report of 4 April was repeated four times, each time with the same results. When Wagner, the last test person had stopped breathing, I let him come back to life by increasing pressure. Since test person “W . . .” was assigned for a terminal[23] experiment, as a repeated experiment held no prospect of new results, and since I had not been in possession of your letter at that time, I subsequently started another experiment through which Test Person Wagner did not live. Also in this case the results obtained by electrocardiographic registration were extraordinary. In accordance with your orders, I tried to contact Dr. Fahrenkamp immediately upon receipt of your letter. However, I could not speak to him since he is laid up with angina. In a few days I shall ask again if Dr. Fahrenkamp is available. Meanwhile, at times together with Dr. Romberg, I have carried out falling experiments from heights of from 16 to 20 kilometers. There, contrary to theoretical assumptions, it was proved that falling through space after jumping from an airplane in the stratosphere (pressure cabinplane) is quite possible, as after severe unconsciousness the test person regained complete consciousness in each case, at between 7 and 8 kilometers height when the parachute lever, installed in the chamber, was pulled. Within the next few days, I shall report at length on these experiments as well as on the above-mentioned Test Person Wagner. I also have a request to make: May I take pictures of the various dissection preparations in the dissecting room of the concentration camp to make a record of the strange formations of air embolism? In this connection, my wife has already written to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt. Highly esteemed Reich Leader, allow me to close by assuring you that your active interest in these experiments has a tremendous influence on one’s working capacity and initiative. I am with devoted greeting and Heil Hitler! Yours gratefully devoted [Signed] S. RASCHER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-264 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 60 FILE NOTE FOR SS OBERSTURMFUEHRER SCHNITZLER, 28 APRIL 1942 Frau Rascher was here today in the office and stated the following to me for you in a few words: Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz still insists on participation in the experiments and on full responsibility. If not, the assignment of Dr. Rascher to the Weltz Institute must be changed. Weltz personally is _not_ interested in these experiments. RLM [The Reich Air Ministry] asks Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz how long the experiments will last and whether it is justifiable to detail a medical officer for so long a time. RLM demands from Weltz an opinion on the experiments which he, however, cannot give, unless he is fully informed about them. Weltz will be in Berlin with Generaloberstabsarzt Hippke on Friday. Weltz demands a statement by Friday as to whether he should consider himself as still participating in the experiments, or whether it is requested that he should not participate in the experiments. The assignment of Dr. Rascher must immediately be changed to “Assignment to Aviation Test Institute Berlin—Adlershof, Dachau Branch” (not Weltz Institute), because Weltz—as he stated—intends to cancel the assignment immediately, if he is not to participate in it. _For personal confidential information_ Dr. Weltz confidentially informed Dr. Rascher that there is great mistrust against him in the RLM because of the experiments (SS membership); there is also animosity in the air force administrative command (Luftgau) Munich for this reason. Munich, 28 April 1942. Gr. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-220 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 61 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 11 MAY 1942, AND SECRET REPORT CONCERNING HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS Sigmund Rascher M. D. Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 11 May 1942 Highly esteemed Reich Leader: Enclosed I am forwarding a short summary on the principal experiments conducted up to date. A detailed report on the practical as well as the theoretical results will take some more time. I shall hurry. Since the material has to be processed the exploitation of the pathological preparations will take about ½ year though the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research will help us, I hope. Tonight I succeeded in seeing Dr. Fahrenkamp who has relatively recovered. He appeared to be very interested and I think there will be a fine and fruitful cooperation. Dr. Fahrenkamp who has an enormous knowledge most amiably promised to help me in everything. He will give to you himself his opinion on my heart experiments. From our conversation I have had the impression that a great field of work will open up to me yet. I thank you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, for having opened these opportunities to me to such an extent. Unfortunately, the extension of my assignment has not been settled yet; in accordance with the present regulations, my assignment will be terminated on 15 May. Thanking you again, I am with most obedient greetings and Heil Hitler! Yours gratefully, [Signed] S. RASCHER Munich, 11 May 1942 _SECRET REPORT_ Based on results of experiments which up to now various scientists had conducted on animals only, the experiments in Dachau were to prove whether these results would maintain their validity on human beings. 1. The first experiments were to show whether the human being can gradually adapt himself to higher altitudes. Some 10 tests showed that a slower ascent without oxygen taking from 6 to 8 hours kept the functions of the senses of the various VP’s [Versuchspersonen—human experimental subjects] fully normal up to a height of 8,000 meters. Within 8 hours several VP’s had reached a height of 9.5 kilometers without oxygen when bends occurred suddenly. 2. Normally it is impossible to stay without oxygen at altitudes higher than 6 kilometers. Experiments showed however that after ascent to 8,000 meters without oxygen, bends combined with unconsciousness lasted only about 25 minutes. After this period the VP’s had mostly become accustomed to that altitude; consciousness returned, they could make knee bends, showed a normal electrocardiograph and were able to work (60 to 70 percent of the cases examined). 3. Descending tests on parachutes (suspended) without oxygen. These experiments proved that from 14 kilometers on down severest bends occurred which remained until the ground was reached. The detrimental effects caused by these experiments manifested themselves at the beginning as unconsciousness, and subsequently as spastic and limp paralysis, catotomy, stereotypy, and as retrograde amnesia lasting several hours. About 1 hour after the end of the experiment the VP’s for the most part were still disoriented as to time and locality. The blood picture often showed a shift to the left; albumen and red and white blood corpuscles were regularly found in the urine after the experiment; cylinders were sometimes found. After several hours or days the blood and urine returned to normal. The changes of the electrocardiograph were reversible. Contrary to descending tests on parachutes without oxygen, descending tests with oxygen were carried out from heights up to 18 kilometers. It was proved that on the average the VP’s regained the normal function of their senses at 12 to 13 kilometers. No disturbances of general conditions occurred during any of these experiments. Brief unconsciousness at the beginning of the experiment caused no lasting disturbances. Urine and blood showed only a slight change. 4. As the long time of descent on parachutes, under actual conditions, would cause severe freezing even if no detrimental effects were caused by lack of oxygen, VP’s were brought by sudden decreases in pressure with a cutting torch from 8 to 20 kilometers, simulating the damage to the pressure-machine of the high-altitude airplane. After a waiting period of 10 seconds, corresponding to stepping out of the machine, the VP’s were made to fall from this height with oxygen to a height where breathing is possible. The VP’s awoke between 10 and 12 kilometers and at about 8 kilometers pulled the parachute lever. 5. In experiments of falling from the same height without oxygen, the VP’s regained normal function of their senses only between 2 and 5 kilometers. 6. Experiments testing the effect of pervitin on the organism during parachute jumps, proved that the severe after-effects, as mentioned under No. 3, were considerably milder. The ability to withstand the conditions at high altitudes was only slightly improved, while the bends, since they were not noticed, occurred suddenly (restraint-loosening effects of pervitin). 7. Dr. Kliches, of the Charles University in Prague, reports in the publication of the Reich Research Council: “By prolonged breathing of oxygen, human beings should theoretically be kept fully fit up to 13 kilometers. In practice, the limit is around 11 kilometers. Experiments which I carried out in this connection proved that with pure oxygen no lowering of the measurable raw energy (ergometer) was noticeable up to 13.3 kilometers. The VP’s merely became unwilling since pains of the body cavities grew too severe, due to the lowering of pressure between body and thin air. When pure oxygen was inhaled bends occurred in all 25 cases only at heights above 14.2 kilometers.” As practical result of the more than 200 experiments conducted at Dachau, the following can be assumed: Flying in altitudes higher than 12 kilometers without pressure-cabin or pressure-suit is impossible even while breathing pure oxygen. If the airplane pressure-machine is damaged at altitudes of 13 kilometers and higher, the crew will not be able to bail out of the damaged plane themselves since at that height the bends appear rather suddenly. It must be requested that the crew should be removed automatically from the plane, for instance, by catapulting the seats by means of compressed air. Descending with opened parachute without oxygen would cause severe injuries due to the lack of oxygen, besides causing severe freezing; consciousness would not be regained until the ground was reached. Therefore the following is to be requested: 1. A parachute with barometrically controlled opening. 2. A portable oxygen apparatus for the jump. For the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had committed race pollution were used. The question of the formation of embolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the VP’s died during a continued high-altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles. To find out whether the severe psychic and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however, before regaining consciousness, some VP’s were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water, an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels, and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc. That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is not fatal at all, but that is reversible as shown by the return to normal conditions of all the other VP’s. It was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in practically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled. One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen for 2½ hours before the experiment started. After 6 minutes at a height of 20 kilometers, he died and at dissection also showed ample air embolism, as was the case in all other experiments. At sudden decreases in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to heights where breathing is possible, no deep reaching damages due to air embolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a certain amount of time. [Signed] DR. RASCHER PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-402 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 66 LETTER, 29 SEPTEMBER 1942, AND REPORT, 28 JULY 1942, FROM ROMBERG AND RUFF TO HIMMLER CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES German Aviation Research Institute Berlin-Adlershof, Rudower Ch. 16-25 [Stamp] Secret To the Reich Leader SS Berlin SW 11 Prinz-Albrechtstr. 8 Your Ref. Your communication of DVL-Ref. Day R/Ru/Ko 2098/42, 22 September 1942 Military Secret Re: Report “Experiments on Rescue from High Altitudes” [handwritten] to files B [initial] Enclosed we submit copies Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of the report “Experiments on Rescue from High Altitudes” for your files. German Aviation Research Institute per procura [Signed] DR. ROMBERG L. RUFF [handwritten] Report-3-received 2 November [Signed] SIEVERS, SS Oberfuehrer _3 enclosures_ Personal Staff Reich Leader SS 29 September 1942 Diary No. 1348/42 To RF [handwritten] 1943 Top Secret [stamp] EXPERIMENTS ON RESCUE FROM HIGH ALTITUDES.[24] _Abstract_: A report is to be made on experiments in which the possibility of rescue from high altitudes in the low-pressure chamber is studied. Experiments were made at parachute sinking speeds up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen, and up to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] with oxygen breathing, as well as falling experiments speeds up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with and without oxygen. The results with practical significance will be discussed below. Organization: I. Introduction and statement of the problem. II. Procedure of the experiment. III. Results of the experiment. 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing. 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing. 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing. 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing. IV. Discussion of the results. V. Conclusions from the results. VI. Summary. Bibliography. The report includes 28 pages with 3 figures and 6 tables. German Aviation Research Institute For the Institute [signed]: L. RUFF The Authors: [Draft copy signed by] DR. RASCHER Stabsarzt der Lw. [signed] DR. ROMBERG. Berlin, Adlershof, 28 July 1942. Rf 401/20 [page 2 of original] I. Introduction and Statement of the Problem It is theoretically possible for man to reach as high altitude as he may wish in an aircraft with a pressure cabin. However, the question must be settled as to what results or effects the destruction of the pressure cabin will have upon the human being, who in such cases is exposed in a few seconds to the low air pressure and thereby to the lack of oxygen, which is characteristic of high altitude. Of particular practical interest is the question from what altitudes and by what means the safest rescue of the crew can be made. In the work at hand, a report is presented on experiments in which the various possibilities of rescue were studied under special experimental conditions. Since the urgency of the solution of the problem was evident, it was necessary, especially under the given conditions of the experiment, to forego for the time being the thorough clearing up of purely scientific questions. II. Procedure of the Experiment The experiments were carried on in a portable low-pressure chamber with equipment for explosive decompression. The performance of this apparatus limited the highest altitude attainable to about 21,000 meters [68,900 feet]. In this experimental series, which was to clarify the possibilities of rescue from high altitudes, the experiments, simulating actual conditions, were carried out in such a way that rescue with parachute unfolded (designated as descending experiments) and with parachute folded (designated as falling experiments) were studied sometimes with and sometimes without oxygen breathing. Since the altitude or posture of the body is of essential significance for the demands made by the lack of O_{2} on the circulation, the experiments were carried out in sitting and prone positions; and, in descending experiments, in a suspended [page 3 of original] position in a parachute harness corresponding to the actual position. For purposes of demonstration certain of the experiments were recorded on film. Electrocardiograms were made of several experiments in the experimental series. Oxygen was breathed out of the customary low-pressure apparatus with continuous flow at altitudes over 10 km. [32,800 ft.]. The following experimental sequence was chosen: 1. Descending experiments without O_{2} breathing. 2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing. 3. Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing. 4. Falling experiments with O_{2} breathing. The sinking and falling times which were used in the experiments are tabulated in figures 1 and 2. [Figure 2 not reproduced.] III. Results of the Experiments _1. Sinking experiments without oxygen breathing_ Since a thoroughly dependable parachute oxygen apparatus is not yet generally available, experimental tests were made to determine from what altitudes a rescue with open parachute without oxygen is possible. Therefore, sinking experiments were carried out in which the mask was taken off after ascent with O_{2} (for speed of ascent of the chamber see fig. 1), and, after a waiting period of 10 seconds the sinking was begun. In the experiment no altitude sickness occurred at 9 km. [29,500 ft.] as was expected. In the sinking experiments, from 10 km. [32,800 ft.] altitude, typical altitude sickness occurred after about 2 minutes, i. e., at an altitude of about 8.6 km. [28,200 ft.], which was indicated by a very pronounced scrawling in the writing test. However, no loss of consciousness occurred. (Kloos’ writing test.) [page 7 of original] The experiments from 12 to 15 km. altitude were made partly during suspension in a parachute harness, partly in a sitting position, and partly in a prone position. These experiments show that the body attitude has a very essential influence on the tolerance for a high degree of lack of oxygen. Since, besides this, every bodily exertion is of great importance, in one portion of the experiments six knee bends were made by the subject during the waiting period before beginning the descent. These six knee bends consisted of three knee bends while breathing oxygen followed by deep inhaling and holding of the breath, and then three more knee bends without oxygen breathing. This procedure was chosen in order not to neglect the bodily work involved in an actual parachute jump. The descending experiments from 12 km. [39,400 ft.] altitude yielded the following average times: Table 1 Descending experiment │ Unconsciousness │Recovery of consciousness from 12 km. [39,400 ft.] │ after— │ after— │ │ Sitting without knee bends │1′39″ = 10.85 km. │6′38″ = 7.45 km. │ [35,600 ft.]. │ [24,440 ft.]. Sitting after 6 knee bends │55″ = 11.4 km. │6′55″ = 7.25 km. │ [37,400 ft.]. │ [23,786 ft.]. Suspended in parachute │37″ = 11.65 km. │7′40″ = 6.77 km. harness │ │ │ [38,220 ft.]. │ [22,212 ft.]. │ │ It is to be noted in connection with the stated time and altitude values that the beginning of unconsciousness, or of the recovery, was calculated from the withdrawal of oxygen, while in most experiments the sinking or free fall was begun at the expiration of the 10-second waiting period. Since in addition to this the stages of altitude were read off at the moment of unconsciousness, small variations from the times given in figs. 2 and 3 [not reproduced] are possible [page 8 of original] since, especially in the falling experiments, variations occurred because of the somewhat crude valve control. These variations, however, are small and may be overlooked since in any case the fall and sinking time under practical conditions are dependent on the flying attitude at the moment of the leap from the catapult seat. In addition to this, the calculated fall and sinking time are influenced to a high degree under actual conditions by weight and air resistance. It should be kept in mind in regard to the experiments conducted in the sitting position that the subjects fell over at the beginning of unconsciousness and so passed the critical time of greatest load on the circulatory system in a prone position, while those suspended in the parachute harness remained throughout the experiment in a vertical position, the most unfavorable position for loading the circulatory system. [Illustration: Figure 1. Speed of ascent in the portable low-pressure chamber.] In the writing test shown above [not reproduced] the occurrence of altitude sickness in a sinking experiment for 12 km. [39,400 ft.] altitude is shown in this manner: For example, after 1 minute and 20 seconds at 11 km. [36,100 ft.] altitude, the writing is interrupted because of sudden altitude sickness with unconsciousness, and is resumed after 4½ minutes at an altitude of 8.8 km. [28,870 ft.], with erroneous writing. At 8.3 km. [27,230 ft.] altitude the writing becomes free of errors. This is worthy of special attention because in this case a person has fully recovered mentally at an altitude of 8.3 km. [27,230 ft.], after 3 minutes of the most severe lack of oxygen, while in altitude endurance experiments at this altitude severe altitude sickness sets in after about 3 minutes. Here we are dealing with a process which in any case is very favorable but which is not yet entirely clear and which was already observed in earlier experiments of parachute jumps from great altitudes. Still, it appears from this that a rather long oxygen lack at altitudes up to 13 km. does not present any great strain in [page 12 of original] the sense of using the last reserves, but, on the contrary, the human organism seems to react to this loading with a certain increase in resistance to altitude. In descending experiments from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] altitude the waiting time of 10 seconds was retained, but on the other hand exertion in the form of knee bends was omitted since technical difficulties interfered with this procedure. The experiments involving suspension could be done only in the large low-pressure chamber, since suspension was impossible in the small low-pressure chamber for reasons of space. Therefore, the ascent to 13 km. [42,700 ft.] altitude was carried out slowly in the main chamber (without explosive decompression) so that when 13 km. [42,700 ft.] was reached a certain oxygen lack existed. With this oxygen lack the knee bends would have presented a great burden which would have falsified too greatly the results of the experiment. The same conditions were also given in further experiments at higher altitudes in the main chamber. For this reason, the 13 km. [42,700 ft.] descending experiments were carried out partly in the sitting position, partly in the sitting position strapped in, and partly suspended. They yielded the following average data: Table 2 Descending experiment │ Unconsciousness │Recovery of consciousness from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] │ after— │ after— │ │ Seated (lying during │50″ = 12.4 km. │8′ 12″ = 7.2 km. unconsciousness) │ │ │ [40,672 ft.]. │ [23,620 ft.]. Seated strapped in │35″ = 12.6 km. │10′ 30″ = 5.85 km. │ [41,340 ft.]. │ [19,190 ft.]. Suspended │20″ = 12.8 km. │19′ = 1.6 km. │ [41,980 ft.]. │ [5,250 ft.]. [page 13 of original] Since in unfavorable cases in these experiments, namely while suspended, recovery of consciousness did not occur until 1.6 km. [5,250 ft.] altitude, it had to be concluded that in jumps from altitudes over 13 km. [42,700 ft.], recovery of consciousness would follow only after 0 km., which would mean that in an actual situation the landing would be made in an unconscious condition. This raised the question of a safe means of rescue. Descending experiments were made in larger numbers from 15 km. altitude, since it became evident that at this altitude the approximate limits for what was possible in emergencies had already been reached or essentially surpassed. After an ascent made as rapidly as possible, using oxygen apparatus with free flow, the mask was removed immediately upon attaining 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude and the descent was begun. Since the results of these descending experiments were very typical and especially impressive it is necessary to present one of these experiments in detail. The record of an experiment is represented as follows: 15 km. [49,200 ft.] Lets the mask fall, severe altitude sickness, clonic convulsions. 14.5 km. [47,560 ft.] 30 sec. Opisthotonus. 14.3 km. [46,900 ft.] 45 sec. Arms stretched stiffly forward; sits up like a dog (“Pfoetchenstellung”), legs spread stiffly apart. 13.7 km. [44,950 ft.] 1 min. 20 sec. Suspended in opisthotonus. 13.2 km. [43,310 ft.] 1 min. 50 sec. Agonal convulsive breathing. 12.2 km. [40,030 ft.] 3 min. Dyspnea, hangs limp. 7.2 km. [23,620 ft.] 10 min. Uncoordinated movements with the extremities. 6 km. [19,690 ft.] 12 min. Clonic convulsions, groaning. 5.5 km. [18,040 ft.] 13 min. Yells loudly. [page 14 of original] 2.9 km. [9,520 ft.] 18 min. Still yelling, convulses arms and legs, head sinks forward. 2-0 km. [6,560-0 ft.] 20-24.5 min. Yells spasmodically, grimaces, bites his tongue. 0 km. Does not respond to speech, gives the impression of someone who is completely out of his mind. 5 min. (after reaching ground Reacts for the first time to vocal level). stimulation. 7 min. Attempts upon command to arise, says in stereotyped manner: “No, please”. 9 min. Stands up on command; severe ataxia; answers to all questions: “Just a minute”. Tries spasmodically to recall his birth date. 10 min. Typical stereotypes of attitude and movement (catatonia); mumbles number to himself. 11 min. Holds his head turned convulsively to the right; tries repeatedly to answer the first question concerning his birth date. 12 min. Questions of the subject: “May I slice something?” (Note: In civilian work he was a delicatessen clerk.) “May I pant, will it be all right if I inhale?” Breathes deeply, then says, “All right, thank you very much.” 15 min. On being ordered to walk, steps forward and says: “All right, thank you very much”. 17 min. Gives his name; says he was born in 1928 (born 1 November 1908). Experimenter asks: “Where?” “Something 1928” “Profession?” “28—1928”. 18 min. “May I inhale?” “Yes.” “I am content with that.” 25 min. Still the question continues: “Pant?” 28 min. Sees nothing; runs against open window sash upon which the sun is shining, so that large lump is formed on his forehead; says: “Excuse me please.” No expression of pain. [page 15 of original] 30 min. Knows his name and place of birth. Upon being asked for the day’s date: “1 November 1928”. Shivering of the legs; stupor continues; cannot be frightened by the report of a shot. Dark objects are still not discerned; subject bumps against them. Is aware of bright light; knows his profession; spacially disoriented. 37 min. Reacts to pain stimuli. 40 min. Begins to observe differences. Falls continually into his previous speech stereotypes. 50 min. Spacially oriented. 75 min. Still disoriented in time; retrogressive amnesia over 3 days. 24 hours Normal condition again attained; has no recollection of the experiment itself. The events of the descending experiments from 15 km., as shown here through this example, repeated themselves in a similar way in all the rest of the experiments. The average data from 20 experiments with 15 different subjects are as follows: Table 3 │ │ │ Clear 15 km. │ Unconsciousness │Subconscious awakening │consciousness [47,200 ft.]│ after— │ movements │ at 0 km. │ │ │ Suspended │16″ = 14.7 km. │20½′ = 1.8 km. │ │ [48,220 ft.]. │ [5,910 ft.]. │ 18′-90′ │ │ │ Lying │20″ = 14.6 km. │14′ = 5 km. │ 15′-80′ │ [47,890 ft.]. │ [16,400 ft.] │ Unconsciousness after discontinuation of oxygen occurs following a short motor restlessness with severe altitude sickness, whereupon light spasmodic and then very severe tonic convulsions follow in a condition of complete unconsciousness. These tonic convulsions lasting virtually a minute are followed rather suddenly by a phase of complete [page 16 of original] flacidity with a drop in breathing rate and transition to convulsive breathing with 3 to 4 breaths per minute until complete cessation of breathing of 45 seconds duration (post-hypoxemic pseudo-death—Lutz). Then follows a period of improvement in breathing, until the first subconsciousness movements announce the gradual recovery of consciousness, during which, nevertheless, the higher mental functions are temporarily entirely absent. Further recovery proceeds slowly during the course of the following ½ to 1½ hours as may be seen from the above case record. During the time of complete unconsciousness, there was defecation and urination in the case of most subjects, increased salivation and, in some cases, vomiting. Here we obviously have the conditions which Lutz and Wendt in their animal experimentation which is referred to in greater detail later found in falling experimentation with O_{2} breathing and designated as “post-hypoxemic twilight state” (“Posthypoxaemischen Daemmerzustand”) since we are dealing with a slow recovery of consciousness, especially also in view of the mental behavior of the experimental subjects. The post hypoxemic pseudo-death observed by Wendt and Lutz was not found in any experiments in the form which they had observed. The severe condition described above we could designate as hypoxemic pseudo-death only because it was limited to the period of the most severe O_{2} lack (on the average, between 13.3 and 12.3 km.). In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack. In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments each were interesting. In the case of Ro. during a half hour stay at 12 km. [39,400 ft.] with oxygen, [page 17 of original] only the usual pains attendant with bends occurred. In a further experiment with a stay of 40 minutes duration at an altitude of between 13 [42,650 ft.] and 13.5 km. [44,290 ft.] there developed very gradually a condition of weakness, combined with a peculiar headache, which then led to a considerable slackening of strength in the arms and hands. As a result of this, Ro. could no longer hold the breathing mouthpiece (for special reasons in these experiments, Ro. had to breathe with a mouthpiece and nose clamp) so that it slid out of his mouth. All these phenomena were still clearly observed by Ro. Ra. returned the mouthpiece to Ro. However at this point Ro. failed rather suddenly with paleness, strong cyanosis of the lips and complete unconsciousness. After Ro. had regained clear consciousness through descent and sufficient O_{2} breathing, he determined the existence in himself of a complete paralysis of the legs, weakness of the arms and severe disturbances of vision. These serious disturbances developed although the time of oxygen lack and unconsciousness had lasted only about 5 seconds. Following descent soon after this to 0 km., the paralysis of the legs continued for about 5 minutes more and the very severe visual disturbances only cleared up after 2 hours. While this episode of Ro.’s occurred in an experiment at a special altitude, the disturbances occurred in Ra. at an altitude of between 12 [39,400 ft.] and 13 km. [42,700 ft.] while he was breathing sufficient oxygen with a mask and continuous flow into the circuit. After 10 minutes stay at this altitude, pains began on the right side with a spastic paralytic condition of the right leg which increased continually as though Ra.’s whole right side were being crushed between two presses. At the same time there were most severe headaches as though the skull were being burst apart. The pains became continually more severe so that at last the discontinuation of the experiment became necessary. The pains disappeared when ground level was reached while the disturbances of the right leg continued about 5 minutes more. Shortly before the [page 18 of original] second experiment, Ra. took two tablets of “Antineuralgica” (a coal tar derivative) and two tablets of pervitin. In the course of the experiments there occurred only light pains in the right arm and leg, moderate headaches, but a very severe uncontrollable urge to cough, actually less severe difficulties than in the foregoing experiment, although this one was made at 1,000 m. [3,280 ft.] higher. Ro. experienced disturbances which in quality resembled the severe disturbances in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] sinking experiment, although the degree of oxygen lack in this experiment was negligible in comparison to the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiment, so that the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested. _2. Descending experiments with O_{2} breathing_ Since obviously the utmost limits of these experiments had been reached with the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen breathing, descending experiments with oxygen breathing were conducted from greater heights. In the experiments, the following experimental procedure was chosen: ascent to 8 km. [26,300 ft.], remaining there 5 to 10 minutes with oxygen breathing; then turning on the oxygen blower explosive decompression to a predetermined altitude; 10 seconds waiting time (experiments from 17 [55,800 ft.] and 18 km. [59,100 ft.], altitude without waiting time) and descent at sinking speed. In order to imitate the perpendicular body position as occurs in suspension in a parachute harness, the experimental subjects had to stand during the experiments since suspension was not possible in the small decompression chamber. In the descending experiments from 15 km. [49,200 ft.] altitude there was no altitude sickness or only a slight temporary kind. In the further descending experiments, the following results were obtained (Table 4): [page 19 of original] Table 4.—Descending experiments with oxygen breathing Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of after— │ │ consciousness after— │ │ 23 sec. = 15.75 km. │16 km. [52,500 ft.] │2 min. 35 sec. = 13.55 │ │km. [51,660 ft.] │ │ [44,460 ft.] 10 sec. = 16.8 km. │17 km. [55,800 ft.] │3 min. 50 sec. = 13 km. [55,120 ft.] │ │ [42,700 ft.] 7 sec. = 17.9 km. │18 km. [59,100 ft.] │10 min. 35 sec. = 8.5 km. [58,740 ft.] │ │ [27,890 ft.] Thus it was shown that unconsciousness developed relatively early in spite of oxygen breathing, while the following convulsive stage ran its course in a much less severe form than in the experiments without oxygen breathing. Primarily spasmodic convulsions with only occasionally light tonic convulsions developed. Breathing paralysis never set in and upon recovery of consciousness the experimental subjects were again completely in control of themselves. The markedly quick development of unconsciousness was caused by the fact that the subjects were standing during the experiments (to be considered in comparison with the corresponding times in the falling experiments with oxygen breathing). Descending experiments from still greater altitudes were not undertaken, since in practice there is no need to escape from such altitudes with open parachute and thus to expose oneself to the danger of severe freezing. _3. Falling experiments without oxygen_ Since the results of falling experiments from 12 km. altitude were known from earlier experimentation and indeed descending experiments up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.] without oxygen had been conducted within the scope of this work, falling experiments were begun at an altitude of 14 km. [45,900 ft.], in order not to increase unnecessarily the number of experiments. [page 20 of original] The ascent preceded by explosive decompression from 8 to 14 and 15 km. altitude, in which the ascent to 8 km. was made with oxygen and the explosive decompression with continuous flow, followed after 5 to 10 minutes waiting time. After the removal of the oxygen mask directly in connection with the explosive decompression, five knee bends were made during the waiting period of 10 seconds, then descent at free fall speed. During the explosive decompression the oxygen supply was interrupted from the outside. The results of these experiments were (Table 5): Table 5.—Falling experiments without O_{2} breathing Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness after— │ │ after— │ │ 30 sec. = 13.2 km. │14 km. │65 sec. = 9.7 km. [43,310 ft.] │ [45,900 ft.] │ [31,830 ft.] 28 sec. = 14.3 km. │15 km. │96 sec. = 7.6 km. [46,900 ft.] │ [49,200 ft.] │ [24,940 ft.] The further experiments up to 20 km. [65,600 ft.] altitude were made with the same procedure as those up to 15 km. [49,200 ft.], although without knee bends during the waiting period of 10 seconds, since unconsciousness would have occurred too soon as a result of the knee bends and the experimenters had become convinced that rescue from these altitudes would have to be brought about by abandonment of the aircraft without bodily exertion (catapult seat). (Table 5—Continued) Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness after— │ │ after— │ │ 32 sec. = 14.7 km. │16 km. │118 sec. = 6.6 km. [48,220 ft.] │ [52,500 ft.] │ [21,650 ft.] 27 sec. = 15.9 km. │17 km. │126 sec. = 6.3 km. [52,150 ft.] │ [55,800 ft.] │ [20,660 ft.] [page 21 of original] Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness after— │ │ after— │ │ 23 sec. = 17 km. │18 km. │156 sec. = 4.6 km. [55,800 ft.] │ [59,100 ft.] │ [15,090 ft.] 20 sec. = 18.5 km. │19 km. │173 sec. = 3.7 km. [60,700 ft.] │ [62,300 ft.] │ [12,140 ft.] 17 sec. = 19.75 km. │20 km. │178 sec. = 3.2 km. [61,520 ft.] │ [65,600 ft.] │ [10,500 ft.] 15 sec. = 20.875 km. │21 km. │1 min., 10 sec. after [68,490 ft.] │ [68,900 ft.] │ reaching 0 m. From 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude only one experiment was made in this series, just as in the falling experiments, with oxygen breathing since the pumps achieved the evacuation of the main chamber necessary for a pressure drop to 21 km. altitude only after hours of overloading and the fact that the mercury barometer used in these experiments had its limit of measurement at this altitude. The two experiments were considered only as an orientation on the behavior of the human organism at this altitude at which the ebullition point of the blood had already been far surpassed. A systematic working over of these altitudes must be carried on with perfected measuring instruments and a two-stage pump aggregate in a new experimental series. The result of this falling experiment from 21 km. altitude was made unreliable through the fact that the subject experienced a paralysis of breathing from 11 to 7 km., through which his recovery was doubtless greatly delayed. However, no permanent damage occurred. _4. Falling experiments with oxygen breathing_ Falling experiments with oxygen breathing were undertaken only in small numbers for crude orientation for the following reasons: The altitude [page 22 of original] was limited by the available equipment to a maximum of 21 km. [68,900 ft.], but indeed from this altitude falling experiments without oxygen breathing had already been profitably carried out. It is self-evident that oxygen breathing during parachute jumps from such extreme altitudes greatly increases in any case the chances of success of the jump and, therefore, is to be unconditionally demanded. For that reason it devolved upon the experimenters only to determine to what degree the results of the experiments are influenced by oxygen breathing, especially in regard to the recovery of consciousness, which, of course, followed without oxygen only at relatively low altitudes. As was to be expected, these experiments showed clearly the favorable effect of oxygen breathing. (Table 6): Table 6.—Falling experiments with oxygen breathing Unconsciousness │ From— │ Recovery of consciousness after— │ │ after— │ │ 21 sec. = 19.5 km. │20 km. │87 sec. = 10.55 km. [63,980 ft.] │ [65,600 ft.] │ [34,620 ft.] 15 sec. = 20.875 km. │21 km. │60 sec. = 12.9 km. [68,490 ft.] │ [68,900 ft.] │ [42,320 ft.] The astonishing value of 60 seconds = 12.9 km. [42,320 ft.] for the recovery of consciousness in the 21 km. [68,900 ft.] experiment is explained on the basis that this value was obtained from a single experiment with one subject, who had shown himself in numerous other experiments to be especially resistant to altitude. On the other hand the 20 km. [65,600 ft.] values are the average of a series of experiments. IV. Discussion of the Results The descending experiments without oxygen show that the limit for a safe escape with an open parachute lies approximately at a jumping altitude of 13 km. [42,700 ft.], since in a jump from 13 km. [42,700 ft.] recovery of consciousness occurred only at an altitude of 1.6 km. [5,250 ft.], and so one must already consider the possibilities of landing in an unconscious condition with all the attendant dangers. This still does not take into account the heavy demands made on the body by the cold and the consequent risk. The great effect of the body position during the experiment makes it obvious how severe is the effect of every additional demand. While, for example, in the 13 km. [42,700 ft.], experiment upon a seated subject, recovery of consciousness took place after 8 minutes 12 seconds at an altitude of 7.2 km. [23,620 ft.], the suspended subjects recovered consciousness only after 19 minutes at 1.6 km. [5,250 ft.] altitude. Correspondingly also, unconsciousness occurred in the suspended subjects much more rapidly than in those who were seated. The same observation was made in the 15 km. [49,200 ft.] experiments, and indeed those who went through the experiment lying down could already state name and birth date immediately upon reaching ground level although they were paralyzed, while those who had been suspended did not respond at all to speech within this time. Except for one mentally very sluggish subject, the return of normal condition occurred much earlier to those who were lying down, namely within 15 minutes. The descending experiments extended to 18 km. [59,100 ft.] altitude with oxygen breathing showed that, except for the danger of cold, escape with an open parachute is possible from these altitudes even though, practically, no need exists for it. Before we go into a discussion on the falling experiments it seems essential for us to cite the work of Lutz and Wendt on “Animal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from High-Pressure Cabins.” Unfortunately this work was not available to us during these experiments so that we could not build upon the valuable results contained in it and derived from numerous animal experiments, or upon the experience of the authors. Although both authors approach with necessary scepticism the problem of “reaching decisions through animal experimentation upon questions in [page 24 of original] which, in the final analysis, the behavior of the human being in identical situations is of exclusive interest,” they could, and had to depend upon the previously proved experience that no fundamental qualitative differences in the manner of reaction to oxygen lack is to be expected between animals and human beings although there are considerable quantitative differences which, in this case, mean temporal differences. However, the results of our experiments show that to some extent quantitative as well as qualitative differences are present to the extent that the above animal experiments must lead to great fallacies which are significant to future developments. This appears especially in a comparison of results obtained with animals with the collective results of human experimentation upon escape from high altitudes through free fall without oxygen. On the basis of animal experiments, Lutz and Wendt were forced to the conclusion that if oxygen is breathed before the pressure drop “jumps from 14 km. [45,900 ft.] altitude can theoretically be survived—at any rate, that is the maximum altitude * * *,” whereas we were able to carry out human experiments up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude without any harm whatever. In all experiments at 20 km. [65,600 ft.] the subjects recovered clear consciousness with spontaneous control above 3 km. [9,800 ft.], and so within a sufficient altitude for actual parachute jumping. As instructed before the experiment, the subject rang a cowbell hung up in the chamber by pulling a handle (the equivalent of pulling the rip cord) without a new order to do so, so that under actual conditions they would certainly have also pulled the rip cord at the right time. Experiments with a pressure drop from 4 km. [13,100 ft.] without previous breathing in of oxygen were not carried out by us because we proceeded from the viewpoint that when contact with the enemy is possible, pressure cabin machines fly with a pressure corresponding to 8 km. [26,200 ft.] altitude and, therefore, the crews would already be breathing oxygen in case of a possible pressure drop as a result of damage to the cabin. [page 25 of original] Since the falling experiments without oxygen had already given such good results, falling experiments were begun only at 20 km. [65,600 ft.] altitude, and, because of the limitations described above, could be carried out only to 21 km. [68,900 ft.]. In these the results obtained by Lutz and Wendt were fully corroborated in this respect, that jumps from above 21 km. [68,900 ft.] can probably be made without danger, and that ebullition of the blood does not yet take place up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude. On the other hand in a falling experiment with human beings, neither a post-hypoxemic pseudo-death nor a post-hypoxemic twilight sleep were ever observed (Lutz). In conclusion, we must make it particularly clear that, in view of the extreme experimental conditions in this whole experimental series, no fatality and no lasting injury due to oxygen lack occurred. V. Conclusions from the Results For practical rescues by parachute jump from the highest and higher altitudes the experiments yielded the following: The parachute jump without oxygen with immediate opening of the parachute is possible up to a jumping altitude of 13 km. [42,700 ft.]; the jump with oxygen equipment can be made at jumping altitudes up to 18 km. [59,100 ft.]. Advice must be given against jumping and immediate opening of the parachute since there is considerable danger of freezing and there is no need to pull the rip cord at high altitudes. However the experimental data give some indication of the chances of the parachute jumper whose parachute has become unfolded from whatever cause. The jump with a free fall and opening of the parachute at low altitudes can be made without oxygen equipment up to altitudes of 20 km. [65,600 ft.], with oxygen up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.], and probably considerably higher. In all the experiments at great height, even in experiments with oxygen breathing, unconsciousness occurred extraordinarily rapidly and was naturally preceded by loss of control before that. In one unfavorable case of a subject in the standing position during a descending experiment with oxygen, jumping from an altitude of 18 km. [59,100 ft.], unconsciousness occurred after 7 seconds. One may not count on a longer time than 10 seconds before loss of control occurs at high altitudes even with the body at rest. So within that time the airplane must be abandoned or at least one must activate the ejection seat. The technical solution of this problem must be found through a different approach. It is certain only that it will be impossible to climb out under one’s own power, that one must avoid absolutely all bodily exertion, and that the time must be kept as short as possible. Rescue is still possible from very great heights; the critical part is the abandoning of the aircraft. Oxygen equipment is absolutely necessary at these altitudes, since it assures the most favorable conditions for the jump. In case of failure of the equipment, loss of the mouthpiece or other mishaps, we still need not count upon serious disturbances or injuries up to 20 km. [65,600 ft.]. Even jumps from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] will go well if there is automatic opening of the parachute through barometrical control at 7 to 4 km. [23,000 to 13,100 ft.] altitude. The automatic opening is also essential for several other reasons: 1. In particular cases the parachute jumper is not able to regain consciousness at a sufficient altitude above the ground because of collapse or injury. 2. As a result of cold the jumper may be handicapped by immobility of his hands, and thus be hindered in pulling the rip cord. 3. As a result of the unconsciousness resulting from anoxia, the [page 27 of original] parachute jumper loses all sense of the time which has elapsed since his jump, as was shown in all experiments, so that it is impossible for him, with failing eyesight, to estimate his altitude. On the other hand it is desirable, on the basis of the reason adduced under number 3 above, that the opening of the parachute at altitudes above 7 km. [23,000 ft.] be prevented, since very often the parachute jumper would pull the rip cord immediately after recovering from his altitude sickness, which may be too soon and at too high an altitude. The best conditions for explosive decompression itself and for the seconds elapsing until the appearance of altitude sickness are provided if flying is done at a cabin pressure corresponding to 8 km. [26,300 ft.] and with oxygen breathing. Since it may become necessary to abandon the aircraft for reasons other than damage to the pressure cabin, the pressure equalization at a predetermined rate must be made possible by means of a valve. In case abandonment does not appear necessary in spite of the loss of cabin pressure the danger of oxygen lack is still less with the automatic diving control mechanism than in a parachute jump, since the dive may be made with considerably greater rate of descent. VI. Summary Experiments were instituted upon the possibility of rescue from altitudes up to 21 km. [68,900 ft.]. Without parachute oxygen equipment, rescue in descending experiments is still possible from 13 km. [42,700 ft.], with equipment, from 18 km. [59,100 ft.]. The danger arising from cold must be considered. In falling experiments, rescue from 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude with and without oxygen was proved possible. Automatic parachute opening is necessary. Ebullition of the blood does not yet occur at 21 km. [68,900 ft.] altitude. [page 28 of original] Oxygen must be breathed before explosive decompression. Abandonment must be by means of the ejection seat. The dive to safe altitude offers good possibilities of rescue if abandonment of the plane is not necessary after loss of the cabin pressure. Bibliography Lutz and Wendt—“Animal Experiments on Parachute Jumping from High-Pressure Cabins.” Communications in the Field of Aviation Medicine, Research Report 5/42. Romberg—“The Parachute Jump from Great Heights.” German Aviation Research, Research Report No. 1416. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-A-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 62 LETTER FROM MILCH TO WOLFF, 20 MAY 1942, REGARDING CONTINUATION OF EXPERIMENTS Field Marshal Milch Secret Berlin W 8, 20 May 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7 Dear Wolffy! In reference to your telegram of 12 May our medical inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Air Force at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high sea, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Major (M. C.) Weltz will be charged with the execution and Captain (M. C.) Rascher will be made available until further orders in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Air Corps. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time. The low-pressure chamber would not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau. I convey the special thanks from the Supreme Commander of the Air Corps to the SS for their extensive cooperation. I remain with best wishes for you, in good comradeship and with Heil Hitler! Always yours [Signed] E. MILCH SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff Berlin SW 11. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 343-B-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 70 LETTER FROM MILCH TO HIMMLER, 31 AUGUST 1942, ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF REPORTS BY RASCHER AND ROMBERG ON HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS Field Marshal Milch Berlin, W 8, 31 Aug. 1942 Leipzigerstrasse 7 Dear Herr Himmler! I thank you very much for your letter of 25 August. I have read with great interest the reports of Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. I am informed about the current experiments. I shall ask the two gentlemen to give a lecture combined with the showing of motion pictures to my men in the near future. Hoping that it will be possible for me to see you on the occasion of my next visit to Headquarters, I remain with best regards and Heil Hitler! Yours, [Signed] E. MILCH Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Himmler Berlin SW 11. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-289 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 72 LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, THANKING THE LATTER FOR HIS ASSISTANCE IN HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942 Leipziger Str. 7 Telephone 52 00 24 To the Chief of the German Police, Reich Fuehrer SS Himmler, Berlin SW. 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 Subject: Letter 1309/42 of 25 August 1942 to State Secretary Milch concerning experiments for rescue from high altitudes. Very honored Reich Leader SS, In the name of German research on aviation medical problems, I beg to thank you very obediently for the great help and all the interest shown in the Dachau experiments; these experiments form a complement which is, for us, of great value and importance. The fact that an atmosphere with so little oxygen can be endured at all for some time is most encouraging for further research. It is true that no conclusions as to the practice of parachuting can be drawn for the time being, as a very important factor, namely cold, has so far not yet been taken into consideration; it places an extraordinary excess burden on the entire body and its vital movements, so that the results in actual practice will very likely prove to be far more unfavorable than in the present experiments. In the meantime the supplementary tasks required now have been begun. In part they will have to be finished only after completion of the new Research Institute for Aviation Medicine of the Reich Air Ministry in Tempelhof, whose low-pressure chamber will include all cold generating apparatus and also an installation for producing conditions at a height of 30 kilometers. Freezing experiments in another direction are, in, part, still being made at Dachau. When the work will need once more your sympathetic assistance, may I be allowed to get in touch with you again through Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher? Heil Hitler [Signed] PROF. DR. HIPPKE TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-224 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 76 NOTE BY ROMBERG ON SHOWING OF FILM IN OFFICE OF STATE SECRETARY MILCH, AND PROPOSED REPORT TO MILCH, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942 On 11 September 1942, at 9:45 o’clock, Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg met, according to telephonic and oral agreements with Colonel Pendele, in the antechamber of the State Secretary. We were informed that the State Secretary had ordered this conference at the present stage, in the course of which a report on experiments concerning “rescue from great heights” was to be made, and the motion picture concerning these experiments was to be shown. The gentlemen waiting in the antechamber of the State Secretary and in the corridor (most of them from the experimental staff) were informed that previous to the conference a motion picture was to be shown, so that all went to the projection room on the fifth floor. Here quite a large number of people were already present, so that 30-40 persons were there in all. Among them were officers, medical and engineer officers—we know some of them personally—some whose presence surprised us in view of the top secret nature of the motion picture and of the experiments. No checking of the persons present was done, nor was there an attendance list. As, after a short time of waiting, the State Secretary had not come, the motion picture was shown, without giving us an opportunity for preliminary or explanatory remarks. During the intermission between the two parts of the motion picture, Dr. Rascher referred once more to the strict obligation of secrecy ordered by the Reich Leader SS. After completion of the showing of the motion picture—the State Secretary had not come, as he had been summoned to see the Reich Marshal [Goering]—the persons present still talked a little while about the motion picture, on which occasion less interest was shown in the subject itself than in the place of the experiments and the individuals who had been the subjects. After this period of time, during which we were neither called upon to make any statements whatsoever nor were we, considering the great forum and the absence of the State Secretary, inclined to give any reports the greater part of those present went back to the development conference, while Oberstarzt Wuerfler, Oberstarzt Professor Kalk, Stabsarzt Bruehl and Regierungsrat Benzinger asked us to make a report to a small medical circle. As, however, the State Secretary had prohibited that any report be made before the distribution had been decided on, we refused to disclose the results of the experiments. Oberstarzt Kalk stated that he was willing to report to the State Secretary our wishes concerning the distribution of the report and the continuation of the experiments. The film was handed to Colonel Vorwald. According to the conference with Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, I tried to get the film back on the same day, but Colonel Vorwald was still at the development conference. When I telephoned the next day and requested that the film be handed back, Colonel Vorwald declared that he would like to keep the film until after Sunday, 13 September, since on this day the Reich Marshal was coming and might perhaps desire to see the film. Accordingly, I let Colonel Vorwald keep the film for that day. On 14 September, I went to fetch the film from Colonel Vorwald, and was informed that it had not been shown. On the same day I spoke with Stabsarzt Bruehl, who informed me that Oberstarzt Kalk had transmitted, still on 11 September, our wishes concerning distribution and confirmation of the experiments to the State Secretary. The State Secretary had approved the distribution schedule, and said that a continuation of the experiments was not urgent. A few days later the distribution schedule accepted by the State Secretary was sent to the German Aviation Research Institute by Colonel Pendele, and the report was subsequently transmitted by the Institute to the offices concerned. Since that time I have not received any news either concerning the film or concerning the report. [Signed] DR. ROMBERG TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1612-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 79 LETTER FROM RUDOLF BRANDT TO RASCHER, 13 DECEMBER 1942, AND HIMMLER’S ORDER ASSIGNING RASCHER TO HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS The Reich Leader SS Field Command Post [Rubber stamp]: Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS Documentation Section File No.: Confidential Field Command Post, 13 December 1942 The Reich Leader SS Personal Staff Journal No. 19/10/43 g, Bra/Secret 1. Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. med. Rascher [illegible] * * * SS 2. Reich Leader SS Berlin 3. Medical Office in SS Fuehrungshauptamt (SS Operational Main Office) Berlin 4. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, Berlin 5. Ahnenerbe Berlin-Dahlem Enclosed I am sending you a letter of the Reich Leader SS (copy of same) with an order for SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher. You are requested to duly note and accord needed assistance to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher in the carrying through of his experiments. By order [Initialed] B. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Prinz Albrechtstrasse [Rubber stamp] Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS Documentation Section Journal No.: Confidential SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher is being assigned by me to carry through the following experiments: 1. Low-pressure chamber experiments—to be carried out under conditions corresponding to those actually prevailing under normal operating conditions—for rescue from high and extremely high altitudes. Determination of changes in chemical equilibrium, as well as gas equilibrium of human body. Experiments are to be repeated until a scientifically incontestable basis for findings is established. Testing of pressure-proof protection garments for the highest altitudes to be carried out with the assistance of manufacturers of such protective suits. 2. Tests for reimparting warmth after total chilling of the human body, recording all changes of chemical and gas characteristics, are to be further continued until complete clarification of doubtful questions. I attach particular value to conditions for experiments coming as close to actual conditions as possible, particularly as regards reimpartation of warmth. Sauna equipment available in Dachau should be used in connection with experiments on reimpartation of warmth. 3. Experiments on removal of effects due to freezing of parts of human system, especially the extremities, to be carried through in suitable form (e. g. applications with Gastein water). 4. Experiments concerned with adaptation to freezing cold in snow huts (igloos) to be carried out under varying diets in order to establish whether adaptation to cold [German text says “Gewaehrung”, i. e. consent, which evidently is a typographical error] and resistance increase against freezing is possible. These experiments are to be carried out on the site of the SS Mountain Retreat Sudelfeld. 5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reicharzt SS, of the SS Main Office for Economic Administration and with the Ahnenerbe. The necessary chemical products, medical supplies, and glassware will be made available by the SS Medical Office, Berlin. 6. Publication of results obtained in such tests subject to my approval only. [Signed] H. HIMMLER EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS WALTER NEFF[25] _EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_ * * * * * MR. MCHANEY: * * * When did the high-altitude experiments begin in Dachau? WITNESS NEFF: The first high-altitude experiments were on 22 February 1942. The so-called low-pressure chambers had been brought in earlier and dismounted. The exact time when the chambers came is not known to me. Q. Why do you remember the date when the first experiments were made in the low-pressure chambers so well? A. The 22d of February is my birthday and the tubercular patients gave a party for me. On that date the experiments started, and that is why I remember the date. * * * * * Q. Will you tell the Tribunal who worked on these experiments? A. The experiments were conducted by Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg. Ten prisoners were selected and were taken to the station as permanent experimental subjects; and they were told that nothing would happen to them. In the beginning, the first 3 weeks, the experiments went off without incident. One day, however, Rascher told me the next day he was going to make a serious experiment and that he would need 16 Russians who had been condemned to death, and he received these Russians. Then I told Rascher that I would not help, and I actually got Rascher to send me away to the tubercular ward. On that day I know for certain that Rascher’s SS man Endres or other SS men conducted these experiments. Dr. Romberg was not there that day. The SS man Endres took the Russian prisoners of war to Rascher and in the evening the parties were taken out. On the next day when I returned to the station, Endres was already there and he said that two more, two Jews, would be killed. I am quoting what he said. I left the station again, but I watched to see who would be taken for the experiments. I saw the first one getting into the car. I could only see his profile. It seemed familiar to me. I knew that man worked in the hospital as a tailor. I tried to find out if it was really that man. I went to the place where he worked, and I was told that Endres had just taken the man away. The first person that I informed was Dr. Romberg whom I met in the corridor. I told Romberg that this was not a person who had been condemned to death, that this was a clear case of murder on the responsibility of Endres. Romberg went with me to see Rascher to clear the matter up, but it was discovered that Endres had put this man in the experimental car because he had refused to make a civilian suit for him. Rascher sent the man back; Endres went with him and remarked: “Well, then you will get an injection today.” I must say that Rascher interfered once more and put the man in safety into the bunker. In the meantime, Endres had brought a second man up, a Czech, whom I knew very well. Again it was Romberg together with me who talked to Rascher to stop this experiment or to inquire why a man like Endres was simply taking people who had never been condemned to death. Rascher went to the camp commandant, Piorkowski, who personally came to the station and Endres was transferred to Lublin immediately. And now I come to the subject: it was actually the day on which my comrade and I reached the decision that under all circumstances, no matter what happened, I would not remain at this—— Q. Now, Witness, let me interrupt you just a minute. We will come back and you can tell the full story then. * * * * * PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: I will ask the Secretary General to turn this book over to counsel for the prosecution, and defense counsel may examine the book. MR. MCHANEY: Now, Witness, before the recess, you had been telling the Tribunal about the high-altitude experiments which you stated began on 22 February 1942, and you had related how early in March Rascher had experimented upon some 15 Russians who were killed and you stated that neither you nor the defendant Romberg were present on that occasion and you then had gone on to relate that an SS man in Dachau named Endres had brought in the tailor at the camp and wanted him to be experimented upon and how you recognized the tailor and interceded with Romberg and had this man returned. Now, before you continue with your story, I would like to put some specific questions to you. It is true, is it not, that concentration camp inmates were experimented on during these high-altitude experiments? WITNESS NEFF: Yes. Q. About how many concentration camp inmates were subjected to these high-altitude experiments? A. There were 180 to 200 inmates who were subjected to the high-altitude experiments. Q. When, to the best of your recollection, did the high-altitude experiments end? A. The incident of the dead—I am afraid I didn’t quite get your question. Will you repeat it? Q. I am asking you, Witness, when the high-altitude experiments ended, that is, when they were completed. A. During the course of June—maybe the beginning of July, the low-pressure chambers were taken away. I don’t recollect the exact date, however. Q. And you state that between 22 February 1942 and the end of June, or the beginning of July 1942, approximately 180 to 200 concentration camp inmates were experimented on? A. Yes. Q. What nationalities were the experimental subjects? A. I cannot say that with certainty but I think that approximately all nations were represented there; that is, all nations that were in the camp, mostly Russians, Poles, Germans, and Jews belonging to any nation. I do not remember any other nationalities being represented there. Q. Were any of these experimental subjects prisoners of war? A. Yes. Q. What nationalities were they? Do you recall? A. They were Russians. Q. Now, will you tell the Tribunal how these experimental subjects were selected? A. The experimental subjects who had to be subjected to severe experiments, experiments that would end in death, were requested by Rascher from the camp administration and then furnished by the SS; however, this procedure differed with the so-called series of experiments and a number of other experiments. For those experiments, the people were brought into the experimental station straight from the camp, that is, from the blocks. Q. Now, did they, to your knowledge, make any effort in the camp to secure volunteers for these experiments? A. There were certain volunteers for these experiments. That was because Rascher promised certain persons that they would be released from the camp if they underwent these experiments. He sometimes promised them that they would be detailed to more favorable work. Q. Now, about how many of such volunteers would you say there were for the high-altitude experiments? A. I do not know the exact number. It was not very high; approximately 10 inmates volunteered for that purpose. Q. Did these volunteers come one at a time, or did they come in a body, or just how did they present themselves to the experimental stations? A. Rascher moved around the camp quite a lot and on that occasion the inmates spoke to him. Q. In other words, the camp officials and Rascher and Romberg made no effort to find volunteers, did they? A. I don’t know, but I should not think so. I should not think that they made great efforts to get volunteers. Q. Now, other than these approximately 10 persons who you state presented themselves as volunteers, were all the rest of the experimental subjects simply picked out and brought in and experimented on? A. Yes. Q. Were any of these prisoners experimented upon released from the concentration camp because they underwent the experiments? A. There is only one man who was released after the high-altitude experiments. Q. And who was that? A. An inmate with the name of Sobota. Q. And did Sobota assist Rascher in his experimental work other than simply undergoing the experiment? Was he something in the nature of an assistant to Rascher? A. No. Sobota was one of those persons who had to undergo most of the experiments and he was also used on one experiment which was conducted in the presence of the Reich Leader SS. On that occasion he was asked by the Reich Leader how long he had been in the camp and he promised him that he would be released. He was later sent to the Group Dirlewanger. Q. Was it considered a privilege to be released to the Group Dirlewanger? A. No. The inmates who later were forced to transfer to the Group Dirlewanger thought that this was the worst thing that could happen to them. Q. Will you tell the Tribunal just what the Group Dirlewanger was? A. The Group Dirlewanger was an SS division who received their education in Oranienburg and who were used for special purposes. At one time 200 German political inmates in this group were transferred to Russia. All persons who were forced to join this group were very disgusted at being forced to join the SS and fight for them. They considered being selected to join the SS as the very worst disgrace. Q. Was the Dirlewanger a special commando group? A. Yes, it was a special commando group and was assigned to the most dangerous spots. However, I only know that from comrades to whom I have spoken about this matter after the liberation. Q. Other than the prisoner Sobota, were there any other concentration camp inmates released as a result of undergoing the high-altitude experiments? A. I know of no case except Sobota. Q. Do you know of any cases where a prisoner condemned to death had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment because he underwent the high-altitude experiments? A. No. Q. Witness, were any political prisoners used in these high-altitude experiments? A. Yes, there were political prisoners who were used in these experiments. All foreigners were considered political prisoners. Q. Witness, tell the Tribunal how one could tell the difference between a political and a criminal prisoner in a concentration camp? A. All inmates had certain squares with letters; the political inmates had red squares; the German political inmates had a plain red square; the Poles had a red square with a “P” marked on it; the Russians with an “R”; all nationalities could be identified by the first letter of their country. The red square with a yellow star was the Jew. The green square, on the other hand was the sign of the so-called professional criminal. Here it must be said that there were quite a number of people with green squares who did not fall under the classification of professional criminals, but who were sent to the camp with that square since the Gestapo could find no excuse to send them into the camp as political prisoners. Q. Now, was this square really a square or a triangle? A. It was really a triangle with the head of the triangle pointed down to the earth. If it pointed upward, it indicated a member of the Wehrmacht who was sent to the camp for punishment. * * * * * Q. Witness, were any Jews experimented on in these high-altitude experiments? A. Yes. Q. Now, tell the Tribunal approximately how many prisoners were killed during the course of the high-altitude experiments? A. During the high-altitude experiments 70 to 80 persons were killed. Q. Did they experiment on prisoners other than those condemned to death? A. Yes. Q. Were any of those prisoners who had not been condemned to death killed during the course of the high-altitude experiments? A. Yes. Q. Do you have any idea how many may have been killed? A. There could have been approximately 40 persons. Q. That is, 40 persons were killed, who had not been condemned to death, out of a total of 70, did you say? A. Yes. Q. Now, were some of those killed political prisoners? A. Yes. Q. Is there any way of telling whether or not a prisoner had been condemned to death—that is, when the experimental subject arrived in the pressure chamber, was there any way to know whether he had been condemned to death? A. Once the experimental subjects came from the Bunker, that is, if the SS brought them out, we could always tell they were prisoners who had been condemned to death. When the inmates were sent by the camp leader, and were brought there by him, then we could also tell they were persons who came from the camp, and that they were not persons who had been condemned to death. Q. Could Romberg know this just as you did? A. He could only know it if he tried to find out about it, because he could hardly differentiate whether the person concerned came from the Bunker or came from the camps. Q. But you could tell that yourself? A. Yes. Q. Did Romberg ever ask you whether or not these experimental subjects had been condemned to death? A. I do not remember Romberg ever asking me about that. Q. Were records kept in the concentration camp which showed whether or not a man had been condemned to death? A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether Romberg ever checked these records? A. I do not know that. Q. You do not know if he ever checked them, is that right? A. No. Q. Can you remember, approximately, how many deaths Romberg witnessed during these high-altitude experiments, if any? A. I can remember five cases where Romberg was present during cases of death; whether he was present on other occasions, I do not know. It is possible, but I am not sure of it. Q. You are sure of only five cases? A. Yes. Q. Did Romberg ever make any objections concerning these deaths? A. I do not know of Romberg having made any protests against it. Q. He did not make any protest in your presence? A. Only at the time when we were concerned with the incident which I spoke of earlier. I do not know anything about anything else. * * * * * EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT[26] _DIRECT EXAMINATION_ * * * * * DR. KAUFFMANN: Now I should like to speak to you about Document Book No. 2, concerning the high-altitude experiments of Dr. Rascher. You said this morning that you knew Rascher? DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT: Yes. Q. Did you see him frequently? A. Very few times in the course of 4 to 5 years. Q. Did he come to your office and speak with you? A. Twice when I was about to leave Munich by train, he and his wife brought a letter for Himmler to the station and gave it to me. Q. And what did he want when he came to Himmler’s front office and saw you? A. Either he brought a report or a letter; as I said, this could not have happened more than 4 or 5 times. Q. Were you ever present when Himmler talked with Rascher? A. No. I was never present at those conferences. Q. Did Rascher ever tell you personally, either before or after a conference with Himmler, why he had come? A. No. Afterwards we never spoke about these visits because I had no time for that. Q. But you do not want to deny that you knew that Rascher was carrying out experiments on human beings in Dachau? A. Yes, that I knew. Q. Did you ever visit Dachau yourself? A. No. I was never in Dachau nor in any other concentration camp. Q. Did you yourself ever take part in experiments on human beings? A. No. Q. Did you see these photographs which are supplements to the document books? A. I cannot recall ever having seen them. Q. Now, please turn to page 53. This is a letter from Rascher to Himmler in which he makes suggestions to Himmler for the first time that human being experiments should be carried out in Dachau. In this letter he says that in these experiments he would certainly have to count on fatal consequences for some of the subjects. Do you remember receiving this letter? If not, can you say how you probably would have handled this letter when it came? A. I do not remember the letter. As in all cases I certainly would have put this letter among the mail that Himmler would read personally, after one glance through it had assured me that it was a medical matter in which Himmler was generally interested. DR. KAUFFMAN: We are speaking now, your Honor, of 1602-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 44. Q. Now, please look at page 57 of the German document book. This is 1582-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 45, a letter from you to Rascher in which you tell him that, of course, prisoners will gladly be made available for high-altitude experimentation. Was this letter written on your own initiative or is it a case similar to all the others that you have brought up here, namely, a letter written on orders from Himmler? A. This letter does not originate with me. It can be traced back to clear orders from Himmler. Q. Now, please take a look at 1581-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 48, a letter that bears your signature, addressed to Sievers. Here you write that low-pressure experiments are being carried out by the Luftwaffe in Dachau on prisoners there. Then look at the next Document, 1971-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 49, a letter from Rascher to Himmler. In the first sentence of this letter there is mention of an enclosed interim report, and there is no doubt that this interim report was enclosed. Now, did you read this interim report? A. I should assume that I did not because firstly, such medical reports were quite incomprehensible to me as a layman; and, secondly, because of all the work which I had to do, I did not have enough time to concern myself with reports which, first of all, I didn’t understand and, secondly, did not interest me. Thus it is that I put this report in with the mail that Himmler was to read without reading it myself. Q. Now, please look at 1971-D-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 52, apparently a teletype message from Rascher to you. Here Rascher asks whether Poles and Russians are also to be pardoned if they have survived several severe experiments. In 1971-E-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 53, your answer is to be found, a teletype message to Obersturmfuehrer Schnitzler in Munich. In this letter you say that experimental subjects are not to be pardoned if they are Poles or Russians. This document was given particular stress by the prosecution, and its cruel and atrocious nature was emphasized. Do you remember this document or can you give us any explanation of how it came about that you signed this teletype message? A. I cannot remember this communication. Of course, I cannot here state under oath whether this is one of those cases in which a teletype message was sent on Himmler’s orders with my signature to it. It is also quite possible that I saw this message and knew its contents and sent it off, after receiving instructions from Himmler. Q. But I should think that you would still remember a document with such contents today; and yet you say that you do not remember it? A. No, I do not. In view of the enormous number of orders that I got from Himmler, I could not concern myself enough with the details of each matter in order to be able to remember them for any length of time. Q. Do you perhaps know whether you discussed this matter with Himmler and then waited for his orders? A. I cannot say that. I assume that I put the teletype message among his mail and then received his instructions along with all the rest of his orders. Q. Now, I want to discuss NO-402, Prosecution Exhibit 66. This is a letter to the German Research Institute for Aviation. This letter accompanies a long report, the subject of which is rescuing pilots from high altitudes. Do you have that report now in front of you? A. Yes. Q. Did you work on this report or at least give a cursory glance at it? A. I certainly did not work on it, and I did not even give it a cursory glance, first of all because it is a medical report, and secondly, because it is much too long. * * * * * EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROMBERG[27] _DIRECT EXAMINATION_ * * * * * DR. VORWERK: Now, we’ll go back to the point of Rascher’s position in the experiment. DEFENDANT ROMBERG: I said that without Rascher there would never have been any intention of carrying out the experiments and it would never have been possible. This can be seen from Himmler’s original assignment. Practical proof of this is the fact that the experiments were stopped immediately when there were difficulties with Rascher’s assignment. This is proved by the letter from Frau Rascher to the Reich Leader SS, dated 24 February 1942. (_NO-263, Pros. Ex. 47._) In this letter Frau Rascher writes that there were difficulties of command and that the experiments were stopped; that Rascher had gone back to Schongau. That was the time when I went back to Berlin. Later on when the experiments were actually carried out, Rascher had expressly forbidden me to perform experiments in Dachau without his permission or his presence, so that I never did perform any experiments without Rascher. I always waited until he was there. On the days when he was in Schongau no experiments were performed. Generally, I did not even go to the experimental station. Sometimes I went to write—but certainly never to carry out experiments. This rule, although, of course, it often delayed the work, seemed justified to me because Rascher had permission from Himmler to perform these experiments and was responsible to him for the experimental subjects. Also, I myself was under the authority of the camp at Dachau which seriously restricted my independence, for example, my freedom of movement or talking to prisoners and similar things. Rascher himself, on the other hand, had a very free position on the basis of the powers which he had received from Himmler and because of a special pass. The Dachau camp was under Himmler’s authority. This is shown by the letter from Himmler to Milch of November 1942. (_1617-PS, Pros. Ex. 77_ (_Pros. Ex. 111, Milch Case_).) In this letter Himmler spoke of Holzloehner’s conduct and adds that the Dachau camp was under his orders, and Holzloehner would have to submit. It was under these conditions that Rascher took the low-pressure chamber from the SS in Munich and set it up there. Q. Who took care of the maintenance work on the chamber during the experiments? A. There was not a great deal of maintenance work necessary; loading the batteries or supplying the oxygen for the experiments was taken care of by Rascher and was probably paid for by the camp. Q. Was Rascher responsible to you for that? A. No, Rascher was not responsible to me at all. He was responsible to the Medical Inspectorate because the chamber belonged to them. Q. Did you have ah opportunity to give Rascher any orders or instructions, or to prohibit anything? A. No, that can no doubt be seen from what I have already said. I could not give him any orders. I certainly could not forbid him to do anything. Concerning the conduct of these experiments on rescue from high altitudes, I merely had a certain advisory right as is customary for two scientists who are working together on the same task when one of the two has greater knowledge pertinent to the specific task. Q. You said the experiments began on 22 or 23 February; was that when you saw the experimental subjects for the first time? A. Yes. On that day I went out to Dachau with Rascher for the first time and met the experimental subjects for the first time. Q. About how many were there? A. There were 10 or 12. Q. Could it have been 5? A. Five? No, there were certainly more than that. Q. Could it have been 15? A. Yes, that is possible. Q. Did you talk to the experimental subjects on that day before the experiments began? A. I believe on that day we mostly talked. Whether any proper experiments were done at all on that first day, I don’t remember. At any rate I talked to the experimental subjects and got to know them a little on the first day. Q. What did you talk about with the experimental subjects? A. They were quite new surroundings for me, of course. They were all professional criminals who were in custody. Q. How do you know that? A. They told me that gradually in the course of conversation. They didn’t, of course, have complete confidence on the first day and did not tell me all about their previous convictions. But after careful inquiries one discovered that they had been condemned for certain crimes, repeatedly convicted, and finally had been condemned to protective custody. Q. Why did you talk to the experimental subjects on this day? A. It is quite natural when one begins to work with such a group that a certain personal contact is necessary. We had to get to know each other. I talked to them about their profession, if I may call it that, and of course I told them something about the experiments, what the whole thing was all about, what they themselves had to do to cooperate in the same way as my usual experimental subjects. Q. Was the reason for this investigation to prepare the subjects for their activity or to check whether these people were actually volunteers? A. No. It was more to get to know the subjects personally. The situation was this: in the discussion with the camp commandant on the basis of the agreement with Rascher and his authorization from Himmler, a very definite agreement had been reached to the effect that these people were to be selected from the volunteers. Therefore, a clear agreement had been reached on the conditions, about which there could be no doubts basically. When I met the subjects for the first time personally and talked to them about the principle of the experiments and their duties, and so forth, of course I also inquired why they had volunteered—not because of any distrust of the camp commandant, but just for that reason. Q. You thought, accordingly, that they were volunteers? A. I didn’t only think they were. They told me so themselves. Q. How do you know that so definitely for each case? A. In the course of time—not on the first day but in the course of time—I talked to all of them frequently in some detail, and gradually they told me about their previous convictions and what other prisons and penitentiaries they had been in before they came to the camp, and they also told me the reasons why they had volunteered. Q. Do you mean to say that all the experimental subjects used for the high-altitude experiments were volunteers? A. Yes. Q. Now before these subjects entered the chamber did you prepare them for what they had to do and tell them the significance of the whole thing? A. Yes, of course. First I explained the whole question to them in broad outline, so that they would know what it was about and what the purpose of the experiment was. In detail I told them specifically what they had to do in the experiments. There was the writing test during which they had to write numbers from 1,000 backwards; then the cardinal point was that after the altitude sickness during the experiments, as soon as they came to, they had to pull the rip cord. We had a handle in the chamber connected to a bell. This was to represent pulling the rip cord of the parachute. This had to be explained to them carefully, otherwise they wouldn’t have understood it and wouldn’t have reacted correctly. Q. Now, before the experiments began, did you have an electrocardiogram of each separate subject? A. Yes and again later on. Q. Please explain that. A. Rascher had first examined the people to see if they were suitable for the experiments, so there would be no heart defects or anything like that. Then in order to get an exact control, before the beginning of the experiments we took an electrocardiogram of all the subjects. In almost all the experiments the electrocardiograms were registered and at the end, when the experiments were finished, we took another electrocardiogram of all the subjects in order to have material because perhaps even if there was no visible injury, there might still be some effects which could only be determined by such tests. Q. Now, how long did these experiments on rescue from high altitude last, approximately? A. Well, they really began on about 10 or 11 March and they lasted until 19 or 20 May. Q. Following that, you prepared the report which has been submitted by the prosecution? A. Yes. Q. In this report you have a sentence saying that during the experiments on rescue from high altitudes there were no deaths and there had been no injury to health; is that correct? A. Yes, it is correct that that sentence is in the report, and it is also true that there were no deaths or other injuries. Q. But here in the testimony of the witness Neff you heard that there were deaths? A. Yes. Q. What do you have to say about that? A. In addition to our joint experiments on rescue from high altitudes, Rascher conducted experiments of his own. He did not tell me the exact problem; he merely said that he was performing these experiments for Himmler and that they had to do with explosive decompression sickness and electrocardiograms. He had apparently carried out secret experiments for some time on this problem, but then in my presence he continued them with special subjects. In the course of these experiments the first death occurred at the end of April in my presence. He told me in the course of our conversations that he wanted to qualify as a lecturer on the basis of these experiments which were ordered by Himmler. He wanted to get Dr. Fahrenkamp into it but this cooperation never came about because the experiments were broken off. Before this death I had no reason to object to the experiments in any way since Rascher was using other subjects and had a separate assignment from Himmler for them. My assignment was to perform the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and I carried it out together with Rascher. Q. How many deaths took place in your presence? A. Three. Q. But Neff spoke of five deaths at which you were present. A. There could only have been three. Q. Why could there only have been three? A. Because I remember. After all they were deaths and they made a definite impression on me; I know it. Q. Why did death in the low-pressure chamber make such an impression on you? A. In the innumerable low-pressure-chamber experiments not only performed by us, but everywhere in Germany in other institutes, we never had any deaths at all, and the opinion at that time was that any necessary problem of aviation medicine could be solved without deaths. Q. Now, how did it happen that you were present at these deaths, since you say these experiments did not belong to your series of experiments? A. At the beginning of April or in the middle of April, Rascher told me for the first time that he was performing experiments with slow ascension and that he had attempted to work with Fahrenkamp but the work had been interrupted when the latter was sent away. I said that had nothing to do with our experiments and was quite unimportant and uninteresting from our point of view. He admitted that, but said it was a specific question which especially interested him personally and which he had to work on. I did not see these experiments, which according to records here lasted 8 to 10 hours. He probably always performed them on the days I was absent because these 8 to 10 hours would have interfered considerably with our experiments. He expanded these experiments and performed time-reserve experiments at certain altitudes to test the adaptation which he had been testing before in the slow-ascension experiments. This was an experiment in which the subject remains at the same altitude, in contrast to the falling or sinking experiments where the pressure is constantly increased, that is, when the altitude is decreased. As his interim reports show, he extended these experiments to high altitudes and the time reserve was studied either with or without oxygen. The suggestion for this in part came obviously from other work, such as that of Dr. Kliches. I sometimes observed these experiments. He performed them correctly; he watched the subjects so that there was, in itself, no objection to these experiments. The only thing was that they interfered with our experiments from the point of view of time, and Rascher’s lack of punctuality was a much greater annoyance in this respect. According to the documents, as well as the witness Neff, Rascher apparently had deaths in these experiments. The first deaths were evidently unexpected. In these unexpected deaths the electrocardiogram and the autopsy findings, together with his reports, apparently gave Himmler the idea that these experiments should be carried on further, and in addition that Fahrenkamp should be called in to extend them as far as possible scientifically. The fact that Himmler was covering them apparently induced him in my presence to perform experiments which were dangerous, and in which deaths occurred. The fact that I had been present several times at previous experiments brought about my presence at that fatal experiment, too. Q. Did you not think it unusual that during an experimental series which you and Rascher were to carry out together, Himmler suddenly gave Rascher orders for special experiments? A. Yes. I did not have any specific experience in this direction, but on principle it is nothing unusual if when two people are working together on a certain job, one of them receives an additional assignment from his chief to carry out other work on his own. In addition, Rascher was also working in Schongau at the same time on behalf of Luftgau VII. I, myself, had work of my own in the DVL, which my associates were carrying on and which I inquired about when I happened to be in Berlin. No one could dispute the fact that Himmler, as Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police and as Rascher’s boss insofar as he was an SS member, had the right to give assignments to his subordinates and to order them to carry out experiments on experimental subjects in a concentration camp. * * * * * Q. Now, in your opinion, what is the distinction between your presence at the experiments on rescue from high altitudes and your occasional presence during Rascher’s experiments? A. In the experiments on rescue from high altitudes I was not merely present. I performed the experiments myself. That is, I called the experimental subjects myself, or sometimes Rascher called them. Of course, then I explained to the people what they had to do, what they had to write, what they had to pay special attention to, and that when they registered the electrocardiogram, in order not to interfere with it, they had to keep still; and then when the experiment had started I directed the experiment myself. I watched the altitude of the mercury indicator, and the calculated speed of ascension and descension, which I checked with the stop watch. Of course, at the same time I observed the subject, in other words, the persons in the experiments. In Rascher’s experiments which were at a certain altitude—that is, the subjects were ascended to a certain altitude and then remained at that altitude—I sometimes watched if I happened to be in the low-pressure chamber, but otherwise he performed these experiments alone just as he did when I was not present. He even laid great stress on performing them alone. It is clear to me now that he did not want me to observe any special results; that is apparently why he performed the other experiments in the evening or when I was away. Q. After the first death was there an autopsy? A. Yes, there was an autopsy. Q. Did you participate in it? A. No, I did not participate. I was present and I watched the autopsy. Q. Why did you watch the autopsy if it was not your experiment? A. Today, of course, it looks different than it did at the time. It was a matter of course for me then. Rascher was a colleague of mine. He had had a fatal accident in his experiments. He asked me to watch the autopsy, and, of course, I went. I also had a quite natural scientific interest in the cause of death, and in the findings, and I admit it frankly, although I am aware of the danger that someone may say I was interested in the death of the person too, but it happens in every hospital; all doctors watch the autopsies. If, for example, in the surgical ward, a patient died after an operation, then the chief physician, or if he had no time, the senior physician, and the other doctors who had nothing specifically to do with the patient, watched the autopsy, and generally even X-ray doctors came over who didn’t know the patient at all. Besides if I had not been present, that would today be considered as an incomprehensible lack of interest in the death—if I had not accepted Rascher’s invitation. If such a death happened during a centrifugal experiment in our institute, if such an accident had happened which was not in my field of work, I certainly would have gone to watch the autopsy. One must learn from the findings; that is one’s duty as a doctor. One has to look at such things so that one can draw one’s own conclusions and be able to avoid subsequent accidents. Q. Did you see any further autopsies of Rascher? A. No. Q. Why not? A. After this death there was a basic change in my attitude toward Rascher and the plan to break off the experiments, so that in the case of later deaths I was not present because of this attitude. I do not believe he invited me to the autopsies either, and under the conditions in Dachau I could not go there on my own initiative. Q. Did you ask Rascher how this death came about, or did you warn him before the death? A. Yes, I have already said I was present at the experiments just as I had sometimes been present at the other series of his experiments, purely out of curiosity, just as in our institute if centrifugal experiments were performed, I sometimes watched them, too. There was no reason for distrust but at that time I just watched the experiments out of curiosity. That was how it happened that I was present by accident at the experiment and looked at the electrocardiogram of this subject. On the screen of the electrocardiograph one can see a little point of light which moves, and that is determined by the heart action. When it seemed to me that it was getting dangerous, that the heart action was lessening, I said to Rascher: “You had better stop now.” Q. And what did Rascher do? A. Nothing. He kept that altitude and later death suddenly occurred. Q. When you observed the electrocardiogram was it quite clear to you that the person would die in the next second? A. No, of course not. First of all I had never seen a death from high altitude. That was the first one I ever saw. I couldn’t know that, and, in the second place, this death certainly resulted from aero-embolism and, therefore, suddenly. In the third place, the electrocardiogram change was, shall we say, doubtful. I myself would have stopped the experiment at this stage but he didn’t. I only spoke up because I would have stopped the experiment at that moment. Q. Did you speak to Rascher about this after the experiment? A. It was not possible for me to object in view of Rascher’s position, but I told him that such things should not happen. Q. And what else did you do? A. After this death I went to Berlin and told Ruff about it. Ruff agreed with me that death should not be allowed to occur in high-altitude experiments and it had never occurred before. Since Rascher, however, performed these experiments for Himmler on men who were condemned to death, we saw no way of preventing Rascher after we had made an official report. In general when objections were made Rascher simply referred to the orders from Himmler and to the fact that he was covered by them. It was quite impossible to remove the chamber from Dachau against Himmler’s and Rascher’s will. And to give this death as a reason for removing the chamber was even more impossible. In the first place, Himmler would not have reacted. He would certainly not have given up the chamber. He might have started proceedings for treason or for sabotage of an essential war experiment. In fact, I had reported this to Ruff against my signature to the contrary in a concentration camp. Like every other visitor to a concentration camp I had to sign a statement to the effect that everything I saw and so forth in the camp would be secret. Besides, at the beginning of the experiments Rascher had received a special telegram from Himmler ordering silence about these experiments. A specific obligation to secrecy was strengthened by this order from Himmler. Since I had reported the matter to Ruff against the secrecy obligation, I also had to be covered in this respect, and for this reason again we could not give the death as the reason for removing the chamber from Dachau, aside from the fact it would not have met with success. Therefore, after some consideration we decided that the only possibility was for Ruff to go to Milch or Hippke and ask to have the chamber removed, giving the excuse that it was needed at the front. On the other hand, I was to conclude our experiments quickly so that Himmler could be told that the experiments were finished and that we could prove this so that we could claim the right to remove the chamber from Dachau. Otherwise Himmler would doubtless have ordered the experiments to be continued until the original goal had been reached, that is, the clarification of the question of rescue from high altitudes, and he would doubtless have gone to Goering or even Hitler and arranged to keep the chamber longer. He would have said that the use of this chamber at the front was unimportant compared to its use at Dachau in the experiments, and he would not have released the chamber. If I myself had not gone back to Dachau, then Rascher would have carried out the experiments on rescue from high altitudes alone; and he would doubtless also have continued his own experiments. That was the reason why I reluctantly went back to Dachau. Q. Now, what was the purpose of your trip to Berlin? A. The purpose was this report to Ruff. Q. Was that the only purpose? A. Yes. Q. How did you explain this trip to Rascher? A. I told Rascher that I was going because of my wife’s condition. My wife had had a child in March, and that was a good reason for my going to Berlin. Q. How long were you in Berlin? A. Only 1 or 2 days; then I went back to Dachau. Q. Now, before you left did you make sure whether Ruff had done anything in response to your report, whether he had done anything to get the chamber out of Dachau? A. Yes. Ruff tried to get Hippke but was not able to at that time, so that I really did not know what was going on and what would be accomplished. Q. Did you notice anything special about the chamber when you came back to Dachau? A. Yes. When I came back, the barometer was broken, as Neff has already said; and I had to go right back to Berlin to have the barometer repaired. Q. How long did you stay in Berlin this time? A. As long as the repair required; about 2 weeks. Q. Then during this time there were no experiments? A. No. Q. When did the experiments begin again? A. The beginning of May or the middle of May I went back with the repaired apparatus; then we concluded the experiments as quickly as possible. Q. Did you abbreviate the program which you had planned, or did you change it in any way, or did you keep it the way it was? A. No. We shortened it. We had fewer experiments at the various altitudes in order to conclude the whole thing as quickly as possible but in such a way that it was actually completed with adequate results. Q. When was the second death at which you were present? A. That was a few days after my return to Dachau. Q. Did the death of the experimental subject occur in a manner similar to the first case? A. In general, yes. I don’t know exactly what happened. As far as I recall, it was an experiment at a rather high altitude, and death occurred quicker, more suddenly. Q. And when was the third death at which you were present? A. That was right after that, on the next day, or the second day. Q. After these deaths, did you ever have any arguments with Rascher about his experiments and the way in which he performed them? A. Yes, we had some minor arguments resulting from my objections, which he always refused to accept; but after the third death when I started to object again, he said first that Himmler had ordered it and I wasn’t to interfere. When I later brought the subject up once more, he lost his patience, and we got rather excited. I asked him why he was carrying out these experiments; what he wanted to achieve. He said he wanted to clarify the problem of caisson diseases, that is bends or aero-embolism, because Himmler had ordered it. He was the first man to prove these air bubbles in the blood during an autopsy under water. Also the question of the electrocardiogram in bends and altitude sickness had to be clarified as Himmler had given him a special assignment for it, and Fahrenkamp was to do this work together with him. In addition he wanted to qualify as a professor with Schittenhelm through this work. Then he brought out a letter and read to me that the experiments were to be continued; that Professor Fahrenkamp was to be called in; and that people condemned to death who survived the experiments would, of course, be pardoned. Then he held the letter out to me and asked me whether I could read Himmler’s signature and whether I wasn’t satisfied with that. Q. Was this the letter 1971-B-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 51? A. Yes, 1971-B-PS, as Prosecution Exhibit 51. Q. And what does this letter indicate? A. Well, it showed that Himmler had actually ordered these experiments and that he, therefore, had complete official coverage, that the subjects were to be pardoned. It says in the letter: “Of course the person condemned to death shall be pardoned to concentration camp for life.” Then it says that Fahrenkamp is to be consulted. On the next page it says that this order from Himmler goes to the Chief of the Security Police and the SD and to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, with a copy for their information. Q. Did Rascher give you any further explanation of this letter? A. Since this letter prevented me from doing anything, I calmly asked him what idea he had of these experiments, what he wanted to do, what he wanted to achieve. He said that Dr. Fahrenkamp would help him and that he would have electrocardiograms for heart failure from the most various reasons and would compare them with electrocardiograms in the case of death at high altitudes with the change in severe altitude sickness and with later recovery. In addition, in the hospital in Munich he had taken electrocardiograms in cases of heart failure. In Dachau, he said, he had also registered electrocardiograms when there were executions by shooting. If he really had evaluated all this material together with a heart specialist, then it would, of course, have been quite valuable. * * * * * Q. Now, did you do anything, and what did you do in order to stop Rascher’s experiments and did you incur any danger and, if so, what? A. What I did against Himmler’s orders and against my signed promise to keep secrecy, the fact that I reported the incidents to my boss who passed the information on—all this was dangerous. One probably understands enough about conditions under Himmler to realize that. The witness Neff has described my attitude to Rascher’s experiments. He confirmed that I intervened in one case when he was present. Perhaps he knows nothing about my other objections. In general, the discussions between Rascher and myself did not take place in the presence of the prisoners. The low-pressure chamber was removed from Dachau earlier than intended at our instigation. Against Rascher’s and Himmler’s wishes, it was never returned to Dachau. The extent of the accusations made by the SS in this direction is shown by the document. These efforts begin with Wolff’s telegram to Milch on 12 May, which is answered in the negative in Milch’s letter of 20 May. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) In answer to further efforts from Himmler, Milch ordered that the chamber was to remain 2 months longer in Dachau. (_NO-261, Pros. Ex. 63._) At this time, we had already removed the chamber. On 5 June, Rascher again writes to Himmler about the low-pressure chamber. Document NO-284, Prosecution Exhibit 64, is the answer to this letter of 5 June. The letter itself is, unfortunately, not available. This letter, no doubt, says that the chamber was removed from Dachau in May, while the prosecution alleges that the experiments continued until August. Then there is a certain pause in Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts, because Rascher is busy with the cold experiments. When the film is shown in Berlin in the Air Ministry, Rascher does not forget to tell Milch again of his wishes in regard to the low-pressure chamber. But hardly has the first phase of the cold experiments—the series with Holzloehner—been finished, when he writes to Himmler again on 9 October. (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex. 73._) He asks Himmler to get him the low-pressure chamber so that he can continue his experiments and qualify as a professor. In the letter of 21 October 1942 (_NO-226, Pros. Ex. 75_), Sievers writes to Brandt about the continuation of the high-altitude experiments which Himmler wants, but knowing of the existing difficulties, or for other reasons, he adds that Himmler will no doubt have to write to Milch personally in order actually to get the chamber. This happens on 27 November 1942 (_NO-269, Pros. Ex. 78_)—a letter from Wolff to Milch, on behalf of Himmler. The definite request for the low-pressure chamber, which is expressed in this letter, is given definite emphasis by mention of the opposition of the Luftwaffe doctors. I learned from a telephone call from Sievers, which he mentioned in his testimony, that he was to buy a low-pressure chamber for Rascher on behalf of Himmler. I was greatly astonished at this telephone call at the time, because I knew very well that Rascher certainly didn’t want to have this made public in any way. Now, this telephone call has been cleared up. Then I informed Ruff of this call and he had Becker-Freyseng take further steps, as he said here yesterday. In an official letter to various SS agencies, dated 13 December 1942 (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79_), Rascher is given the assignment by Himmler personally to carry out high-altitude experiments. On 14 March 1943 (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110_), Rascher tells of his discussions with Hippke and again says that he wants to carry out low-pressure chamber experiments, together with me; and finally, on 18 November 1943 (_NO-1057, Pros. Ex. 463_), he tries again, through the Reich Research Council in agreement with Himmler, to get a mobile low-pressure chamber in order to carry out experiments. Those are Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts but, nevertheless, Rascher never again had a low-pressure chamber at his disposal for experiments. Q. Well, what do you want to prove by these statements? A. This no doubt proves clearly how great Rascher’s and Himmler’s efforts were and that my conduct under these circumstances was not only not cowardly, but that it was much more clever and much more successful. Even if I had had any legal obligations to prevent him by force, if I had had any obligations to attack Rascher and if I had tried and been unsuccessful, then I would have been locked up or killed and Rascher would have been able to continue his experiments for a long time without any restriction. Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility? A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, emigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which meant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge, never met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent yielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one’s friends, in short, what writers today call “internal emigration.” But that really doesn’t have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot imagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy, on a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection by force—perhaps by knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand and crying “You mustn’t do that, the man might die!” I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if there were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that the assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner. Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible? A. Yes. Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher? A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said, “Rascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler—by the Chief of the German Police and whatever else he was—the Reich Leader SS, the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior,” they would probably have said: “Well, we can’t do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can’t do anything about it.” * * * * * ----- [18] Jews who had had sexual intercourse with German women with their consent. [19] Very similar arguments were advanced by counsel for defendant Romberg. [20] The witness Neff was called to testify as a Tribunal witness and not as a prosecution witness. [21] See Vol. II, judgment is case of United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. [22] Last sentence is crossed out and replaced by one in German shorthand. [23] Translator’s Note: “Terminal” as used here means “resulting in death”. [24] These studies were carried out in conjunction with the research and educational society “Ahnenerbe.” [25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, December 17-18, 1947, pp. 595-695. [26] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, March 24, 25, and 26, 1947, pp. 4869-4994. [27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 1947, pp. 6764-7032. 2. FREEZING EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment). On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted. The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were acquitted. The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the freezing experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Sievers. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 199 to 206. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Sievers and Weltz. It appears below on pages 207 to 217. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 219 to 278. b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ _Freezing Experiments_ Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed, the freezing experiments were ordered to be performed by the defendant Weltz and his subordinate Rascher. This can be seen from a letter of 20 May 1942 from Milch to Karl Wolff. (_343-A-PS, Pros. Ex. 62._) A short time later, Rascher had a conference with Hippke and the experimental team was changed to include Jarisch, Holzloehner, and Singer. Rascher reported these orders to Himmler on 15 June 1942, and passed on Hippke’s request to have the experiments conducted in Dachau. He stated: “It was also decided that the inspector [Hippke] would issue orders to me at all times during the experiments.” (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) The research assignment was issued by the Department for Aviation Medicine (2 II B) under Anthony, with the defendant Becker-Freyseng as his deputy. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88._) The cold-water freezing experiments began on 15 August 1942 and continued until the early part of 1943. They were performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Holzloehner and Finke collaborated with Rascher until December 1942. As Rascher said in a paper on his medical training: “By order of the Reich Leader SS and Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke, I conducted ‘Experiments for the Rescue of Frozen Persons’ (started on 15 August 1942), in cooperation—for 4 months—with the Professor Dr. Holzloehner and Dr. Finke both of Kiel University.” (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) Rascher also said that: “Since May 1939 till today I have been in military service with the Air Force.” The memorandum was dated 17 May 1943. It should therefore be borne in mind that during all of the high-altitude and substantially all of the freezing experiments, Rascher was on _active duty_ with the Luftwaffe, not the SS. It was not until after May 1943 that he went on active duty with the Waffen SS. He was of course supported by both the Luftwaffe and the SS in these experiments. The witness Neff, who was an inmate assistant in the experiments, testified that freezing experiments in the concentration camp Dachau started at the end of July or in August 1942. They were conducted by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. In October, Holzloehner and Finke left and Rascher proceeded alone to conduct freezing experiments until May 1943. Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke used ice-cold water for their freezing experiments. The experimental basin had been built 2 meters long and 2 meters high in Rascher’s experimental station, Block 5. (_Tr. pp. 626-8._) The experiments were carried out in the following manner: The basin was filled with water and ice was added until the water measured 3° C. The experimental subjects, either dressed in a flying suit or naked, were placed into the ice water. Narcotics were frequently not used. It always took a certain time until so-called “freezing narcosis” made the experimental subjects unconscious, and the subjects suffered terribly. The temperature of the victims was measured rectally and through the stomach by galvanometer. They lost consciousness at a body temperature of approximately 33° C. The experiments actually progressed until the experimental persons were chilled down to 25° C. body temperature. An experiment on two Russian officers who were exposed naked to the ice-cold water in the basin was particularly brutal. These two Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. Rascher refused to administer an injection. When one of the inmates who attended the experiment tried to administer an anaesthetic to these two victims, Rascher threatened him with a pistol. Both experimental subjects died after having been exposed at least 5 hours to the terrible cold. (_Tr. pp. 629-631._) Approximately 280 to 300 experimental subjects were used for this type of freezing experiment, but in reality, 360 to 400 experiments were conducted since many experimental subjects were used two or three times for experiments. Approximately 80 to 90 experimental subjects died. About 50 to 60 inmates were used in the Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments and approximately 15 to 18 of them died. Political prisoners, non-German nationals, and prisoners of war were used for these experiments. Many of the inmates used had not been “condemned to death.” The subjects did not volunteer for the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 627-8._) Even though one assumes that prisoners condemned to death were used in all of the experiments, which is not true, the “defense” that they volunteered on the agreement that their sentences would be commuted to life imprisonment is invalid. During the high-altitude experiments, Himmler had directed that in further experiments where the long continued heart activity of subjects who were killed was observed, criminals condemned to death should be used and, if they were revived, they should be “pardoned” to concentration camp for life. (_1971-B-PS, Pros. Ex. 51._) Rascher apparently construed this order to apply to the freezing experiments also. On 20 October 1942, Rascher advised Rudolf Brandt that until then only Poles and Russians had been used for such experiments and that only some of these persons had been condemned to death. He inquired whether Himmler’s “amnesty” applied to Russians and Poles. (_1971-D-PS, Pros. Ex. 52._) Brandt told him that it did not apply. (_1971-E-PS, Pros. Ex. 53._) Dry-freezing experiments were carried out by Rascher in January, February, and March 1943. One experimental subject was placed on a stretcher at night and exposed to the cold outdoors. He was covered with a linen sheet, but a bucket of cold water was poured over him every hour. He remained outdoors until the morning and then his temperature was taken with a thermometer. In the next series the experimental plan was changed, and experimental persons had to remain naked outdoors for long hours without being covered up at all. One series was carried out on 10 prisoners who had to remain outdoors overnight. Rascher himself was present during approximately 18 to 20 experiments of that type. Approximately three experimental subjects died as a result of the dry-freezing experiments. (_Tr. pp. 636-7._) On the order of Grawitz and Rascher, a mass experiment on 100 experimental subjects was to be carried out. As Rascher was not present, Neff was in the position to frustrate the experiment by taking the experimental subjects indoors, and therefore no deaths occurred during this experimental series. The longest period that experimental subjects were kept outdoors in the cold was from 6 p. m. of one day to 9 a. m. of the following morning. The lowest temperature Neff can recollect during the dry-freezing experiments was 25° body temperature. As Rascher had prohibited that experiments were to be carried out under anaesthetics, the experimental subjects suffered great pain and screamed to such an extent that it was impossible to carry out further experiments. Rascher therefore requested Himmler’s permission to carry out such experiments in the future in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Non-German nationals and political prisoners were among the experimental subjects. None of them was sentenced to death. They had not volunteered for the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 637-9._) In connection with the freezing experiments, Neff further testified that in September 1942 he received orders from Sievers to take the hearts and lungs of five experimental subjects who had been killed in the experiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study. The travel warrant for Neff had been made out by Sievers, and the Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the bodies. One of the five experimental subjects killed had been a Dutch citizen. (_Tr. p. 633._) Sievers visited the experimental station quite frequently during the freezing experiments. (_Tr. p. 635._) Neff’s testimony is corroborated by the affidavits of the defendants Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng (_NO-242, Pros. Ex. 80_; _NO-448, Pros. Ex. 81_) and the testimony of the witness Lutz (_Tr. pp. 266-76_), Vieweg (_Tr. p. 431_), and Michalowsky (_Tr. pp. 878-83_), and by the documentary evidence in the record. On 15 June 1942, Rascher informed Himmler that the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, sought permission for cold experiments to be conducted by Rascher and Holzloehner in the Dachau concentration camp. (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82._) On 10 September 1942, Rascher submitted his first intermediary report on the freezing experiments to Himmler. In the covering letter Rascher stated that Holzloehner, who participated in the execution of the experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, intended to lecture on the subject of freezing in the “cold conference” of the Luftwaffe on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. Rascher informed Himmler that “Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau last week, believed that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I should be called upon to submit the report.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) The intermediary report itself shows on its face that fatalities occurred as a result of the Rascher-Holzloehner-Finke experiments and advocated rapid rewarming of severely chilled persons. Rascher considered that rewarming with animal heat would be too slow, and that experiments in this respect would be unnecessary. He voiced a similar opinion as to the use of drugs for the purpose of rewarming. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 34._) Himmler, when acknowledging the receipt of Rascher’s report on 22 September, directed nevertheless that the experiment with rewarming by means of drugs and body heat should be made. A copy of this order of Himmler’s was forwarded to Sievers on 25 September. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._) On the basis of this order Rascher approached Sievers to make arrangements for four female gypsies to be procured at once for the purpose of rewarming experimental subjects. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) It was apparently Sievers’ effort in this regard which resulted in a series of telegrams to transfer these women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp to Dachau. Rudolf Brandt actually directed the transfer. (_1619-PS, Pros. Ex. 87._) The four women arrived in November 1942 in Dachau. Three of them were used for rewarming of frozen experimental subjects, one being excluded because she was a “Nordic” type. That the experimental subjects were not volunteers is plain from a remark of one of these women. “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the concentration camp.” (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) This series of experiments, which was not only murderous but obscene, was carried out by Rascher between November 1942 and February 1943. His report to Himmler reveals that one of the experimental subjects died as a result of this series of experiments. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) On 8 October 1942, Stabsarzt Professor Anthony of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe approached Himmler with the information that the results of the wet-freezing experiments carried out by Rascher in cooperation with Holzloehner and Finke were to be lectured upon by Holzloehner during the “cold conference” on 26-27 October in Nuernberg. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88, compare NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) On 16 October Rascher also asked Himmler’s permission to release the results of the freezing experiments during these “cold conferences.” (_NO-225, Pros. Ex. 89._) On the same day Rascher submitted to Himmler his final report on the freezing experiments as far as they had been carried out in collaboration with Holzloehner and Finke. This report did not include experiments for rewarming by means of drugs and of animal body heat, which at that time were still in progress. (_1613-PS, Pros. Ex. 90._) This report on “Cooling Experiments on Human Beings” by Holzloehner, Rascher, and Finke, corroborates fully the testimony of Neff concerning this series of the wet-freezing experiments and proves that many fatalities occurred. It shows that some of the experimental subjects were exposed to this terrible type of experimentation without receiving anesthetics, which would have alleviated their pain considerably. The sufferings of the experimental subjects were vividly described. Foam appeared round the mouths of the experimental subjects, and breathing difficulties and lung oedema resulted. The cooling of the neck and back of the head of the experimental subjects caused especially painful sensations. Progressive rigor, which developed very strongly in the arm muscles, cyanosis, and total irregularity of the heart activity were the symptoms observed by the experimenters. Hot baths were advocated as the best treatment for severely chilled persons. Fatalities resulted from heart failure and brain oedema, and measures for protection against such results were discussed at great length. (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Sievers denied that Rascher reported to him on the freezing experiments but admitted that he received occasionally Rascher’s reports from Himmler. (_Tr. pp. 5684-5._) But by the testimony of the witness Neff it is not only proved that Rascher submitted to the Ahnenerbe monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual reports, describing in detail the nature and status of his experimental research (_Tr. p. 635_), but also that the final report of Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke (_NO-1428, Pros. Ex. 91_) was forwarded to him. (_Tr. p. 681._) On 24 October Himmler acknowledged the receipt of this report which he had read “with great interest” and charged Sievers with arrangements for “the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us.” (_1609-PS, Pros. Ex. 92._) On 26 and 27 October 1942, the conference on “Medical Problems Arising from Distress at Sea and Winter Hardships,” sponsored by the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, under the chairmanship of Anthony and with the assistance of Becker-Freyseng, took place in Nuernberg. At this conference Holzloehner delivered his lecture on the freezing experiments under the title “Prophylaxis and Treatment of Freezing in Water.” The very detailed clinical observations described by him excluded the possibility that only observations on human beings _who were rescued_ had been made, and made it clear that experiments on human beings had been conducted. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Moreover, Rascher made a statement following Holzloehner’s lecture, which clearly revealed that the experiments had been carried out on concentration camp inmates. This report caused a sensation among the officials present at the lecture. It was made clear that deaths had occurred. (_Tr. p. 272._) Sievers has denied having received a report on this conference (_Tr. p. 5689_), but the entry of 12 January in his diary for the year 1943 shows that he discussed with Rascher the “procurement of memoranda on the conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg.” (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._) On 6 November 1942, Rascher forwarded a memorandum to Himmler’s personal staff, the office of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, regarding cooperation with Dr. Craemer of the Medical Research Station for Mountain Medical Troops at St. Johann. This was a school subordinated to Handloser as Army Medical Inspector. In this memorandum Rascher advocated dry-freezing experiments on concentration camp inmates in the mountain region of Bayrischzell. The purpose was to investigate whether injuries of the extremities due to freezing would have a better prognosis on persons accustomed to cold than on persons unaccustomed to it. Rascher said that Craemer had heard the report in Nuernberg and was very enthusiastic about the experiments. He requested to see some in progress. (_NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96_; _1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97_.) Himmler gave his permission for this type of dry-freezing experiment in an order dated 13 December 1942, in which he lists Rascher’s assignment for the execution of high-altitude and three different types of freezing experiments. Copies of this order were submitted to various SS agencies and to the Ahnenerbe Society. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79._) Himmler’s letter contained the following directive: “5. The procurement of the apparatus needed for all the experiments should be discussed in detail with the offices of the Reichsarzt SS, of the Main Office for Economic Administration, and with the Ahnenerbe. * * *” The evidence proves that prior to 21 October 1943, Rascher received an assignment from Blome of the Reich Research Council to conduct open-air freezing experiments. (_NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119._) Sievers aided Rascher in the matter of obtaining the location and personnel for these experiments. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) On 13 January 1943, Rascher had a conference with Grawitz and the defendant Poppendick concerning the freezing experiments. In this conference Rascher’s freezing experiments were discussed in detail. He stressed the point that he was working with the Ahnenerbe and that he reported to the Ahnenerbe. The documentary note of Rascher’s on this conference shows on its face that wet-freezing experiments had been conducted by him and that Grawitz requested him to carry out further freezing experiments with dry cold until he would “have a few hundred cases.” This documentary note was forwarded by Sievers to the defendant Rudolf Brandt on 28 January. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) In his covering letter Sievers requested Brandt’s opinion as to what attitude he and Rascher were to take in respect of their position to Grawitz, with the implied request that Brandt should strengthen his position with Grawitz, who considered it “an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters.” What Sievers wanted to achieve was an intervention of Brandt with Himmler on his behalf and, therefore, he stressed his personal importance by saying: “My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the quickest job. “If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto.” (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) On 17 February, Rascher forwarded his report on the results of the experiment in which animal warmth was used for the rewarming of severely chilled persons. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) In his accompanying letter to Himmler, he informed him that he was conducting dry-cold experiments in Dachau. Thirty experimental subjects had been experimented upon and had been exposed to cold out of doors from 9-14 hours, thereby reducing their body temperature to 27°-29° C. The extremities of the experimental subjects were frozen white. Rascher suggested a large series of experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This place would be suitable for such experimentation because it was colder there, and the spacious open country within the camp “would make the experiments less conspicuous, as the experimental subjects _yell_ when they freeze severely.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Himmler gave Rascher permission to carry out additional freezing experiments in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. (_1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109._) Rascher’s letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 4 April 1943, reveals that another series of dry-freezing experiments had been carried out on inmates of the Dachau concentration camp during a period of heavy frost weather. Some of the experimental subjects were exposed to cold of -6° C. in the open air for 14 hours and had reached an internal temperature of 25° C. (_NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111._) The three fatalities which, according to Neff’s testimony, resulted from the dry-freezing experiments, apparently occurred during this series of experiments. (_Tr. pp. 637-8._) On 11 April 1943, Rascher submitted to Himmler a brief report concerning “freezing experiments on human beings exposed to the open air.” (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) The report itself is not available, but the letter of the defendant Rudolf Brandt of 16 April to Rascher proves that the defendant Gebhardt received it from Himmler for study. (_NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113._) A conference between Rascher and the defendant Gebhardt took place in Hohenlychen on 14 May in the presence of the defendant Fischer. Gebhardt discussed with Rascher the freezing experiments and other experimentation carried out in the Dachau concentration camp and invited Rascher to collaborate with him. Rascher feared to lose his independence and turned to Sievers to settle this affair in a tactful way as Gebhardt was a very close friend of Himmler, and Rascher, therefore, feared his eventual enmity. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._) Sievers, in turn, approached Brandt in this matter on 22 May and requested information whether Himmler had given any definite directive to Gebhardt in regard to Rascher’s sphere of action and work. He further asked Brandt’s intervention on behalf of Rascher by saying: “I entrust you with this affair and ask you particularly to use it only for your strict personal information so that Dr. Rascher does not encounter any difficulties with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt.” (_NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117._) When Rascher visited Gebhardt in Hohenlychen, the latter encouraged him to embark upon a career of university lecturer. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._) Rascher followed this suggestion and Sievers supported him wholeheartedly and collaborated with the defendants Brandt and Blome to have Rascher appointed university lecturer. (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118_; _NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121_.) That Rascher’s thesis for habilitation was based on the freezing and high-altitude experiments is proved by Rascher’s memorandum on his medical training which he wrote for the purpose of his habilitation (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_) and other evidence in the record. (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense _EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ _The Freezing Experiments_ Freezing experiments on human beings were carried out in Dachau concentration camp from the end of 1942 on. It cannot be denied that a ruthless carrying-out of these experiments was liable to inflict torture and death upon the persons experimented on. Here, too, it seems necessary to distinguish between two groups of experiments. One group comprises the experiments carried out by Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Rascher, and Dr. Finke, and the other one, those carried out by Rascher alone. The first group of experiments easily permits the assumption that the possible effects of the experiments on the persons subjected to them were taken into consideration. After all that has become known about Rascher by now, the assumption is justified that, during the experiments carried out by Rascher alone, considerations of the effect on life and health of the persons used were not of primary importance. The only exceptions were probably the experiments Rascher carried out in the presence of third persons who were not involved. On the occasion of administrative conferences he had to attend in Dachau, Sievers met Professor Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Rascher who had just finished a freezing experiment. The person experimented on was placed under an arc of light [Lichtbogen]. That is all Sievers saw of this experiment. (_German Tr. p. 5684._) Then Sievers watched a second freezing experiment. Himmler had instructed Professor Hirt of Strasbourg to have a look at Rascher’s work on freezing, since he (Himmler) obviously had come to the conclusion that Rascher alone was not sufficient for the clarification of these scientifically extensive and difficult questions. For this experiment a professional criminal was introduced whom a regular court had sentenced to death for robbery and murder. Sievers and Dr. Hirt made sure about this by examining the files of the criminal police department of the Dachau concentration camp. Dr. Hirt then asked the person to be experimented on whether he realized that the experiment might prove fatal to him. The person to be experimented on answered in the affirmative. By personally questioning the person to be experimented on, Sievers then made sure that he agreed to the experiment. The person in question answered in the affirmative and added: “If it does not hurt.” This assurance could be given since the experiment was carried out under full narcosis. Sievers did not take part in the entire experiment, but he saw that it was carried out under full narcosis. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._) The witness Dr. Punzengruber, at that time an inmate of the Dachau concentration camp and from 1942-1943 assigned to Dr. Rascher’s station as a chemist, confirms that the person used had been condemned to death. The same witness confirms that Sievers was not present during other freezing experiments. Dr. Punzengruber could establish this because his laboratory was located next to the room where Dr. Rascher carried out his experiments. (_Affidavit of Dr. Punzengruber, 14 March 1947._) A further presence of Sievers at freezing experiments has not occurred and has not been claimed from any side. In order to prove Sievers’ participation in the freezing experiments, the prosecution pointed out the following documents: Rascher’s letter of 10 September 1942 to Himmler. “SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who observed the experiments in Dachau last week, is of the opinion that if during a convention there would be a report at all, I, too, would have to be called in for reporting.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) Himmler’s letter of 22 September 1942 to Rascher in which the former instructs Rascher to carry out experiments in quick increase of body temperature and increase of body temperature through medicaments and animal heat [medikamentanimalische Erwaermung], Sievers received a copy of this letter for information on 25 September 1942. (_1611-PS, Pros. Ex. 85._) Rascher’s letter of 3 October 1942 to Dr. R. Brandt which contains the information that he (Rascher) had asked Sievers to transmit at once a teletype communication to the camp commander stating that four female gypsies from another camp must be procured immediately; that furthermore he had asked Sievers to take steps to have the low-pressure chamber put at his disposal; he finally mentioned that he informed Sievers about the failure of the planned report to Field Marshal Milch. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) Sievers’ note of 6 November 1942 concerning Rascher’s transfer to the SS. (_NO-288, Pros. Ex. 95._) Letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reich Chief Manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, concerning Rascher’s transfer to the Waffen SS. (_NO-236, Pros. Ex. 101._) Letter, dated 28 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS concerning the taking of Dr. Rascher’s work under the protection of Ahnenerbe in pursuance of Dr. Rascher’s conversation on 13 January 1943 with the Chief Reich Physician [Reichsarzt] of the SS, Dr. Grawitz. (_NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103._) Note, dated 4 February 1943, of the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe concerning Dr. Rascher’s report to the medical inspection [Sanitaetsinspekteur] of the Luftwaffe on his activities since he was declared unassigned [zur Disposition]. Furthermore Rascher should go to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel on 7 February 1943. (_NO-238, Pros. Ex. 104._) Letter, dated 17 May 1943, from Dr. Rascher to the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe concerning Rascher’s statement on his report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt on 14 May 1943. (_NO-231, Pros. Ex. 116._) Letter, dated 22 May 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning Rascher’s statement on his report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt. (_NO-267, Pros. Ex. 117._) Letter, dated 27 September 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt concerning Dr. Rascher’s establishment as a college professor (Habilitation). (_NO-229, Pros. Ex. 118._) Letter, dated 21 March 1944, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt concerning the establishment of Dr. Rascher as a college professor. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._) The prosecution furthermore refers to the testimony given on 17 and 18 December 1946 by witness Neff. Neff testified that Sievers frequently was at the experimental station; that during experiments he was present several times; that, however, he could not remember whether Sievers had been present during experiments which ended fatally. The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of having procured female concentration camp inmates to be used in the rewarming experiments [Wiedererwaermungsversuche]. In this connection the following was submitted: Letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt: “* * * Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to pass on immediately a teletype communication to the camp commander in which is stated that four female gypsies must be procured from another camp at once.” (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) Telephone call [Fernspruch] of 7 October 1942 from camp commander Weiss to Dr. Brandt, concerning the putting at the disposal of staff physician [Stabsarzt] Dr. Rascher “of the four women for experimental purposes as ordered by the Reich Leader SS”. (_1619-PS, Pros. Ex. 87._) Teletype communication, dated 8 October 1942, to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, concerning the departure from their original station of “the four women ordered by the Reich Leader SS”. Dr. Rascher’s report of 5 November 1942 on concentration camp prostitutes [KL-Dirnen]. Refusal, on account of her Nordic racial characteristics, to use one of those women, and corresponding report to the camp commander and to the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) Witness Neff estimates that 10 women from the Ravensbrueck concentration camp were put at disposal for experiments with body heat [animalische Waerme]. (_German Tr. p. 632._) The following is to be said to the prosecution’s accusation that Sievers played an important part in procuring female concentration camp inmates to be used for the rewarming of persons used in experiments: Nowhere, except in the letter, dated 3 October 1942, from Dr. Rascher to Dr. Brandt does there exist any indication that such an assumption might be justified. But this letter only states that Dr. Rascher had asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers immediately to pass on to the camp commander a teletype communication reporting that four female gypsies must be procured from another camp at once. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) The fact that the order to carry out experiments concerning the increase of temperature through medicaments and body heat [medikamentanimalische Erwaermung] was given by Himmler is proved beyond doubt by 1611-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 85. Furthermore, I point to the interrogation of Dr. Romberg. (_German Tr. pp. 6864-65._) Sievers claims not to have done anything in this connection since the orders originated with Himmler himself. Consequently there was nothing caused by his own initiative. (_German Tr. pp. 5685-86._) At that time Rascher was at Dachau concentration camp most of the time, while Sievers came there very rarely. Therefore it was much easier for Rascher than for Sievers to inform the camp commander of his wishes. Rascher refused to use one of the four women for experiments in rewarming through body heat because this woman possessed beyond doubt the characteristics of the Nordic race. Rascher reported this to the camp commander and to the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-323, Pros. Ex. 94._) In this connection, too, Sievers did not play any part. The prosecution furthermore accuses Sievers of taking part in Dr. Rascher’s dry-freezing experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche]. Sievers is not mentioned in the following documents submitted in this connection: NO-319, Pros. Ex. 96; 1579-PS, Pros. Ex. 97; NO-431, Pros. Ex. 99; 1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107; 1615-PS, Pros. Ex. 109; NO-292, Pros. Ex. 111; NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112; NO-241, Pros. Ex. 113; NO-432, Pros. Ex. 119. These letters are neither addressed to him nor signed by him. Neither have copies of them reached him nor have they passed through his hands. The letter, dated 12 January 1943, from the Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer of Ahnenerbe to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, contains the following passage: “Since the freezing experiments depend on the season, valuable time is lost as long as Dr. Rascher is not available.” (_NO-236, Pros. Ex. 101._) The witness Neff did not testify that Sievers knew of the dry-freezing experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche]. Sievers knew through Himmler’s order of 13 December 1942, that Rascher was supposed to carry out dry-freezing experiments. (_1612-PS, Pros. Ex. 79._) Only during this trial did Sievers come to know that Rascher carried out such experiments in Dachau. Himmler had ordered these experiments to be carried out on the terrain of Berghaus Sudelfeld. They were planned for the winter of 1943-44. Sievers faked inquiries as a result of which the terrain at Sudelfeld was supposed to be unsuited and by this he succeeded in not having the dry-freezing experiments carried out during the winter of 1943-44. The experiments, which Himmler then ordered for the winter of 1944-45, did not take place because Rascher was arrested in the spring of 1944. (_German Tr. pp. 5689-90._) Since the dry-freezing experiments in the mountains, ordered by Himmler, did not take place at all, Sievers can rightfully claim to have helped to prevent them. The freezing experiments which, beginning at the end of August 1942, were carried out in Dachau concentration camp, originated from a scientific research order the medical inspector [Inspekteur des Sanitaetswesens] of the Luftwaffe had given Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner on 24 February 1942. At Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher’s suggestion, corresponding experiments were carried out on human beings. For this research work an experimental group “Seenot” (“Hardships at sea”), consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as chief, and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke, was organized. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88_; _NO-268, Pros. Ex. 106_; _NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115_.) The freezing experiments were carried out in agreement with the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-286, Pros. Ex. 88._) In his letter, dated 19 February 1943, the medical inspector of the Luftwaffe thanks the Reich Leader SS for the great help which the cooperation with the SS afforded in carrying out the research work. (_NO-268, Pros. Ex. 106._) On 6 March 1943 the medical inspector of the Luftwaffe confirmed in a letter to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff that he had at once agreed to freezing experiments on human beings. (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._) The prosecution argues that Sievers gave special support to Rascher as a person and thus he revealed that he also wanted to support Rascher’s experiments. Therefore reason exists for comment on Rascher’s personality and Sievers’ attitude toward him. Dr. Rascher was staff physician (Stabsarzt [Captain, M. C.]) of the Luftwaffe reserve and at the same time a member of the general SS, holding the rank of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. In a well-planned scheme he always put this last mentioned position and his direct connection with Himmler in the foreground. Orally or in writing he submitted all his wishes to Himmler; to him directly did he send the reports on his work. He referred to Himmler whenever he wanted to assert himself and his work before other official agencies such as, for example, the Luftwaffe. He appealed to Himmler when the chief physician of the SS [Reichsarzt SS] Dr. Grawitz, and Professor Dr. Gebhardt, did not give him the recognition and the support he believed were due him. Through Himmler he tried to effect his establishment as a university lecturer. (_NO-283, Pros. Ex. 82_; _NO-234., Pros. Ex. 83_; _NO-320, Pros. Ex. 103_; _1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105_; _1580-PS, Pros. Ex. 107_; _NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110_; _NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112_.) There can be no doubt that on account of his protection by Himmler he showed an autocratic mind toward his surroundings and also toward his military superiors, brutality toward his inferiors, and disgusting servility toward his protector, Himmler. (_German Tr. p. 674._) In the Dachau concentration camp he was able to move without restrictions and without control by accompanying guards. This was impossible for occasional visitors like Sievers. (_German Tr. p. 5672_; _German Tr. p. 5320_; _German Tr. pp. 6542-43_; _German Tr. p. 8620_; _German Tr. pp. 8697 and 8887-88_; _Beiglboeck 31, Beiglboeck Ex. 12_.) Holding the rank of a commanding general, the medical inspector of the Luftwaffe deemed it advisable to assure SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff in his letter of 6 March 1943 that he “would discuss the entire problem in _old comradeship_ with Rascher personally.” (_NO-262, Pros. Ex. 108._) A commanding general deemed it advisable to adopt this attitude, contrary to all military customs, toward a staff physician because by this conciliatory attitude, inconceivable under other circumstances, he wanted to avoid a controversy with the latter on account of the latter’s connections with Himmler. What Rascher thought of Medical Inspector Dr. Hippke’s attitude is revealed in the letter of 14 March 1943 to Dr. Rudolf Brandt in which he states: “I would like to point out the extraordinary amiability of the inspector and his carefulness in all remarks relating to the SS.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110._) To make sure that Himmler would under all circumstances be informed about Rascher’s conference with Medical Inspector Hippke, he continues: “May I respectfully ask to inform, wherever that seems necessary to you, the Reich Leader SS of my report.” (_NO-270, Pros. Ex. 110._) The statement that Witness Dr. Punzengruber made about Rascher is very characteristic: “His (Rascher’s) connections were so strong that practically every important superior trembled in fear of the intriguing Rascher, who consequently held a position of enormous power.” (_Sievers 44, Sievers Ex. 45._) Rascher’s servility toward Himmler is already revealed by the bombastic phrases with which he closes his letters to Himmler. To give a few examples only: Letter dated 17 February 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With most obedient regards I remain in honest gratitude with Heil Hitler your very devoted S. Rascher.” (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) Letter, dated 11 April 1943, from Rascher to Himmler: “With most obedient regards and Heil Hitler I remain always, devoted to you in gratitude, your S. Rascher.” (_NO-240, Pros. Ex. 112._) Letter, dated 10 September 1942, from Rascher to Himmler: “In grateful admiration with Heil Hitler your very devoted S. Rascher.” (_NO-234, Pros. Ex. 83._) The picture of Rascher is completed by the testimony that personally he went to the highest authorities only. (_German Tr. p. 7966._) Sievers is also brought into connection with Dr. Rascher’s attempt to establish himself as a university lecturer. In his “educational history” [“Ausbildungsverlauf”] Rascher mentions that the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) ordered him to establish himself as a university lecturer with one of his two papers: “Attempts at Rescue from High Altitude” [“Versuche zur Rettung aus grossen Hoehen”] and “Attempts at the Saving of Frozen Humans” [“Versuche zur Rettung ausgekuehlter Menschen”]. (_NO-230, Pros. Ex. 115._) By a letter, dated 12 August 1943, from Dr. Rudolf Brandt of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS, Sievers is entrusted with this affair. This letter is not at our disposal. On 27 September 1943, that is after more than 6 weeks, Sievers answers that he introduced Rascher to Professor Dr. Blome and SS Brigadefuehrer Mentzel. The former had talked to Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel of Marburg. On 21 March 1944, that is almost 6 months after the letter just mentioned, Sievers reports to Dr. Brandt on the further development of the case of Dr. Rascher’s establishment as a university lecturer. The attempt in Marburg had failed and consequently they would have to try to establish Rascher as a lecturer at Strasbourg University. (_NO-290, Pros. Ex. 121._) Rascher’s arrest freed Sievers from the necessity of taking any further action. The fact that Sievers was involved, as far as the establishment as a university lecturer is concerned, not only in Rascher’s case, is revealed, for example, by Sievers’ 1943 diary, entry of 9 February 1943 concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schuetrumpf (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122_); furthermore, entry of 22 February 1943 concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Rudolph; furthermore, Sievers’ 1944 diary, entry of 22 February 1944, concerning the establishment as a lecturer of Dr. Schmidt-Rohr. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) If, in case of Rascher’s establishment as a lecturer, Sievers was acting only as in other similar cases of members of Ahnenerbe, then this was one of his tasks as Reich manager [Reichsgeschaeftsfuehrer] of Ahnenerbe and he cannot be charged with special activity on Rascher’s behalf. * * * * * There is no indication that Sievers had known, before the experiments started, that they could become immoderate or inhuman. Neither as far as planning nor as far as the direction was concerned nor in any other way had Sievers anything to do with the carrying out of the experiments. Furthermore the question must be answered whether Sievers did not gain knowledge through Rascher’s reports, which he received while the experiments were carried out, of the criminal character of Rascher’s experiments. The prosecution submitted the following reports of Dr. Rascher: Final report, dated 10 October 1942, of Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, Dr. Rascher (_NO-428, Pros. Ex. 91._) Interim report, dated 15 August 1942, of Dr. Rascher. (_1618-PS, Pros. Ex. 84._) Report, dated 17 February 1943, of Dr. Rascher. (_1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105._) These reports were sent by Rascher directly to Himmler as can be ascertained from the documents themselves or from the accompanying letters. None of the documents indicates that a copy of the reports went to the Ahnenerbe or that they came to Sievers’ knowledge in some other way. Sievers denies that he obtained knowledge of these reports. Sievers did not take part in the conference of 26-27 October 1942, as can be clearly seen from the list of those present. (_NO-401, Pros. Ex. 93._) Sievers, also, never received a written report on the conference. Also the secretary of many years’ standing of the Ahnenerbe, the witness, Dr. Gisela Schmitz, has stated that she never saw reports about experiments of Rascher. Since all the incoming mail was delivered first to her she would necessarily have seen any such reports. (_Sievers 45, Sievers Ex. 46._) Even if Sievers—as he did not—should have obtained knowledge of one or another of the reports, he cannot be expected to have formed an independent opinion on the permissibility of human experiments from the point of view of medical professional ethics. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to interfere with the sub-chilling experiments, or to prevent them or bring them to a stop. It must be pointed out again and again that Sievers was competent only for administrative affairs. Everything that Sievers could do for the prevention of the experiments was done. In the cases of the experiments at Dachau, Sievers’ influence was nil. On the other hand he was able to prevent some experimental activity on Rascher’s part by procrastinating the dry-cold experiments [Trockenkaelteversuche] which should have been carried out in the mountains. * * * * * _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT WELTZ_ Document 343-A-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 62, is the only document submitted in this connection [freezing experiments] and mentioning the name of Professor Weltz. It is a letter by Field Marshal Milch, dated 20 May 1942, to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of the Personal Staff, Reich Leader SS. In this letter Field Marshal Milch says that the high-altitude experiments were completed and that there was no real reason for their continuation. The letter continues: “The carrying out of experiments concerning the problem of distress at sea, on the other hand, is important; they were prepared in direct agreement with the authorities. Oberstabsarzt Weltz is instructed to carry them through and Stabsarzt Rascher is also made available for them until further notice.” Obviously, the prosecution intends to take this letter as basis for the assertion that Professor Weltz participated in the planning and the carrying out of the experiments. At the session of 8 May 1947, (_Tr. p. 7237_) the prosecutor referred to this letter and drew the conclusion therefrom that Field Marshal Milch, pursuant to the information he had obtained from Professor Hippke on 20 May, thought that Rascher still belonged to the office of Weltz in Munich and that Professor Weltz was entrusted with the carrying out of the freezing experiments for this reason. If and to what extent Field Marshal Milch was informed about the actual events may be left undecided. It is merely established that Professor Hippke already knew at that time that Stabsarzt Rascher no longer belonged to the office of Weltz. This appears with certainty from NO-296, Prosecution Exhibit 58, which is the letter of the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe of 27 April 1942 to the Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS, from the reply to Wolff’s application to Hippke of 16 April 1942, in which Wolff asks for the extension of Stabsarzt Rascher’s assignment to the DVL (German Research Institute for Aviation), Dachau Branch. There is, therefore, no doubt that on 20 May 1942, Hippke knew that at that time Rascher no longer belonged to Weltz’ office. How it happened that the name of Professor Weltz was mentioned in this document was established by Professor Hippke’s testimony as witness in the trial against Erhard Milch. (_Weltz 3, Weltz Ex. 7._) Professor Hippke testified in this connection that in a discussion at the beginning of June 1942 he was informed by Rascher that the latter had received orders from the Reich Leader SS (Himmler) to carry out freezing experiments. A report on this conference is contained in NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82. Supplementing this report, Rascher’s report on his conference with Professor Hippke, Hippke himself testified that he was thinking of Professor Weltz because he knew that Professor Weltz—in his institute in Munich—had been working on problems of freezing with animal experiments. Later, he had abandoned this plan to ask Professor Weltz to cooperate in the carrying out of these experiments because he had become convinced that the theoretical work was not the point but the practical experience on freezing problems and that not Professor Weltz but Professor Holzloehner had the greater practical experience. However, it has been established that Professor Weltz never received such an order and also that he was not otherwise concerned in any way with the carrying out of the freezing experiments. This is proved by the testimony of the defendant Weltz in his own case, (_Tr. 7108-09_), and by the affidavit of Professor Weltz’ co-worker Dr. Wendt. (_Weltz 23, Weltz Ex. 21._) For the rest, Weltz’ name does not appear in any connection in any of the numerous documents relating to the problem of freezing experiments submitted by the prosecution. On the contrary, these documents show clearly who from the Luftwaffe was actually ordered to carry out these experiments and who carried them out in Dachau. The fact that Professor Weltz was not even requested to participate in the planning of the freezing experiments, appears clearly from Document NO-283, Prosecution Exhibit 82, already discussed, and above all without objection. * * * * * That Professor Weltz refused to participate in the experiments after he learned about them was firmly established on the other hand by the evidence submitted by the defense which in turn is supported by the documents submitted by the prosecution. Document 1610-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 73, submitted by the prosecution appears to have special weight as evidence in this connection. It is Rascher’s letter to Himmler of 9 October 1942. In this letter Rascher asks Himmler to see to it that the apparatus necessary for chemical analysis be put at his disposal by laboratories not working to full capacity. He points to the fact that the Weltz Institute does not make apparatus available to him, as it was allegedly used there for freezing experiments with shaved cats, and the institute needed these apparatus for its own use. Moreover, the affidavit of the witness Dr. v. Werz (_Weltz 4, Weltz Ex. 11_) according to which Professor Weltz refused to furnish apparatus for freezing experiments at Dachau, further proves this disapproval on the part of Professor Weltz of the freezing experiments carried out at Dachau. Moreover, it appears also from NO-3674, Prosecution Exhibit 549. Here, an attempt is made to procure the apparatus (colorimeter) which was not delivered by Weltz from somewhere else. From 1609-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 92, it becomes apparent to what danger Professor Weltz exposed himself by his attitude against Rascher. It is a letter of the Reich Leader SS of 24 October 1942 to Rascher. In it Himmler acknowledges the receipt of Rascher’s letter, dated 9 October 1942, (_1610-PS, Pros. Ex. 73_) mentioned above in which Rascher complains about Professor Weltz’ attitude. In reply to this complaint Himmler writes: “People who today still disapprove of human experiments and would rather have German soldiers die of the consequences of freezing I consider to be guilty of treason and high treason, and I shall have no compunction to report the names of these gentlemen to the authorities concerned. You are authorized by me to inform the offices concerned of this of my opinion.” From Sievers’ testimony in direct interrogation it appears, unequivocally, that this referred to Professor Weltz. In this regard Sievers declared the following: “I can only say this in respect to Weltz himself, for Herr Rascher, as I already stated in reply to your question, mentioned in this connection Weltz as a participant.” The defendant Sievers also declared that in view of Rascher’s character, as known to him, it could be expected that Rascher would make use of the powers given him with respect to “those guilty of treason and high treason,” among others also against Professor Weltz. In the course of the cross-examination of Weltz the prosecution intimated in a veiled manner that Professor Weltz might have moved objects and files or might have put apparatus at the disposal of the Dachau experiments. Since the prosecution could not submit evidence of any weight in this respect it is unnecessary to go into this. In the cross-examination itself it became apparent that all the files and apparatus were in existence at the end of the war and that Weltz himself had made suggestions to hand over his institute in an orderly manner to the Americans. (_Tr. pp. 7241-7242._) * * * * * d. Evidence _Prosecution Documents_ Pros. Doc. No. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NO-234 83 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 10 September 219 1942, transmitting intermediate report on freezing experiments (1618-PS). 1618-PS 84 Intermediate report, 10 September 1942, on 220 intense chilling experiments in Dachau concentration camp. 1611-PS 85 Letter from Himmler to Rascher and Sievers, 22 221 September 1942, ordering rewarming in freezing experiments through physical warmth. NO-285 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 3 221 October 1942, stating that Sievers would obtain four gypsy women for rewarming through body warmth. 1619-PS 87 Teletype from commandant of Dachau 223 concentration camp to Rudolf Brandt, 7 October 1942, stating that four women would be available from Ravensbrueck concentration camp for Rascher’s experiments. NO-286 88 Letter from Goering’s office to Himmler, 8 223 October 1942, with attached invitation to the conference on “Medical Problems Arising from Hardships of Sea and Winter.” 1613-PS 90 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 16 October 225 1942, transmitting report on cooling experiments on human beings (NO-428). NO-428 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on cooling 226 experiments on human beings. 1609-PS 92 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 24 October 244 1942, and note by Rudolf Brandt. NO-323 94 Memorandum of Rascher on women used for 245 rewarming warming in freezing experiments, 5 November, 1942. NO-320 103 Letter from Sievers to Brandt, 28 January 246 1943, and Rascher’s report on his discussions with Grawitz and Poppendick. 1616-PS 105 Letter from Rascher to Himmler, 17 February 249 1943, and summary of experiments for rewarming of chilled human beings by animal warmth, 12 February 1943. NO-268 106 Letter from Hippke to Himmler, 19 February 252 1943, on freezing experiments in Dachau. 1580-PS 107 Letter from Himmler to Rascher, 26 February 253 1943, on freezing experiments in the concentration camps Auschwitz and Lublin. NO-292 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf Brandt, 4 April 253 1943, reporting on dry-freezing experiments in Dachau. NO-322 114 Letter from Rascher to Keindl, 28 April 1943, 254 about previous freezing experiments conducted at Sachsenhausen. NO-231 116 Letter from Rascher to Sievers, 17 May 1943, 255 concerning a conference with Gebhardt on freezing experiments. NO-432 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, 21 October 1943, 258 concerning dry-freezing experiments. NO-690 120 List of research projects from the files of 259 the Reich Research Council. _Testimony_ Extracts from the testimony of Tribunal witness Walter Neff 260 Extract from the testimony of defendant Handloser 265 Extract from the testimony of defendant Schroeder 269 Extracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 274 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-234 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 83 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, TRANSMITTING INTERMEDIATE REPORT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS (1618-PS) Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher Munich, Trogerstr. 56 at present Berlin, 10 Sep 1942 My dear Reich Leader, May I submit in the enclosure the first intermediary report about the freezing experiments? In the beginning of October, a meeting on the subject of freezing experiments is to take place. Professor Dr. Holzloehner, participating in our Dachau experiments on behalf of the Luftwaffe, wants to give on this occasion an account of the results of our experiments. SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers, who surveyed the experiments in Dachau last week, believes that if any report was to be made at a meeting, I should be called upon to submit the report. A discussion with other experts on freezing experiments would surely be very valuable. I therefore request your decision. 1. Can a report be made elsewhere before the oral report has been submitted to you, my Reich Leader? 2. Is my participation in the conference on the subject of the freezing experiments of the Luftwaffe ordered by you, my Reich Leader? I will take care that the report is submitted in the manner appropriate for top secret matter. Yours gratefully and respectfully Heil Hitler! [Signed] Yours very devotedly, S. RASCHER 1 enclosure TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1618-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 84 INTERMEDIATE REPORT, 10 SEPTEMBER 1942, ON INTENSE CHILLING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP S. Rascher Intermediate report on intense chilling experiments in the Dachau Camp, started on 15 August 1942 _Experimental procedure_ The experimental subjects (VP) were placed in the water, dressed in complete flying uniform, winter or summer combination, and with an aviator’s helmet. A life jacket made of rubber or kapok was to prevent submerging. The experiments were carried out at water temperatures varying from 2.5° to 12°. In one experimental series, the occiput (brain stem) protruded above the water, while in another series of experiments the occiput (brain stem) and back of the head were submerged in water. Electrical measurements gave low temperature readings of 26.4° in the stomach and 26.5° in the rectum. Fatalities occurred only when the brain stem and the back of the head were also chilled. Autopsies of such fatal cases always revealed large amounts of free blood, up to one-half liter, in the cranial cavity. The heart invariably showed extreme dilation of the right chamber. As soon as the temperature in these experiments reached 28°, the experimental subjects died invariably, despite all attempts at resuscitation. The above discussed autopsy finding conclusively proved the importance of a warming protective device for head and occiput when designing the planned protective clothing of the foam type. Other important findings, common in all experiments, should be mentioned, marked increase of the viscosity of the blood, marked increase of hemoglobin, an approximate five-fold increase of the leukocytes, invariable rise of blood sugar to twice its normal value. Auricular fibrillation made its appearance regularly at 30°. During attempts to save severely chilled persons [Unterkuehlte], it was shown that rapid rewarming was in all cases preferable to slow rewarming, because after removal from the cold water, the body temperature continued to sink rapidly. I think that for this reason we can dispense with the attempt to save intensely chilled subjects by means of animal heat. Rewarming by animal warmth—animal bodies or women’s bodies—would be too slow. As auxiliary measures for the prevention of intense chilling, improvements in the clothing of aviators come alone into consideration. The foam suit with suitable neck protector which is being prepared by the German Institute for the Textile Research, Munich-Gladbach, deserves first priority in this connection. The experiments have shown that pharmaceutical measures are probably unnecessary if the flier is still alive at the time of rescue. [Signed] DR. S. RASCHER Munich—Dachau, 10 September 1942. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1611-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 85 LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER AND SIEVERS, 22 SEPTEMBER 1942, ORDERING REWARMING IN FREEZING EXPERIMENTS THROUGH PHYSICAL WARMTH Secret Reich Leader SS Rf/Dr. AR/19/30/42 Personal Headquarters Reich Leader SS 22 September 1942 1. Dr. Rascher Munich—Dachau I have received the intermediate report on the chilling experiments in Camp Dachau. Despite everything, I would so arrange the experiments that all possibilities, prompt warming, medicine, body warming, will be executed in positive experiment orders. [Signed] H. HIMMLER 2. SS—Lt. Col. Sievers Berlin A carbon copy with the request for acknowledgment. SS Lt. Col. 25 Sep 42 PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-285 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 86 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT SIEVERS WOULD OBTAIN FOUR GYPSY WOMEN FOR REWARMING THROUGH BODY WARMTH Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher; Munich, Trogerstr. 56, 3 October 42 Most honored Obersturmbannfuehrer! First of all I want to thank you very much for “Das glaeserne Meer” (“The Glass Ocean”). My wife and myself are very happy to possess now a complete set of these books. I have already read the book with great interest. The Reich Leader SS wants to be informed of the state of the experiments. I can announce that the experiments have been concluded, with the exception of those on warming with body heat. The final report will be ready in about 5 days. Professor Holzloehner, for reasons that I cannot fathom, does not himself want to make the report to the Reich Leader Himmler and has asked me to attend to it. This report must be made before 20 October, because the great Luftwaffe conference on freezing takes place in Nuernberg on 25 October. The report on the results of our research _must_ be made there, to assure that they be used in time for the troops. May I ask you to arrange for a decision from the Reich Leader regarding the final report to him, and the submission to him of the relevant material? Today I received your letter of 22 September 1942, in which the Reich Leader orders that the experiments on warming through body heat must absolutely be conducted. Because of incomplete address it was delayed. Today I asked Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to send a telegram to the camp commander immediately, to the effect that four gypsy women be procured at once from another camp. Moreover, I asked SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers to take steps to have the low-pressure chamber made ready for use. The report to Field Marshal Milch planned for 11 September could not be made, as you have discovered, because he was prevented from attending, and no representative was commissioned to receive it. As the Reich Leader had not empowered me to report to anyone in the Reich Air Ministry (RLM), I abstained from making the report, which rather nettled the gentlemen of the Medical Inspectorate [Sanitaetsinspektion]. I immediately informed Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers. For the time being the report is being held as a military secret at the German Aviation Research Institute (DVL) together with a distribution list prepared by the Reich Air Ministry. The distribution of the copies, however, has not yet taken place, because, as I said, the report has not yet been made to Milch. I assume that you were informed of this whole business long ago. What shall we do now? I wish to enclose a letter of thanks to the Reich Leader from the former prisoner Neff. At the same time I should like to thank you very much for your efforts; and let me beg you, should opportunity offer, to convey to the Reich Leader my most sincere thanks for his granting of this request. I did not write to the Reich Leader in person, in order not to make any further demands on his valuable time. With best wishes and Heil Hitler! Yours most sincerely [Signed] S. RASCHER. PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1619-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 87 TELETYPE FROM COMMANDANT OF DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 7 OCTOBER 1942, STATING THAT FOUR WOMEN WOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM RAVENSBRUECK CONCENTRATION CAMP FOR RASCHER’S EXPERIMENTS Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) Message Center * * * * * CONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU 9793 7 OCTOBER 1942 1630-FR- TO SS OBERSTURMBANNFUEHRER DR. BRANDT BERLIN PRINZ ALBRECHT STR. 8. THE HEADQUARTERS CONCENTRATION CAMP DACHAU REQUESTS CHIEF OF THE AMTSGRUPPE SS BRIGADEFUEHRER GLUECKS TO HAVE THE FOUR WOMEN ORDERED BY THE REICH LEADER SS FOR STABSARZT DR. RASCHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPERIMENTS SENT IMMEDIATELY FROM RAVENSBRUECK TO DACHAU. SIGNED WEISS, SS STURMBANNFUEHRER AND COMMANDANT OF THE CAMP. PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-286 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 88 LETTER FROM GOERING’S OFFICE TO HIMMLER, 8 OCTOBER 1942, WITH ATTACHED INVITATION TO THE CONFERENCE ON “MEDICAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM HARDSHIPS OF SEA AND WINTER” The Reich Air Minister and Commander in chief of the Luftwaffe Az: 55 No. 5 340/secret/42 (L. I. 14, 2IIB) Berlin W 8, 8 October 1942 Leipziger Strasse 7 By Messenger! Subject: Research order on Freezing [Abkuehlung]. Reference: 1. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 55 No. 20058/41 (2II B) dated: 24/2/42 2. D. R. d. L. and Ob. d. L. Ch. d. Lw. L. In. 14 Az: 21 o-r No. 10909/42 (1 II A) dated: 6/8/42 To the Reich Leader SS The Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe has given an order for research to the Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Holzloehner, reference above, dated 24 February 1942, for work on the following problem: “The effect of freezing on warm-blooded subjects.” At the proposal of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher appropriate examinations were made of human beings, and in agreement with the Reich Leader SS suitable SS facilities were used for the examinations. In order to carry out these examinations a research group “Hardships at Sea” (“Seenot”) was set up, consisting of Professor Dr. Holzloehner as leader and Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Dr. Finke. The leader of this research group reported that the examinations have been concluded. It is intended to dissolve the research group at the latest by 15 October 1942. The research documents and an extensive report will be presented to the Reich Leader SS by Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher. It is requested that the originals or copies of the report and of the documents be put at the disposal of the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. It is intended to make the results, in the form of an extract, accessible to experts at a conference which will take place in Nuernberg on 26 and 27 October 1942. The agenda schedule of the conference is closed. The SS Central Office, Medical Department [SS Hauptamt, Sanitaetsamt] has been invited to this discussion by letter, dated 30 September 1942. It is further requested to abstain from forwarding the documents and the report to other nonmedical offices. Draft signed [Im Entwurf gez.] By order WULLEN True Copy [Signature] ANTHONY 1 enclosure [Enclosure] The Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe Conference on “Medical Problems Arising from Hardships of Sea and Winter” on 26 and 27 October 1942 in Nuernberg, Hotel “Der Deutsche Hof,” 29-35 Frauentorgraben. Chairman of the conference: Stabsarzt Professor Dr. Anthony, L. In. 14. _Tentative schedule_: 26 October 1942. * * * * * 15.35 o’clock—Oberstabsarzt Dr. Weltz: “Warming Up after Freezing to the Danger Point”. 15.55 o’clock—Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner: “Prevention and Treatment of Freezing.” 16.40 o’clock—Discussion. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1613-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 90 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 16 OCTOBER 1942, TRANSMITTING REPORT ON COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS (NO-428) Dr. Sigmund Rascher Munich 16 October 42 Troger Str. 56 Highly esteemed Reich Leader! Permit me to submit the attached final report on the super-cooling experiments performed at Dachau. This report does not contain the course and results of a series of experiments with drugs as well as experiments with animal body heat [animalische Waerme] which are now being conducted. Likewise this report does not contain the microscopic pathological examinations of the brain tissues of the deceased. I was surprised at the extraordinary microscopic findings in this field. I will carry out experiments before the start of the conference in which the effect of cooling will be discussed and I hope to be able to present further results by that time. My two coworkers left Dachau about 8 days ago. In the hope that you, highly esteemed Reich Leader, will be able to spare a quarter of an hour to listen to an oral report, I remain, with the most obedient regards and Heil Hitler! Yours respectfully. [Signed] S. RASCHER. PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-428 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 91 REPORT OF 10 OCTOBER 1942, ON COOLING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS STABSARZT PROF. DR. E. HOLZLOEHNER STABSARZT DR. S. RASCHER STABSARZT DR. E. FINKE _I. Problem of the Experiment_ Up to the present time there has been no basis for the treatment of shipwrecked persons who have been exposed for long periods of time to low-water temperatures. These uncertainties extended to the possible physical and pharmacological methods of attack. It was not clear, for example, whether those who had been rescued should be warmed quickly or slowly. According to the current instructions for treating frozen people, a slow warming up seemed to be indicated. Certain theoretical considerations could be adduced for a slow warming. Well-founded suggestions were missing for a promising medicinal therapy. All these uncertainties rested in the last analysis upon the absence of well-founded concepts concerning the cause of death by cold in human beings. In the meantime, in order to clarify this question, a series of animal experiments were started. And, indeed, these officials who wished to make definite suggestions to the doctors in the sea-rescue service had to assume a great deal of responsibility if it came to a question of convincing and consistent results in these animal experiments. At this particular point it is especially difficult to carry the findings in animals over into the human field. In the warm-blooded, one finds a varied degree of development in the heat-regulating mechanism. Besides this, the processes in the skin of the pelted animals cannot be carried over to man. _II. General Procedure of the Experiment_ The effect of _water temperatures_ of 2°, 3°, to 12° C. [34°, 37°, to 54° F.] were investigated. A tank 2×2×2 m. [6-2/3×6-2/3×6-2/3 ft.] served as an _experimental basin_. The water temperature was attained by addition of ice, and remained constant during the experiment. The experimental subjects were generally dressed in _equipment_ such as the flier wears, consisting of underclothing, uniform, a one piece summer or winter protective suit, helmet, and aviators fur-lined boots. In addition they wore a life preserver of rubber or kapok. The effect of _additional protective clothing_ against water-cold was tested in a special series of experiments, and in another series the _cooling of the unclothed person_ was studied. The _bodily warmth_ was measured _thermoelectrically_. Following preliminary experiments in which gastric temperatures were measured by a thermic sound, we adopted the procedure of continuously registering _rectally_ the body temperature [Kerntemperatur]. Parallel with this, the recording of the _skin temperature_ was undertaken. The point of measurement was the skin of the back at the level of the fifth thoracic certebral process. The thermoelectrical measurements were controlled before, during, and after the experiments by thermometric tests of the cheek and rectal temperature. In severe cooling, _checking of the pulse_ is difficult. The pulse becomes weaker, the musculature become stiff, and shivering sets in. Auscultation during the experiment by means of a tube stethoscope fastened over the tip of the heart proved effective. The tubes were led out of the uniform and made possible the continuous _listening to the heart during the stay in the water_. _Electrocardiographic controls_ were not possible in the water. After removal from the water they were possible only in those cases in which, a too severe muscle shivering did not disturb the electrocardiograph records. The following _chemical studies_ were carried out: following up of the _blood sugar picture_ (continuous); the _sodium chloride picture_ in the serum; the _nonprotein nitrogen_ (_Rest-N_); the _alkali reserve_; the alkali reserve of the venous and arterial blood and _sedimentation rate_ (before and after the experiment). Besides this the general _blood condition_ and _viscosity_ were followed during the experiment, and before and after the experiment the _resistance_ of the red blood cells and the protein content of the blood plasma (this refractometrically) were measured. The following _urinalyses_ were made regularly: _sediment_, _albumen_, _sugar_, _sodium chloride_, _acetone_, _acetic acid_, as well as a qualitative _albumen_ determination. In part of the experiment lumbar and suboccipital punctures were made as well as corresponding spinal fluid studies. Among _physical_ and _therapeutic measures_ the following were tested: _a._ Rapid warming by means of a _hot_ bath. _b._ Warming by means of a _light cradle_. _c._ Warming in a heated _sleeping bag_. _d._ Vigorous _massage_ of the whole body. _e._ _Wrapping in covers._ _f._ _Diathermy of the heart._ In addition the following drugs were given: _Strophanthin_ i. v.; _Cardiaz_ 1 i. v. and i. c.; _Lobelin and Coramin_ i. v. and i. c. In other experiments alcohol or grape sugar was given. A part of the experiments was begun under _narcosis_ (8 cc. _Evipan_ i. v.). _III. The Clinical Picture of Cooling_ The clinical picture as well as the behavior of the body temperature showed certain regularities in the general course; the time of appearance of certain phenomena was, however, subject to very great _individual variations_. As one might expect, a _good general physical condition_ delayed the cooling and the concomitant phenomena. Further differences were conditioned by the _position of the subject in the water_ and the _manner of clothing_. Furthermore, differences showed up between experiments in which the subject lay horizontally in the water so that the nape of the neck and the back of the head were splashed with water, and others in which neck and head protruded freely out of the water. Peculiarly, the _actual water temperatures_ between 2° C. and 12° C. [35° and 54° F.] had no demonstrable effect upon the rate of the cooling. Naturally such an effect must exist. But since besides the already mentioned individual differences and those due to experimental conditions, the various subjects cooled on different days at different rates of speed, the effect of the actual water temperatures between 2° and 12° disappears behind such variations. If the experimental subject was placed in the water under narcosis, one observed a certain arousing effect. The subject began to groan and made some defensive movements. In a few cases a state of excitation developed. This was especially severe in the cooling of head and neck. But never was a complete cessation of the narcosis observed. The defensive movements ceased after about 5 minutes. There followed a progressive rigor, which developed especially strongly in the arm musculature; the arms were strongly flexed and pressed to the body. The rigor increased with the continuation of the cooling, now and then interrupted by tonic-clonic twitchings. With still more marked sinking of the body temperature it suddenly ceased. These cases ended fatally, without any successful results from resuscitation efforts. In the course of the narcosis experiments the evipan effects in a few cases went directly over into a cold narcosis; in other cases one could determine a transitory return of consciousness, immediately following the awakening effect already described; at any rate, the experimental subjects were dizzy. Cold pain was not expressed. Experiments without narcosis showed no essential differences in the course of cooling. Upon entry into the water a severe cold shuddering appeared. The cooling of the neck and back of the head was felt as especially painful, but already after 5 to 10 minutes a significant weakening of the pain sensation was observable. Rigor developed after this time in the same manner as under narcosis, likewise the tonic-clonic twitchings. At this point speech became difficult because the rigor also affected the speech musculature. Simultaneously with the rigor a severe _difficulty in breathing_ set in with or without narcosis. It was reported that, so to speak, an iron ring was placed about the chest. Objectively, already at the beginning of this breathing difficulty, a marked _dilatation of the nostrils_ occurred. The _expiration was prolonged and visibly difficult_. This difficulty passed over into a rattling and snoring breathing. However, the breathing at this point was not especially deep as in Kussmaul’s breathing nor were any Cheyne-Stokes breathing or Biot’s breathing to be observed. Not in all subjects, but in a great number, a simultaneous hindering during this breathing through very profuse _secretion of mucous_ could be established. Under these conditions sometimes a white, _fine-bubbled foam_ appeared at the mouth which reminded one of an incipient _lung oedema_, though it was not possible to determine this symptom with certainty by clinical auscultation; only a sharpened unclean breath sound was audible. This foam might occur early, that is, at rectal temperatures of 32° C. to 35° C.; [90°-95° F.]. No special significance was to be attributed to this regarding the outcome of the experiment which is the opposite of the described relaxation of rigor. The _rate of breathing increased_ at the beginning of the experiment, but after about 20 minutes it decreased to something like 24 per minute with slight variations. In general a definite _dulling of consciousness_ occurred at the dropping of the body temperature of 31° C. [88° F.] rectal temperature. Next, the subjects still responded to speech but finally answered very sleepily. The _pupils_ dilated markedly. The contraction under light became increasingly weaker. The gaze was directed overhead with a compulsive fixation. After withdrawal from the water _an increase in the reflexes_ was evident in spite of the rigor, and regularly a very marked drawing up of the testicles occurred which practically disappeared into the abdomen. Early in the experiment the _face_ was pale. After 40 to 50 minutes _cyanosis_ appeared. With this the face appeared redder, the mucous membrane bluish-red. The skin veins were not maximally collapsed and were virtually always penetrable. The _heart activity_ showed a constant change independent of all other individual variations, which was noticeable in all subjects. Upon introduction into the water with narcotized subjects as well as nonnarcotized subjects, the heart rate went suddenly to about 120 per minute. At a rectal body temperature of about 34° C. [93° F.] it then began to become increasingly slower and to sink continuously to about 50 per minute. The bradycardia at a body temperature of about 29° to 30° C. [84° to 86° F.] changed suddenly to an _arrythmia perpetua_ or, as the case may be, to a _total irregularity_ and this began with a slow form of about 50 beats per minute; this slow form of irregularity could be transformed into a faster one. The transformation to the faster form was not an unfavorable sign regarding life. When an electrocardiographic control after the experiment was possible, it regularly showed a Vorhof flutter. Let it be anticipated _that this irregularity could continue to exist after the cessation of the cooling and a recovery of the body temperature to 33° or 34° C. [91° or 93° F.] 1½ to 2 hours after removal from the water_, but then customarily changed of itself and without therapeutic aids into a coordinated heart activity. In the same way let it be anticipated that in all cases with a lethal termination, a sudden cessation of the heartbeat ensued upon an irregularity of the slow type. A check of the _blood pressure_ was attempted, but was in no case satisfactory since an exact measurement was not possible in the decisive stage of the experiment because of the severe rigor and muscle fibrillation. Reference has already been made to _individual differences in the behavior of the rectal temperatures_. Figure 4 gives an example which includes four experiments, in which four different experimental subjects were cooled at identical water temperatures and with identical clothing. It was shown that in water at 4.5° C. [40° F.] temperature the time required for reaching a rectal temperature of about 29.5° C. [85° F.] varies between 70 and 90 minutes. But nevertheless the diagram shows that in spite of these individual differences, it is observable that the progress of the rectal temperature proceeds according to rule. The body temperature begins to sink rapidly from about 35° C. [95°-97° F.]. _It is of very great practical significance at this point that the body temperature continues to sink virtually lineally for a considerable time after removal from the water._ This continued drop can last 20 minutes or more. During this drop an after-drop of 4° C. [7° F.] could be observed, and indeed not only at temperatures under 30° C. [86° F.]. In one case it was observed that an interruption of the experiment at 35° C. [95° F.] after a further lapse of 20 minutes the rectal temperature had fallen 4° to 5° C. [8° F.] more. We will later discuss the “arresting” of this after-drop by physical measures. In our experimental series, the lowest rectal temperatures which could be survived varied individually just as did the progress of the temperature drop. In general (in six cases) death occurred with a drop in temperature to values between 24.2° and 25.7° C. [75.6° and 77.6° F.]. In one case, however, a drop to 25.2° C. was survived. This experiment fell outside the typical picture insofar as after 90 minutes at 26.6° C. [79.9° F.] a virtually stationary condition of the rectal temperature had become established for 85 minutes. We will come back again to this special experiment. The _skin temperature_ sinks or drops much more rapidly than the rectal temperature. Within a minute there occurs a thorough saturation of the articles of clothing. Correspondingly the skin temperature falls already within 5 minutes to values between 24° and 19° C. [75° and 66° F.]. After 10 minutes it may have already dropped to 12° C. [54° F.]. Within 10 to 20 minutes more after the beginning of the experiment the steepness of the drop changes considerably. The curve of the skin temperature runs for some time, that is, for 15 to 30 minutes virtually horizontal. After this time there follows a further but now slower drop to the lowest figures, which may lie below 15° C. [59° F.] at the close of the experiment. Parallel experiments which compare the _course of the rectal temperatures_ and the cooling of the body with and _without submersion of neck and back of head_ showed great difference in temperature drop. The curves pertain to the same experimental subject. The one with the deep fall to 26° C. [79° F.] in 70 minutes was obtained with a water temperature of 12° C. [54° F.] the other with a drop to 32.5° C. [90.4° F.] in the same time resulted from a water temperature of 5.5° C. [41.9° F.]. The very marked difference cannot be explained by a variation in resistance of the particular person, but is to be attributed to the position of the subject in the water and his head covering. In the experiment with the water at 12° C. [54° F.] the subject, in a kapok life preserver, lay flat in the water so that his neck and the back of his head were well submerged; beyond this he did not wear a flier’s helmet. In the other experiment with water at 5.5° C. [41.9° F.] the head was covered with an aviator’s summer helmet without headphones. The subject wore a rubber life preserver open at the back; with this, the head is somewhat out of the water. In order to follow up the effect of _isolated cooling of the neck and the back of the head_ on consciousness, body temperature, and circulation, this was undertaken in three special experiments. The experimental subject lay horizontal; the back of the head and the neck were dipped into a receptacle through which water of corresponding temperature was continuously run. In an experiment of 3 hours duration there occurred small temperature drops of not more than 0.8° C. [1.4° F.]. The water temperature was 1° to 2° C. [34° to 35° F.]. In one case after 50 minutes a marked sleepiness occurred which changed over into a deep narcosis. The heart activity was variable, and obvious bradycardia could not be observed. Irregularity never developed. Changes were not seen in the electrocardiograph. On the other hand in all three subjects the spinal fluid pressure was markedly increased after the ending of the experiment to maximal values of 300 mm. After the experiment, ataxia and definite Romberg phenomena were observed, as well as exaggeration of the normal reflexes; pathological reflexes were absent. _IV. Blood, Spinal Fluid, and Urine During Freezing_ The _differential blood smears_ showed no special features during cooling. On the other hand the number of white and red blood corpuscles shows a regular change. The _number of leukocytes_ rapidly increases, roughly with the beginning of the steeper temperature drop at about 35° C. [95° F.] rectal temperature to values of from 25,000 to 27,000 per cu. mm. After one hour a maximum may be reached and a falling-off begins in the number of leukocytes, while the body temperature falls still further. The number of red corpuscles undergoes an increase, though to a relatively small degree, which in its course resembles the change in the _number of leukocytes_. We saw increases up to 20 percent. This increase is interrupted even earlier than the increase in the number of leukocytes, so that both curves give no reflection of the temperature curve. The increase of the erythrocytes corresponded to the increase of the hemoglobin of from 10 to 20 percent. A reduction of the fragility of the red corpuscles could not be demonstrated with certainty, on the other hand, although in three experiments a definite hemolysis occurred. The viscosity regularly increases with the beginning of the fall in temperature. The rise can reach values up to 7.8. This rise occurs very early, indeed, already at body temperatures of 35° C. [95° F.]. After that the values remain relatively constant with further temperature falls. The _albumen content of the plasma_ was likewise increased after the experiment, on the average by 1 percent of the absolute value. Since these measurements could not be made as often as those of viscosity for technical reasons, the connection with the progress of the viscosity remained unclear. Such a connection could not be recognized from the absolute values obtained. With the acceleration of the temperature drop, there always occurs a more marked increase of the blood sugar to maximal values which may attain an average _increase of 80 percent_ and in a few cases may reach an _increase of over 100 percent_. According to that, the maximal value of about 27.5° C. [81.5° F.] is reached and is maintained for some time. It is to be observed that _as long as the temperature drop continues, in no experiment was it possible to observe a decrease in these high blood sugar values_. It is usually to be observed that a relatively rapid drop of the blood sugar values sets in when, after removal from the water, the temperature drop ceases and goes over into a temperature rise. We consider these findings to be of theoretical significance. During the isolated cooling of the neck and back of the head which was described in section III the blood sugar remained constant. In striking contrast to the increase of the blood sugar, there was never established a _corresponding glycosuria_ in the urine collected immediately after the experiment or withdrawn through a catheter, although considerable quantities of urine averaging 500 cc. were found in the bladder; in only two cases could traces of sugar (0.5 percent) be demonstrated. This paradoxical behavior can, perhaps, be explained in this manner: during the time of great blood sugar increase, a blocking of the kidneys had occurred, and that the associated urine quantities were formed before or after this blocking under reflex polyuria. Acetone and acetic acid, likewise, could not be demonstrated in the urine. The _alkali reserve_ in the arterial and venous blood was regularly very much reduced at the end of the experiments. Experiments concerning _oxygen saturation_ could not be carried out. According to the color of the venous blood withdrawn from the arm veins, the saturation of this blood must have been very greatly reduced; the blood was virtually black as it came into the syringe. Noteworthy in this connection are the autopsy findings which were undertaken directly after death. In these, the blood in the right heart appeared very dark, and in the left heart very bright red. According to this, one must calculate upon an _increase in the saturation differential between the arteries and veins_. _Sodium chloride_ and _nonprotein nitrogen_ in the blood were not clear in the blood at the end of the experiments or increased within the limit of error. _Sodium chloride in the urine_ was generally less, corresponding to a reduction of the specific gravity. On the other hand at the end of the experiments _traces of albumin_ could regularly be demonstrated _in the urine_ and moderately increased leukocytes, occasional erythrocytes, and epithelial cells in the sediments. In particular cases, _albumin casts_ were also observed. The reaction of the urine remained identical before and after the experiments virtually without exception. The studies of the bile yielded no results. _Lumbar and suboccipital_ punctures immediately after the experiments showed a considerable _increase in fluid pressure_. On the average it amounted to between 50 and 60 mm. In one case, an _increase to 420 mm._ was seen. The protein values were always normal. Cell increases did not appear, likewise no abnormal deviation of the colloidal gold curve was observed. The meaning of these findings for therapy is still to be discussed later. _V. Recovery After Cooling and Its Dependence Upon Physiotherapeutic Measures_ The important fact has already been referred to that after rescue from the cold water, the body temperature sinks further and so a further temperature reduction of 4° C. [7° F.] may take place. As was likewise emphasized, this may occur as a postphenomenon not only when low temperatures have been obtained already during the experiments, but it can be noted also at final temperatures of 35° C. [95° F.]. A dependence of this after-drop on the duration of the experiment could not be established; as a result it is difficult to calculate in advance. This fact becomes of great importance for practical measures; on the other hand it makes it difficult to gain an insight into the manner in which various physiotherapeutic measures affect the arresting of this after-drop and the recovery of the body temperature. Only because of the large number of the experiments was it possible to obtain well-founded concepts of this. The _flattest rise of the body temperature_ was to be observed when the subject was merely dried off, wrapped in warm cover, and left to himself after removal from the water. The recovery is greatly accelerated if the subject is placed in a hot bath as soon as possible after the removal of the wet articles of clothing. Warming under a light cradle assisted the temperature rise. Vigorous massage had a favorable effect, however, only if it was preceded by treatment in a hot bath or light cradle. _In no case was it established that there was any indication of bad effects from the hot water or the light cradle, or that the subject had been harmed in any way._ On the other hand, it was observed in three cases that a hot bath had doubtless a life saving effect. In two of these cases there had been complete cessation of heart and breathing action, and in one case the heart had stopped for several seconds after a markedly slackened irregularity before the subject was placed into water of not more than 50° C. [122° F.]. _As a result of this we can discard all traditional objections to a sudden rewarming._ The favorable effect of a hot bath is still clearer in the observation of the general condition of the subject than in the temperature curves, although it cannot be presented objectively. The breathing very often becomes “freer” immediately upon introduction into the hot water. The hot water releases a strong stimulus; the unconscious subject often reacts with an outcry. Soon thereafter there occurs a distinct lessening of the severe rigor. The return of consciousness occurs sooner, and indeed at temperatures at which it did not usually happen under other methods of treatment. In the first experiments with hot water treatment, this was continued only for 10 minutes; after that the subjects were removed and vigorously massaged. Under these circumstances it could be established that the temperature rise continued during the rubbing, indeed in one experiment the rise became steeper. As already indicated, this favorable effect of dry rubbing was not so pronounced without preliminary treatment by heat. It is important, too, that the rubbing be done when the severe spasm of the peripheral vessels has already passed. _In view of this, the hot hath is the best method of treatment of the severely cooled person._ However, in the practice of sea rescue service it will not be possible to carry out this method, since the necessary means are not available in aircraft and boats. Under these circumstances we must consider next only the rapid rewarming with light cradle or electrically _heated sleeping bag_. Therefore a sleeping bag as now used in the sea rescue service was also tested. It was evident that the temperatures which can be developed by this means are not sufficient for heat therapy. With those it was possible to reach a temperature of only 32° C. [90° F.] over the skin, with the heat turned on fully. Besides this, the wall of the foot-section of the sleeping bag is only partly heated; on the outer sides it remains completely cold. As long as no improvement and strengthening of the heating equipment of the sack is carried out, the sleeping bag can be considered only as a substitute for wrapping in warm covers. The warming by means of the _light cradle_ is more uneven than with a hot bath. With warming by light one might expect severe local vessel expansion with _danger of collapse_. Actually the subjects often complained of dizziness and nausea after reaching consciousness if the treatment lasted longer than 15 minutes. Occasionally vomiting occurred. In these cases it is indicated to switch off the light cradle and to pack the subject with covers. Apart from this it must be remembered that during unconsciousness the subject should be protected against direct contact with the lamps by means of covers, otherwise burns could occur during clonic-tonic convulsions. This suggests that “_short waves_” be employed to supply heat, since it was shown in animal experimentation that by this means it is possible to bring about a thorough warming of the whole animal, which leads to a recovery of the animal with puzzling rapidity. We did not have the proper equipment for a thorough warming of a human being by this means. For this reason the _short wave therapy of the heart_ was tried. This did not have any demonstrable effect. Above all, it is necessary to advise against a practical application of this method, since there exists the danger of prolonged burning even in full consciousness, as the result of cold anaesthesia, even if the treating physician carefully tries to avoid this. The severe difficulty in breathing as well as the formation of foam before the mouth, which reminded one of incipient lung oedema, seemed to indicate oxygen therapy. Therefore this therapy was tried in four experiments. It showed no effect on either the breathing or the heart action. It has been pointed out that the arterial blood appears especially light red. _VI. Death After Cooling in Water_ _Practical and Theoretical Considerations_ Reports to the effect that those who have been rescued at sea are imperilled for a considerable time after rescue has aroused special attention. It has been reported especially that sudden cases of death occurred as much as 20 minutes to 90 minutes after rescue, and that in mass catastrophes these sudden deaths could amount to mass-dying (rescue collapse). These observations have set off far-reaching discussions. Bleeding in the rewarming periphery, break-downs of neural and humoral correlations and similar ideas have been brought up. In contrast to this our experiments give a relatively simple explanation of cold-death under these conditions. With the exception of a single case, a total irregularity of the heart chamber could be definitely demonstrated in all cases of cooling under 30° C. [86° F.], (50 experiments), when the rectal temperature reached 29° C. [84° F.] and usually already at a cooling of 31° C. [88° F.]. The exception was an experiment on an intoxicated subject, which is to be gone into more fully below (_see sec. VII_). _Furthermore heart-death was established clinically in all cases of death observed by us._ In two cases breathing ceased simultaneously with the heart activity. These were cases in which it was specially noted that the neck and the back of the head lay deep in the water. In all remaining cases breathing outlasted the clinical chamber cessation by as much as 20 minutes. In part this was “normal, much decelerated breathing,” in part an angonal form of gasping. As already referred to, an auricular flutter could be demonstrated cardiographically during the irregularity. In cases in which a special _cooling of neck and back of head_ had existed before death, the _autopsy_ showed _a marked brain oedema_, a tight filling of the general brain cavity [Hirngefaesse] blood in the spinal fluid as well as blood in the Michaelisrhomboid. The heart findings warrant our taking a certain attitude toward _the question of rescue collapse_. Death occurred relatively quickly after removal from the water, which may be compared with rescue. The longest interval involved was 14 minutes. It is to be noted, however, in the first place, that almost certainly a much larger number of deaths would have been observed if an active heat therapy had not almost regularly been coupled directly with the completion of the experiment; in the second place, that in such cases there would have been very much longer intervals. We have already called attention repeatedly to the after-cooling following the experiment. In every case where this had proceeded to a certain point, countermeasures were taken, since the experiments were never planned to end in death. One may well imagine, however, that in mass catastrophes, in which almost exclusively rescue collapse has heretofore been described, the therapeutic measures were confined to an undressing and drying off of the rescued together with a subsequent wrapping in covers. Under these conditions after-drops of great magnitude and long duration were to be expected. In the course of this delayed fall in temperature, a heart-death might occur as in our experiments. _We should like to emphasize that the irregularity per se is not to be regarded in our experiments as a symptom of danger to life any more than in the clinic, but rather as a sign of direct heart damage, which increases continuously with further falling off of temperature, until finally the heart fails. If the temperature drop is arrested, the slow form of irregularity passes over into a rapid form._ This transition is a favorable sign for survival; for this irregularity virtually always passes over of itself after a time averaging 90 minutes into normal heart activity. It continues therefore for a long time after the body temperature has already risen markedly. A danger to the circulatory system could not be demonstrated at this stage. In three cases the return of the heart action to normal occurred in spite of simultaneous energetic physical work. With the demonstration that cold-death of man is primarily a heart-death, the essential points for therapy are also cleared up. The _cause of the severe heart_ damage is another question. Since our studies were primarily aimed at the development of practical methods of treatment, we will not go very far into the theoretical concepts which may be developed in this connection. Still, several hints may be drawn from the blood studies: 1. The great increase of the _viscosity_ causes an _increased loading_ upon the heart. 2. The _choking of peripheral vessel_ areas by the severe vessel contraction leads to an over-filling of the central areas. This appears not only from our autopsies. In all available records of autopsies which pertain to cases of death from cold in the water after sea disaster, we find uniformly a severe over-filling of the right heart. 3. It is to be calculated that, under the effect of the low blood temperature, the _heart_ itself becomes severely _hypodynamic_. It has been proved long ago in animal experimentation that a Vorhof flutter can be developed by the overloading and cooling of the isolated heart. Besides a physical damaging of the heart musculature by the cold, we must also keep in mind the _damaging by pathological products of metabolism_. Next, the sharp increase in blood sugar may be connected with the increased outpouring of adrenalin. The constancy of this increase of blood sugar during the temperature drop is, however, remarkable. One may well assume that this flow of adrenalin exhausts itself with the continuance of the temperature drop. With this there would have to be a rapid decrease in the blood sugar if the oxidation processes were to continue undisturbed. The decrease in the alkali reserve or the development of an acidosis argues strongly for an injury. Animal experiments, with general cooling, give grounds for believing that the intermediary metabolism is disturbed during drops in temperature; but this change is also discussed in connection with local freezing of the human being and has been proved to a certain extent. Furthermore, not only this disturbance shows a transition between general and local damage by cold. In both cases there occurs an increase in viscosity, which points to a change in the capillary walls and indicates the conclusion that there is a change in the permeability of those walls for protein and water. The heart-death remains prominent, the regular increase of spinal fluid pressure with severe cooling of the neck and back of the head leaves it unsettled whether, in addition, this has pathognomonic significance for the outcome. With a fluid pressure of 420 mm. it must in fact be assumed that this participates in the development of bradycardia. The detection of an increase in fluid pressure is also not without significance for therapy. One may think of a lumbar or suboccipital puncture as a measure to be prescribed. After a lumbar puncture there occurs a transformation of the slow form of arrhythmia into the rapid form. It must remain undecided whether such measures, which delay a rapid, active rewarming, are to be recommended for practical application in the sea-rescue service. The idea that cold-death in water depends upon failure of the heart, accompanied or unaccompanied by breathing, is subject to limitation. One experiment among fifty-seven was typical. This involved survival of a cooling to 25.2° C. [77.4° F.] during a stay of 3 hours in water of 5.5° C. [41.4° F.]. The rectal temperature under these conditions remained constant within slight variations between 27° and 25° C. [81° and 77° F.] for the last hour and a half. Likewise, quite irregularly, no increase in blood sugar occurred. But most striking was the fact that until the end of the experiment and after its termination consciousness was undisturbed. The course of the experiment reminded one of the behavior of certain experimental animals which can withstand extremely low body temperatures for long periods of time. Lower, warm-blooded animals (for example, rats) can endure rectal temperatures of 20° C. [68° F.] for several hours. It is conceivable that this atypical experiment, had it been continued, would have shown also an atypical cause of death. Against this we have the fact that an irregularity had already set in but not before a temperature of 30.1° C. [86.2° F.] had been reached. Also, aside from the fluid pressure increase, the part which the _central nervous system_ plays in the outcome of the experiment seems to us to be _secondary_. The experiments with simultaneous cooling of the neck of course showed how the cooling of the neck and back of the head speeds up the lowering of temperature. This is to be explained by the fact that the counter-controls which are relayed from the temperature center to the periphery, either cannot exist further because of hypofunction of the centers (effect of oedema and cooling), or are no longer transmitted because of cold-blocking of the pathways. But likewise central counter-controls for the areas of the peripheral capillaries may fall; thus delaying the overloading of the heart by extended periphera vasco friction. _VII. The Influence of Pharmacology and the Question of Alcohol_ Now experiments by _Jarisch_ have shown that heart drugs like _strophanthin_ and stimulants like _cardiazol_ and _coramine_ in therapeutic doses may react _toxically_ upon cooled animals. These findings are a warning to be most careful in the medicinal treatment of severely cooled persons, though strophanthin and cardiazol have heretofore been expressly recommended in such cases. In experiments with fatal outcome, the stopping of the heart occurred either in the water or after an interval of not more than 14 minutes after removal from the water. With such a rapid course of events it is unlikely that one can favorably influence the heart action by intravenous injections of strophanthin, especially because the circulation is at a very low ebb before the heart-death. For this reason, in a case whose condition was already very dangerous, _strophanthin was given intracardially_ in a dose of 0.25 mg. Thereupon the heart condition grew still worse and after 5 minutes the heart stopped. One had the impression that the heart action was made worse by the intracardial injection of strophanthin. This is, however, the only case which left the possibility of damage by strophanthin in doubt. No such damage could ever be established in the intravenous injection of strophanthin. On the other hand no therapeutic effect, even with maximal doses of 0.5 mg., could be detected. Figure 11 [not reproduced], last section, shows the total duration in 10 cases of the irregularity observed without strophanthin dosage. This varies between 25 and 200 minutes. On the other hand in Figure 13 in the last section, first five cross-rows there are corresponding time values of 175 to 360 minutes. At various experimental time points during these experiments 0.25 to 0.5 of strophanthin were given. Accordingly, a shortening of the duration of the irregularity cannot be established. Furthermore no improvement of the pulse or general condition was ever noted. Obviously these experiments are too few to rule out a possible favorable effect in all cases. Several hundred experiments would be necessary to obtain statistically reliable data on this point. And so, since contrary to animal experimentation, we could not unquestionably establish damage following intravenous strophanthin dosage, we may leave it to the treating physician whether or not he may still want to make an _experiment with strophanthin_. To be sure, such an employment of it must be advised against in case of a very much decelerated form of irregularity. This will be observed when there is the greatest danger; under such circumstances time should never be lost by experimenting with drugs, but every effort should be made in the direction of intensive heat therapy. Also in the experiments with _cardiazol_, _coramin_ and _lobeline_ we restricted ourselves primarily to determining whether injurious effects occurred in the case of relatively large doses. Four cc. of 10 percent coramin as well as 2 cc. of 1 percent lobeline were injected intravenously at various stages of recovery without any marked objective and subjective deterioration of the state of the heart, the breathing, and the general condition. But just as with strophanthin, it is impossible to rule out a possible therapeutically favorable effect because of the small number of experiments. We never observed such an effect. Especially the marked deepening of breathing and of the irritability of the trigeminal nerve which usually sets in very suddenly after coramin (for example, sneezing immediately after the injection) were always missing. Contrary to strophanthin, in the case of which we cannot advise against experimentation by intravenous injection under certain conditions, we believe on theoretical grounds that such experiments with _peripheral circulatory drugs_ which may heighten the vessel tonus are not indicated because of the following considerations: The damage to the heart is to be attributed, among other things, to an overloading, which is caused by a blocking of enlarged vessel areas, aside from an increase in viscosity. If the vessel tonus is further increased in the areas which have remained unimpeded, the conditions for the heart are thereby made worse. The sceptical attitude toward the effect of drugs is strengthened above all by the observation that in the majority of the experiments in which no drugs were given, even the most severe disturbances of the peripheral circulation were reduced remarkably rapidly under intensive heat treatment. In this connection it must be emphasized that besides the recovery of body temperature through heat therapy an unloading of the heart takes place because the blocked areas open up. Contrary to earlier concepts, according to which there was danger of hemorrhage into the periphery during rapid rewarming, and according to which one sought to avoid this hemorrhage by wrapping up the extremities as well as by very slow warming, the “venalous bleeding into the periphery” may be life-saving under some circumstances. An exception, namely, loval pyperacmia after considerable rise in temperature and corresponding reestablishment of circulation has already been described in the reference to the danger in some cases of very prolonged treatment in the light cradle. The familiar increase of peripheral blood volume as a result of alcohol leads one to expect that very intoxicated persons cool more rapidly. Figure 14[28] shows an experiment from which we may conclude that _actually acceleration of the cooling_ does set in after partaking _liberally of alcohol before the experiment_. It is very remarkable that in such an experiment, _the only exception among all cooling experiments_, irregularity was absent in a cooling to 28.1° C. [82.6° F.]. Even if it was not possible to reproduce this apparent protection against irregularity caused by partaking of alcohol in control experiments on other subjects, there remains the possibility that the distending of the peripheral vessels delays the overloading of the heart, just as on the other hand it increases the speed of cooling. Our observations contradict the old seafaring custom of pouring _alcohol_ into a person _already cooled_, since, according to these observations the temperature tends, even in slight degrees of cooling, to sink further for a long time after rescue. As long as there is no active supply of heat from outside, the disadvantage of an increased heat loss will reduce the utility of stopping the peripheral vessel blockage. Also in _later stages_ of recovery one must obviously be very careful in giving alcohol; above all, this warning is emphasized by the possibility that one must reckon with a total irregularity after more than an hour, which may go unnoticed by the inexperienced experimenter. * * * * * _VIII. Preventive Measures_ * * * * * _IX. Concerning Life Jackets_ [_Schwimmwesten_] * * * * * _X. Summary_ 1. The curve of rectal temperature of human beings chilled in water of 2° C. [35.6° F.] to 12° C. [53.6° F.] shows a gradual drop to about 35° C. [95° F.], after which the drop becomes rapid. Death may occur at rectal temperatures below 30° C. [86° F.]. 2. Death results from heart failure. The direct damage to the heart becomes evident from the total irregularity observed in all cases, setting in at approximately 30° C. [86° F.]. This cardiac damage is due to overloading of the heart, caused by the marked and regular increase in the viscosity of the blood, as well as by the marked throttling of large peripheral vascular areas; besides, a direct injury to the heart by the cold is also probable. 3. If the neck is also chilled, the lowering of the temperature is more rapid. This is due to interference with the temperature-regulating and vascular centers; cerebral oedema also makes its appearance. 4. The blood sugar rises as the temperature falls, and the blood sugar does not drop again as long as the body temperature continues to fall. This fact suggests an intermediary disturbance of metabolism. 5. Respiration of the chilled subject is rendered difficult due to the rigor of the respiratory musculature. 6. After removal from the cold water, the body temperature may continue to fall for 15 minutes or longer. This may be an explanation of deaths which occur after successful rescue from the sea. 7. Intensive rewarming never injures the severely chilled person. 8. Strophanthin treatment was not observed to have been successful. The question of the use of strophanthin remains open, however. Remedies which influence the peripheral circulation are definitely not advisable. 9. The most effective therapeutic measure is rapid and intensive heat treatment, best applied by immersion in a hot bath. 10. By means of special protective clothing, the survival time after immersion in cold water could be extended to double the survival time of subjects who were immersed without protective clothing. 11. Certain proposals for improvement of life jackets are being made. Concluded on 10 October 1942. [Signed] Prof. DR. HOLZLOEHNER DR. RASCHER DR. FINKE * * * * * _Behavior of the heart action under the influence of medication_ │ │Occurance of │ Therapy │Pulse becomes │ Total │ │ │Irregularity │ │ │ regular │ dura- │ Subj.│Water│ After│ At │ │ At│ After exper. │ tion │ │temp.│exper.│ body│ Mg. │ min.│time & admin. │of ir- │ Remarks │ [°C]│ time│ temp.│stroph.│[min.]│ strophanthin │ regu- │ │ │[min.]│ [°C]│ │ │ │larity │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ * │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ B. L │ 4│ 55│ 30│0.25 │ 65│ — │ — │Death in │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ the │ │ │ │ 4 cc.│ │ │ │ seventie │ │ │ │ coram│ │ │ │ th │ │ │ │ in. │ │ │ │ minute, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ten │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ L. H │ 4│ 30│ 31.5│0.25 │ 60│ — │ — │Death │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ (heart │ │ │ │ intra│ │ │ │ stopped) │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ five │ │ │ │ al. │ │ │ │ minutes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ administ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ering │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ strophan │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ thin, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ten │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ V. E │ 5.2│ 60│ 30.3│0.25 │ 68│ — │ — │Death │ │ │ │ mg., │ │ │ │ (heart │ │ │ │ heart│ │ │ │ stopped) │ │ │ │ , │ │ │ │ in the │ │ │ │ masag│ │ │ │ sixty-si │ │ │ │ e, │ │ │ │ xth │ │ │ │ coram│ │ │ │ minute │ │ │ │ in, │ │ │ │ during │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ removal │ │ │ │ azol,│ │ │ │ from │ │ │ │ artif│ │ │ │ water. │ │ │ │ icial│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ respi│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ratio│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ n. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ S. M │ 6│ 75│ 31.4│Artific│ 82│ — │ — │Death │ │ │ │ ial │ │ │ │ (heart │ │ │ │ respi│ │ │ │ stopped) │ │ │ │ ratio│ │ │ │ in the │ │ │ │ n, │ │ │ │ eighty-s │ │ │ │ cardi│ │ │ │ eventh │ │ │ │ azol.│ │ │ │ minute, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ seven │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ L. O │ 4.5│ 30│ 31.2│L. P │ 57│ — │ — │Death │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ (heart │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ stopped) │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ in the │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ sixty-fi │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ fth │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minute, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ eight │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ minutes │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ after │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ removal │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ from │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ water. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ FIGURE 13. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1609-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 92 LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 24 OCTOBER 1942, AND NOTE BY RUDOLF BRANDT Reich Leader SS Nr 1397/42 Field Command Post, 24 Oct 1942 Dr. Sigmund Rascher Munich, Trogerstr. 56 Top Secret 3 copies 2d copy Dear Rascher! I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th and 10th and both notes of 16 October 1942. I have read your report regarding cooling experiments on humans with great interest. SS Sturmbannfuehrer Sievers should arrange the possibility of evaluation at institutes which are connected with us. I regard these people as guilty of treason and high treason, who, still today, reject these experiments on humans and would instead let sturdy German soldiers die as a result of these cooling methods. I shall not hesitate to report these men to the offices concerned. I empower you to make my opinion on this known to the offices concerned. I invite you to a personal conference in November as I cannot make it sooner despite my great interest. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff will once again get in touch with Field Marshal Milch. You are empowered to make a report to Field Marshal Milch—and, of course, to the Reich Marshal if he has time—concerning those who are not doctors. I think that covers which have heat packets or something similar sewed in their lining are the best for the warming of those who were stranded at sea and were picked up in boats or small vessels and where there is no possibility of placing these chilled people in a hot bath. I take it for granted that you know these heat packets which we also have in the SS and which were used by the Russians a great deal. They consist of a mass which develops a warmth of 70° to 80° upon addition of water and retains it for hours. I am very curious as to the experiments with body warmth. I personally take it that these experiments will probably bring the best and lasting results. Naturally, I could be mistaken. Keep me informed on future findings. Of course we will see each other in November. Heil Hitler! Yours [Signed] H. HIMMLER 2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff Sent with request for acknowledgment. I present the report with the request for acknowledgment and return since the Reich Leader SS in Munich wants these copies again. [Signed] BRANDT SS Sturmbannfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-323 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 94 MEMORANDUM OF RASCHER ON WOMEN USED FOR REWARMING IN FREEZING EXPERIMENTS, 5 NOVEMBER 1942 Sigmund Rascher, M. D. Munich, Trogerstrasse 56, 5 November 1942 Subject: Requested report on concentration camp prostitutes. For the resuscitation experiments by animal warmth after freezing as ordered by the Reich Leader SS I had four women assigned to me from the women’s concentration camp Ravensbrueck. One of the assigned women shows unobjectionably Nordic racial characteristics: blond hair, blue eyes, corresponding head and body structure, 21¾ years of age. I asked the girl why she had volunteered for the brothel. I received the answer: “To get out of the concentration camp, for we were promised that all those who would volunteer for the brothel for half a year would then be released from the concentration camp”. To my objection that it was a great shame to volunteer as a prostitute, I was told: “Rather half a year in the brothel than half a year in the concentration camp”. Then followed an account of a number of most peculiar conditions at camp Ravensbrueck. Most of the reported conditions were confirmed by the three other prostitutes and by the female warden who had accompanied them from Ravensbrueck. It hurts my racial feelings to expose to racially inferior concentration camp elements a girl as a prostitute who has the appearance of a pure Nordic and who could perhaps by assignment of proper work be put on the right road. Therefore, I refused to use this girl for my experimental purposes and gave the adequate reports to the camp commander and the adjutant of the Reich Leader SS. [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-320 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 103 LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO BRANDT, 28 JANUARY 1943, AND RASCHER’S REPORT ON HIS DISCUSSIONS WITH GRAWITZ AND POPPENDICK The Ahnenerbe The Reich Business Manager To the Reich Leader SS Berlin, 28 January 1943 Personal Staff G/R/8 S 1/Sb [illegible shorthand notes] Attention: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt Berlin S. W. 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 Secret! Subject: Research of Dr. Rascher. Dear comrade Brandt! I submit to you enclosed a documentary note of Dr. Rascher on his discussion with the Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] of 13 January 1943. I would be much obliged to you if you could advise us as to what attitude we or Dr. Rascher are to take in the future. I am slightly astonished about the course of the discussion, for the orders of the Reich Leader SS were especially to the effect that we—that is the Ahnenerbe—were to take Dr. Rascher’s work under our care. The argument of SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz, that it constituted an unbearable situation to have a non-physician give information on medical matters, is not pertinent. I have never claimed to be a judge of medical matters, nor do I consider it as one of my duties. My duty merely consists of smoothing the way for the research men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reich Leader SS are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I certainly can form an opinion—that is, on who is doing the quickest job. If things are to go on in the future as SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz desires, I am afraid that Dr. Rascher’s work will not continue to advance as fast and unhampered as hitherto. With comradely greetings, Heil Hitler! Yours [Signature] SIEVERS [Stamp]: Personal Staff RF SS / Enclosure Received on: 4th Feb. 1943 1 Journal No: 1786/43 To: RB Please turn! COPY _Documentary note_ on discussion Reich Physician SS [Reichsarzt SS] Dr. Grawitz—SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Poppendick—SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, 13 January 1943. RASCHER: Reports on freezing experiments with water and emphasizes that they have been concluded practically, but not in theory. GRAWITZ: Question about the memorandum. Whether Rascher believes this to be absolutely established for dry freezings, too? RASCHER: No, a lot of theoretical work is still to be done, primarily many practical experiments have still to be conducted. GRAWITZ: That is my opinion, too. We cannot distribute a memorandum to the troops, abolishing all former views, if this is not entirely well-founded, as otherwise uncertainties will arise among the troops. I shall write to Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt that I am asking the Reich Leader SS not to distribute the memorandum before a well-founded method of treatment of dry frozen persons has been established. RASCHER: Very well, that’s why the Reich Leader SS gave me the order of 13 December 1942. But I urgently want to emphasize that the results of the freezing experiments with water have been established and are well-founded. GRAWITZ: Well, now, this had to be mentioned in the letter to Brandt so that you are not blamed in any way! You see, from my former activities (mention of some hospital) I know so much about metabolism that I am almost a specialist in this field and can help you enormously. RASCHER: As I understood, Gruppenfuehrer, that’s why I am to turn to your office for glass materials, chemicals, etc. GRAWITZ: No. Not only for that. You have to turn to me in all medical matters, since after all, I am Reich Physician SS and all medical affairs are subordinate to me. It is absolutely necessary that all medical matters destined for the Reich Leader SS go through my office. RASCHER: I don’t know, Gruppenfuehrer, if this was the intention. I am under the direct orders of the Reich Leader SS and I have always reported directly to him. I have never received orders to another effect. GRAWITZ: You certainly will be transferred to the Waffen SS? RASCHER: Yes, I hope so. The transfer is under way. GRAWITZ: There you are. Then you will be under my orders as a physician at any rate and all matters will have to go through my office, otherwise the situation would be unbearable. RASCHER: But I am under the orders of the Ahnenerbe! Am I to report to you, too, what I have to report to the Ahnenerbe? GRAWITZ: Certainly! At least a copy on all medical matters has to be sent to me for my information. For it is an unbearable situation to have a non-physician, such as Standartenfuehrer Sievers, inform me on medical matters if he does not have the adequate special medical education. I have nothing against Sievers. Well, yes, I know you are of the Ahnenerbe. I don’t say anything against your work for the Ahnenerbe, but I want you to work with the Ahnenerbe for the Reich Physician. I shall also write to Brandt on that matter. POPPENDICK: Well, I already had to ask Standartenfuehrer Sievers several times to come to me to receive information. In the long run all medical matters wind up with us, anyway. GRAWITZ: You see, this is the point! When the Reich Leader SS does not understand a medical matter clearly he hands the matter over to me, anyway. RASCHER: Of course, I am grateful for every kind of help, but I believe that I am primarily under the orders of the Ahnenerbe. GRAWITZ: Certainly not when you are a member of the Waffen SS. I am able to be of much use to you through my knowledge and I shall inform Brandt to that effect. It isn’t that I bear a grudge against you or your work, but all things have to follow their course. Don’t be afraid, scientific thefts don’t occur with us. As I know, you have to acquire the right of giving lectures at universities as a qualified academic teacher under Pfannenstiel. And you will need support. Do you want to be supported by me? RASCHER: Of course, I thank you most obediently. Where I need support, I gladly accept it. GRAWITZ: Well, we shall wait then with the memorandum until you have a few hundred cases, then we shall continue. Of course, I would not like the Reich Leader SS to believe that I want to impede you. But if something has not yet been proved to a great extent, we cannot distribute anything to the troops that might spread uncertainty among the responsible authorities! Everything may be true for freezing by water, but we don’t have that in the Waffen SS. So you agree to wait with the distribution of the memorandum. RASCHER: Gruppenfuehrer, anyway it is entirely your affair, whether the memorandum is issued now, as you are responsible for it. I composed the memorandum on the basis of these few cases of dry freezing, because the Reich Leader SS pressed for its publication. In composing the memorandum, I was fully aware of the necessity that many experiments still have to be carried out, and I also submitted this view on the occasion of a discussion with the Reich Leader SS in Dachau. But the Reich Leader saw the results in Dachau and in wanting to help the troops ordered the memorandum to be drawn up. GRAWITZ: In composing a memorandum or in any other scientific work you should not let anybody press you, not even the Reich Leader SS, that will never do! Well now, you’ll send me a copy of all your medical correspondence with the Ahnenerbe, and you’ll no longer write directly to the Reich Leader SS in medical matters but write to me, as it comes to me anyway. Will you do that? RASCHER: I’ll have to discuss the matter with Standartenfuehrer Sievers first, this comes too much as a surprise. GRAWITZ: Well, I shall send you a copy of my letter to Dr. Brandt so that you can get a clear picture. I am very pleased to have established such a close contact with you. This is a certified true copy. [Signature] WOLFF SS Untersturmfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1616-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 105 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO HIMMLER, 17 FEBRUARY 1943, AND SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTS FOR REWARMING OF CHILLED HUMAN BEINGS BY ANIMAL WARMTH, 12 FEBRUARY 1943 Dr. S. Rascher SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Munich, 17 February 1943 To the Reich Leader SS and Chief of the German Police Heinrich Himmler Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8 Dear Reich Leader, Enclosed I present to you in condensed form a summary of the results of the experiments made in warming up people who have been cooled off by using animal heat. Right now I am attempting to prove through experiments on human beings that it is possible to warm up people cooled off by dry cold just as fast as people who were cooled off by remaining in cold water. The Reich Physician SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, doubted very much that that would be possible and said that I would have to prove it first by 100 experiments. Up to now I have cooled off about 30 people stripped in the open air during 9-14 hours at 27°-29°. After a time corresponding to a transport of 1 hour, I put these subjects in a hot bath. _Up to now_ every single patient was completely warmed up within 1 hour at most, though some of them had their hands and feet frozen white. In some cases a slight fatigue with slightly rising temperature was observed on the day following the experiments. I have not observed any fatal results from this extremely fast warming up. I have not so far been able to do any warming up by “Sauna” as ordered by you, my dear Reich Leader, as the weather in December and January was too warm for any experiments in the open air, and right now the camp is closed on account of typhoid and I am not allowed therefore to bring in subjects, for “Sauna” experiments. * * * * * With most obedient greetings and sincere gratitude, and Heil Hitler! Yours very devotedly RASCHER (enclosure) * * * * * Secret _Experiments for rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by animal warmth_ A. _Purpose of the Experiments_ To ascertain whether the rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by animal warmth, i. e., the warmth of animals or human beings, is as good or better than rewarming by physical or medical means. B. _Method of the Experiments_ The experimental subjects were cooled in the usual way—clad or unclad—in cold water of temperatures varying between 4° C. and 9° C. The rectal temperature of every experimental subject was recorded thermoelectrically. The reduction of temperature occurred within the usual span of time varying in accordance with the general condition of the body of the experimental subject and the temperature of the water. The experimental subjects were removed from the water when their rectal temperature reached 30° C. At this time the experimental subjects had all lost consciousness. In eight cases the experimental subjects were then placed between two naked women in a spacious bed. The women were supposed to nestle as closely as possible to the chilled person. Then all three persons were covered with blankets. A speeding up of rewarming by light cradles or by medicines was not attempted. C. _Results_ 1. When the temperature of the experimental subjects was recorded it was striking that an after-drop of temperature up to 3° C. occurred, which is a greater after-drop than seen with any other method of rewarming. It was observed, however, that consciousness returned at an earlier point, that is, at a lower body temperature than with other methods of rewarming. Once the subjects regained consciousness they did not lose it again, but very quickly grasped the situation and snuggled up to the naked female bodies. The rise of body temperature then occurred at about the same speed as in experimental subjects who had been rewarmed by packing in blankets. Exceptions were four experimental subjects who, at body temperatures between 30° C. and 32° C., performed the act of sexual intercourse. In these experimental subjects the temperature rose very rapidly after sexual intercourse, which could be compared with the speedy rise in temperature in a hot bath. 2. Another set of experiments concerned the rewarming of intensely chilled persons by one woman. In all these cases rewarming was significantly quicker than could be accomplished by two women. The cause of this seems to me that in warming by one woman only, personal inhibitions are removed, and the woman nestles up to the chilled individual much more intimately. Also in these cases, the return of complete consciousness was strikingly rapid. Only one experimental subject did not return to consciousness and the warming effect was only slight. This person died with symptoms suggesting cerebral hemorrhage, as was confirmed by subsequent autopsy. D. _Summary_ Rewarming experiments of intensely chilled experimental subjects demonstrated that rewarming with animal warmth was very slow. Only such experimental subjects whose physical condition permitted sexual intercourse rewarmed themselves remarkably quickly and showed an equally strikingly rapid return to complete physical well-being. Since excessively long exposure of the body to low temperatures implies danger of internal damage, that method must be chosen for rewarming which guarantees the quickest relief from dangerously low temperatures. This method, according to our experiences, is a massive and rapid supply of warmth by means of a hot bath. Rewarming of intensely chilled human beings by human or animal warmth can therefore be recommended only in such cases in which other possibilities for rewarming are not available, or in cases of specially tender individuals who possibly may not be able to stand a massive and rapid supply of warmth. As for example, I am thinking of intensely chilled small children, who are best rewarmed by the body of their mothers, with the aid of hot water bottles. Dachau, 12 February 1943. [Signature] DR. S. RASCHER SS Hauptsturmfuehrer TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-268 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 106 LETTER FROM HIPPKE TO HIMMLER, 19 FEBRUARY 1943, ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU The Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe Berlin W8, 19 February 1943 Leipziger Strasse Phone numbers: [illegible] Cable address: Reichsluft Berlin File No. 55 No. 81038/43 (2 IIB) Reich Leader, The experiments conducted in Dachau concerning protective measures against the effects of freezing on the human body by immersion in cold water have led to results of practical use. They were conducted by the Stabsaerzte [Captains] of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Holzloehner, Dr. Fink, and Dr. Rascher in cooperation with the SS, and are now finished. The results were reported upon by those who worked on them during a conference on medical problems arising from distress at sea and winter hardships, on 26 and 27 October 1942, at Nuernberg. The detailed report on the conference is at present in state of preparation. I thank you most gratefully for the great assistance that the cooperation of the SS has meant for us in conducting the experiments, and beg you to express our thanks, too, to the commander of the Dachau camp. Heil Hitler! [Signature] PROF. DR. HIPPKE 2 [?] Feb 1943 1509/43 RF [stamp illegible] [figures 1509/43 handwritten] TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT 1580-PS PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 107 LETTER FROM HIMMLER TO RASCHER, 26 FEBRUARY 1943, ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS AUSCHWITZ AND LUBLIN The Reich Leader SS 1516/43 26 February 1943 Secret Dear Rascher, Best thanks for your letter of 17 February[29] with report on warming-up experiments. I agree to experiments being made at Auschwitz or Lublin, although I believe that the time for the cooling-off and warming-up tests under natural conditions of cold weather has nearly passed for this winter. I am sending this letter at the same time to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, whom I request to order the execution of your experiments at Lublin or Auschwitz. Kind greetings and Heil Hitler! Yours [Signed] H. HIMMLER 2. SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl Transmitted with request to take note and to take the necessary steps. By order, [Signature (illegible)] SS Obersturmbannfuehrer PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-292 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 111 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 4 APRIL 1943, REPORTING ON DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS IN DACHAU Dr. med. Sigmund Rascher [4 April 1943] To Herr Oberregierungsrat SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Strasse 8 Much esteemed Obersturmbannfuehrer! * * * * * The question of the saving of people frozen in the open air has in the meantime been cleared up, since, thank goodness, there was once again a period of heavy frost weather in Dachau. Certain people were in the open air for 14 hours at -6° C., reached an internal temperature of 25° C. with peripheral freezings, and were _all_ able to be saved by a hot bath. As I said: it is easy to contradict! But before someone does so, he should come and see for himself. Moreover, a report about freezing in the open air will be sent to the Reich Leader in the next few days. With best wishes, Heil Hitler! Yours gratefully, [Signature] S. RASCHER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-322 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 114 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO KEINDL, 28 APRIL 1943, ABOUT PREVIOUS FREEZING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED AT SACHSENHAUSEN Dr. med. S. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Personal Staff Leader SS Division (Abteilung) Chief at the Institute for Military Scientific Research Office A (Amt A) Dachau 3K, 28 April 1943 To the Commander of the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Keindl Sachsenhausen, near Oranienburg Obersturmbannfuehrer! By order of the Reich Leader SS, I have been conducting freezing experiments on human beings in the Dachau concentration camp for more than a year. Today I learned from an experimental subject that I was not the only one conducting these experiments, but that, on the contrary, already in October and November 1938, similar experiments were conducted in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Samenstrang is said to have frozen experimental subjects—that is prisoners—in cold water, and subsequently revived them by means of warm water or hot compresses. As I was to work out and have worked out a prescription for the Waffen SS for the resuscitation of frozen persons (for the campaign in the East), knowledge of all preliminary experiments in my field of work is of great importance for me. I therefore request that if possible you let me know what kind of experiments were conducted in your camp, and, if possible, what results were obtained in connection with these experiments. As you might not know anything about me, please make inquiries about me, if necessary, either at the Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS (Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert) or from the Commander of the Dachau concentration camp, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Weiss. Yours sincerely Heil Hitler! TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-231 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 116 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO SIEVERS, 17 MAY 1943, CONCERNING, A CONFERENCE WITH GEBHARDT ON FREEZING EXPERIMENTS Copy By Messenger! Dr. med. Rascher, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dachau 3K, 17 May 1943 To: Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society Attn: SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers Berlin-Dahlem, 16 Pueckler Street Dear Standartenfuehrer! The following contains a short account of my report to SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Gebhardt. On 14 May 1943, I reported to SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt at Hohenlychen. I had hardly arrived, when SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Gebhardt asked me in a very loud voice to explain how I dared to submit specialist medical reports directly to the Reich Leader SS (he was referring to the treatise on “The Cooling of Human Beings Outdoors”). I actually did not even get a chance to speak and practically couldn’t reply anything. Then, when I tried to reply, Prof. Dr. Gebhardt said that if I wanted to defy him, my train would be leaving for Berlin at 3 o’clock. When I was finally given the opportunity to speak I was able to point out to Prof. Dr. Gebhardt that the report in question was not meant to be a strictly scientific work, but simply was a short information for the Reich Leader SS on the results of the experiments conducted up to now. Dr. Gebhardt had taken the view that the report was unscientific, and if a student of the second term dared to submit a treatise of that kind, he would throw him out. Later on I was able to tell him that of course all the physiological-chemical experiments that could be carried out in Dachau with the available instruments had indeed been conducted. Whereupon Dr. Gebhardt replied: “I can imagine that you did a lot of work; one can tell it from this job. If I had not believed that you did a lot of work, I would not have asked you to come at all.” In addition Dr. Gebhardt said that he intended to merge all the groups of physicians working independently within the SS, since that would suit the Reich Leader SS much better than individual people working on their own. Besides that, he said that I somehow ought to learn university methods of working since very likely I did not yet have the proper training. He suggested that it was necessary for me to get out of Dachau since there I was quite left to myself and had no guidance whatsoever; that since I intended to enter upon a university career, I would by all means have to complete the training of a university assistant first. He further said that all those SS physicians, who are qualified to enter upon a university career, had the duty to do so. Upon my reply that for that reason I was already in touch with Professor Pfannenstiel, Professor Gebhardt replied that these matters ought to be processed by a centralized agency. In future it would not do that I send any reports directly to the Reich Leader SS, but that further reports to serve their purpose would have to be transmitted through him to the Reich Leader. If the report had reached a suitable stage, he would first inform the Reich Leader SS, and then go to see the Reich Leader SS together with me. Finally Dr. Gebhardt asked me to give him data on my personal and scientific career to enable him to make further arrangements. He requested me to call again in the afternoon. When I called in the afternoon, I was, as in the morning, accompanied by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Fischer. This time Dr. Gebhardt was extremely amiable. He asked me whether I now agreed with his arrangements; it would be by far the best I could do, if I joined him. I should not worry, but just continue my work in Dachau, until I had finished my jobs. Later, one would see what was to be done for the future. Upon my question, what it was all about, and who was my superior, whether the Reichsarzt SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, who had come for an inspection several days ago, the Reich Leader SS, as he personally had promised me, or the Ahnenerbe, of which I had been a member for years, Dr. Gebhardt suggested that all that will be straightened out. Just trust it to me. But I’ll need your curriculum vitae soon, since I have to report to the Reich Leader SS on 23 May. May I ask you, Standartenfuehrer, under whom I am actually working? Under the Reich Leader SS, the Ahnenerbe, the Reich Physician SS or Dr. Gebhardt? Dr. Gebhardt has already asked me why I am not a member of the Waffen SS. Upon my answer that Dr. Hippke does not like to let me go, he declared that I was too able for him to let me go. Standartenfuehrer! If the same tug of war starts in the Waffen SS as has been going on between Luftwaffe and the SS, I’d rather do without a transfer to the Waffen SS. I was promised that I would continue to work under the Reich Leader SS or under the Ahnenerbe. But I cannot serve several masters at the same time. Of course I am convinced that SS Gruppenfuehrer Prof. Dr. Gebhardt has the best of intentions. His assistants are enthusiastic about him. If I am compelled to ask Prof. Dr. Gebhardt’s advice each time I am going to start a new experiment, I will get so much involved in the academic routine that I won’t even be allowed to experiment with such a method as rapid resuscitation which overthrows all the established clinical experiences because the results contradict Prof. Dr. Gebhardt’s methods which are based upon centuries-old clinical experiences. Also the cooperation with Professor von Luetzelberg would thus come to an end, as these experiments are from the very start contradictory to the hitherto recognized clinical experiences. I think, this arrangement would stop everything that really ought to be experimented. I pray you with all my heart, Standartenfuehrer, to handle this affair in such a way that Prof. Dr. Gebhardt, who is a very close friend of the Reich Leader SS does not become my enemy. I think that Prof. Dr. Gebhardt can and will be an extremely disagreeable adversary. Before I get into trouble with him, I would rather resign my job and ask for an immediate transfer to the Luftwaffe for combat service. I therefore ask you again to deal with this affair with as much circumspection as it actually requires, because in addition I am convinced that Prof. Dr. Gebhardt (apart from his personal ambition) really has good intentions. * * * * * Very respectfully yours and Heil Hitler! Yours very devotedly [Signature] S. RASCHER This is to certify that the above copy is true: [Signature] SIEVERS SS Standartenfuehrer. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-432 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 119 LETTER FROM RASCHER TO NEFF, 21 OCTOBER 1943, CONCERNING DRY-FREEZING EXPERIMENTS Dr. S. Rascher Dachau, 21 October 1943 To Police-Rottwachtmeister Walter Neff Police Training Battalion I Dresden-Hellerau Dear Neff: Your letter dated 11.10 reached me here on 15.10. First of all many thanks for your decision to write such a detailed letter. I really was very pleased about it. To come right away to the affair concerned: I am very sorry to hear that you are being bullied, especially as there exists no reason at all for it. Please let me know the name, rank, and address of your commanding officer because I most certainly will take the matter up. There is no purpose at all in your getting stuck there. Finally I too know how the general condition of your health had been, when you were still here, and I also am able to judge that you cannot go through heavy infantry training. I am glad that you have become accustomed to the ideals of the place and I am convinced that you would be glad to go to the front. But on the other hand, I believe that I need you more urgently than you are needed at the front. As a matter of fact I need you for the following: _From the Reich Research Council_ [Reichsforschungsrat] I got the order to carry out open country freezing experiments and I think they will take place on the Sudelfeld. Now I need urgently a most reliable man, acquainted with the material, and that is you in this case. During the next few days I will go with Sievers to the Fuehrer’s Headquarters [Fuehrerhauptquartier], and report there in this sense, and will let you know immediately. * * * * * I expect your notice soon, and remain until then with sincerest comradely regards, Your old chief, [Initialed] R. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-690 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 120 LIST OF RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THE FILES OF THE REICH RESEARCH COUNCIL Cancer Research—70—copies 15 [pencil notation] 25th copy. Worked on by: Professor Dr. K. Blome Berlin SW 68 Lindenstr. 42 77 [pencil notation] Telephone: 174871 929 [pencil notation] Priority: “SS” SS-No. │ Requested by— │ Topic │Registration│Degree of │ │ │ No. │ secrecy │ │ │ │ 0453 │Schwarz, Kruft │Combating of │ 2058/15 │ │ │ potato bug. │ │ │ │ │ │ 0496 │Seel, Poznan │Investigation of │ 2118/15 │ │ │ means for │ │ │ │ combating │ │ │ │ agricultural │ │ │ │ parasites and │ │ │ │ for disinfection│ │ │ │ of the soil. │ │ │ │ │ │ 0328 │Rascher, Munich │Rewarming after │ 1879/15 │ │ │ general freezing│ │ │ │ of the human │ │ │ │ body; healing │ │ │ │ after partial │ │ │ │ freezings; │ │ │ │ adjustment of │ │ │ │ the human body │ │ │ │ to low │ │ │ │ temperatures. │ │ │ │ │ │ 0329 │Hirt, Strasbourg │Changes in the │ 1881/15 │ │ │ living organism │ │ │ │ under the │ │ │ │ influence of │ │ │ │ poison gases. │ │ │ │ │ │ 0415 │von Borstell, Colonel,│Development of │ 1975/15 │ Secret. │ Weimar-Nohra. │ aircraft │ │ │ │ apparatus for │ │ │ │ insecticides and│ │ │ │ fungicides which│ │ │ │ can be sprayed. │ │ Cancer Research Worked on by: Prof. Dr. K. Blome Berlin SW 68 Lindenstr. 42 Telephone: 174871 Deputy: Dr. Breuer Berlin-Steglitz Grunewaldstr. 35 Telephone: 726071 No. │ Requested by— │ Topic │ │ 0454/1857/15│Zipf, Koenigsberg │Tests of food colors for their │ │ cancer-causing effect on │ │ animals. 0473/1838/15│Spek, Heidelberg │Physio-chemical investigations │ │ on living cells. [Stamp] Top Secret The Reich Research Council 22 [pencil notation] The Director of the Business Management Committee Cancer Research 3d copy Authorized person: Prof. Dr. Kurt Blome Berlin SW 68, Lindenstr. 42 “Nesselsted” Prof. Dr. Blome, Commissioner for Cancer Research, Berlin SW 68. Lindenstr. 42 DE 1413—RPS—VLI/44 SS 4891—0242 (1739/15) 44 EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF TRIBUNAL WITNESS WALTER NEFF[30] _EXAMINATION BY PROSECUTION_ * * * * * MR. MCHANEY: When did the freezing experiments start? WITNESS NEFF: The first freezing experiments started during August or at the end of July. They were conducted by Prof. Holzloehner, Dr. Finke, and Dr. Rascher. The freezing experiments can be divided into two separate classes, the Holzloehner-Finke series, which were later dropped, and a series where Dr. Rascher conducted these experiments himself. Q. All right. Suppose you describe the experimental basin. A. The experimental basin was built of wood. It was 2 meters long and 2 meters high. It was raised about 50 centimeters above the floor and it was in Block No. 5. In the experimental chamber and basin there were many lighting instruments and other apparatus which were used in order to carry out measurements. Q. Now, you have stated that you can divide the freezing experiments into two groups, one where Holzloehner and Finke were working with Rascher and then the period after Holzloehner and Finke had left? A. Yes. Q. Now, will you tell the Tribunal approximately how many persons were used over the whole period? That is, including both groups that you have mentioned. A. Two hundred and eighty to three hundred experimental subjects were used for these freezing experiments. There were really 360 to 400 experiments that were conducted, since many experimental subjects were used for more than one such experiment—sometimes even for three. Q. Now, out of the total of 280 or 300 prisoners used, approximately how many died? A. Approximately 80 to 90 subjects died as a result of these freezing experiments. Q. Now, how many experimental subjects do you remember that they used in the Holzloehner-Finke-Rascher experiments? A. During that period of time approximately 50 to 60 subjects were used for experimental purposes. Q. Did any of these experimental subjects die? A. Yes. During that period of time there were about 15, maybe even 18 cases of death. Q. When was that experimental series concluded? A. It was concluded in the month of October. I think it was at the end of October. At that time Holzloehner and Finke discontinued these experiments, giving the reason that they had accomplished their purpose and that it was useless to carry out further experiments of that kind. Q. And then Rascher continued experiments on his own? A. Yes. Rascher conducted these experiments saying that he had to build a scientific basis for them and he prepared a lecture for Marburg University on the subject. Q. How long did Rascher continue to experiment with freezing by cold water? A. Until May 1943. Q. Now, were the experimental subjects for the freezing experiments selected in the same way as for the high-altitude experiments? A. No. Here Rascher turned to the camp administration and told them that he needed so and so many experimental subjects. Then the political department of the camp selected 10 inmates by name. That list was sent to the camp commandant and was signed by the camp commandant and they were then sent to Rascher’s station and the subjects on that list had to be experimented on. I was able to use the original list as evidence in the first Dachau trial. Q. Do I understand then that the experimental subjects used in the freezing experiments were political prisoners? A. There were a number of political prisoners and also a number of foreigners, but there were also prisoners of war and inmates who had been condemned to death. Q. These persons were not volunteers, were they? A. No. Q. Suppose you describe to the Tribunal exactly how these freezing experiments were carried out, that is what tests they made, how they measured the temperature and how the temperature of the water was lowered in the basin and so forth? A. These basins were filled with water, and ice was added until the water measured 3°, and the experimental subjects were either dressed in a flying suit or were placed into the ice water naked. During the period when Holzloehner and Finke were active, most experiments were conducted under narcotics because he maintained that you could not find the exact condition of the blood, and that you would exclude the will power of the experimental subject if he was under an anaesthetic. Now whenever the experimental subjects were conscious, it took some time until so-called freezing narcosis set in. The temperature was measured rectally and through the stomach through the Galvanometer apparatus. The lowering of the temperature to 32° was terrible for the experimental subject. At 32° the experimental subject lost consciousness. These persons were frozen down to 25° body temperature, and now in order to enable you to understand this problem, I should like to tell you something about the Holzloehner and Finke period. During the period when Holzloehner and Finke were active, no experimental subject was actually killed in the water. Deaths occurred all the more readily because during revival the temperature dropped even further and so heart failure resulted. This was also caused by wrongly applied therapy, so that in contrast to the low-pressure experiments, deaths were not deliberately caused. In the air-pressure chamber on the other hand, each death cannot be described as an accident, but as willful murder. However, it was different when Rascher personally took over these experiments. At that time a large number of the persons involved were kept in the water until they were dead. Q. Now, Witness, you have identified the defendant Weltz in the defendants’ dock. On what occasion did you meet Weltz? A. I met Weltz in Munich. I saw him there once. According to my recollection it was in Luftgau Kommando VII, Prinzregenten Strasse No. 2, and I saw him speak to Rascher there, and at a later date Rascher told me that that was Professor Weltz. I remember this incident especially since Rascher often discussed Weltz and his animal experiments, which he carried out with reference to freezing. I never saw Professor Weltz in Dachau or anywhere in the camp. Q. Do you know, Witness, whether Rascher and Weltz exchanged information on freezing problems? A. I don’t know that. I would assume so, since Rascher discussed Professor Weltz’ experiments, and he certainly must have had some discussions with Weltz on the subject. However, I know of no correspondence with Weltz. Q. Do you recall the occasion when two Russian officers were experimented upon in the freezing experiments? A. Yes. Q. Will you relate that incident to the Tribunal? A. Yes. It was the worst experiment which was ever carried out. Two Russian officers were carried out from the bunker. We were forbidden to speak to them. They arrived at approximately 4 o’clock in the afternoon. Rascher had them undressed and they had to go into the basin naked. Hour after hour passed and while usually after a short time, 60 minutes, freezing had set in, these two Russians were still conscious after 2 hours. All our appeals to Rascher asking him to give them an injection were of no avail. Approximately during the third hour one Russian said to the other, “Comrade, tell that officer to shoot us.” The other replied, “Don’t expect any mercy from this Fascist dog.” Then they shook hands and said “Goodbye, Comrade.” If you can imagine that we inmates had to witness such a death, and could do nothing about it, then you can judge how terrible it is to be condemned to work in such an experimental station. After these words were translated for Rascher in a somewhat different form by a young Pole, Rascher went back into his office. The young Pole tried at once to give them an anesthetic with chloroform, but Rascher returned immediately and threatened to shoot us with his pistol if we dared approach these victims again. The experiment lasted at least 5 hours until death occurred. Both corpses were sent to Munich for autopsy in the Schwabing Hospital. Q. Witness, how long did it normally take to kill a person in these freezing experiments? A. The length of the experiment varied, according to the individual case. Whether the subject was clothed or unclothed also made a difference. If he was slight in build and if in addition to that he was naked, death often occurred after only 80 minutes. But there were a number of cases where the experimental subject lived up to 3 hours, and remained in the water until finally death occurred. * * * * * Q. Will you describe to the Tribunal the method used for rewarming the victims of the freezing experiments? A. During the period when Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke were there, rewarming was in the beginning carried out by massage and partly by means of injections of drugs affecting the heart, and also by means of rewarming by electrical heaters and sometimes by means of a warm bath. At the end of the Holzloehner period, the hot water rewarming method was introduced, and that was carried out until the end of the rewarming experiments with the exception of a few special experiments with animal heat. About 10 women from the concentration camp at Ravensbrueck were ordered to report to Dachau to supply the heat and were forced to press themselves against the body of the frozen person in order to rewarm him in that manner. These are the methods which were employed in order to rewarm the frozen body. Q. Now, Witness, did I understand you to say that the hot water bath method of rewarming was not adopted until after Holzloehner and Finke had left? A. After Holzloehner and Finke had left the station, hot water rewarming was also carried out. Q. Do you recall receiving orders in September 1942 from Sievers to take the hearts and lungs of five inmates who had been killed to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific study? A. It is correct that I had to take specimens belonging to five persons who died during experiments from the morgue to Hirt in Strasbourg. I myself, of course, have never done any dissecting and therefore did not prepare these specimens. Sievers ordered me to go to Strasbourg and there deliver the glasses to Professor Hirt, together with an accompanying letter. This was the end of September or the beginning of October. The travel warrant had been made out by Sievers and the traveling expenses were also paid by the Ahnenerbe. Q. Had the five experimental subjects been killed shortly before you left for Strasbourg? A. I cannot remember with absolute certainty whether the specimens were fresh or whether they were taken from older corpses. I do know that among the specimens there was one from a Dutchman. I cannot recollect for certain the nationality of the other four. Q. Did you deliver these hearts and lungs to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg? A. I delivered them in Strasbourg, not to Professor Hirt himself but to the laboratory at the University there. The letter to Professor Hirt I handed to him personally, and he wanted me to return and see him in the afternoon, since he had to give me something to take to Dachau. He gave me a sealed letter to Dr. Rascher and a parcel for Sister Pia which I handed to Rascher to pass on. Q. Now, Professor Hirt was also a member, in fact the head of the Department of the Ahnenerbe Society, was he not? A. We knew that Professor Hirt was also making experiments and belonged to the Ahnenerbe Society. * * * * * EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT HANDLOSER[31] _CROSS-EXAMINATION_ MR. MCHANEY: Let us pass on, General. Your attorney asked you whether or not you ever gained any information concerning the freezing experiments carried out by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. Do you deny that you ever received knowledge on that matter? DEFENDANT HANDLOSER: I said, no. Q. As a result of the Eastern campaign weren’t you very much interested in “Cold” problems? A. Yes. Q. Isn’t that why you sent army officers to the Luftwaffe conference in October 1942? A. Of course the interest in cold problems was of an important nature. I do not know who assigned them. From May until the end of October I was with headquarters in the Ukraine and I believe that the chief probably telephoned me as to whether or how many people we should send, and he may have made some proposal, and I think I would have told him on that occasion “Yes, I am in full agreement. Send somebody there.” It is quite a matter of course that we took people who knew something about cold because they were the people who would be interested in it. Q. Well, having sent them, you then immediately lost interest in the problem, I suppose? A. No, I did not lose interest. At some period of time somebody probably reported to me whether something particular had happened or whether there were any particular results or not, and what could be exploited by us. But, at that time there was no mention of anything in particular having occurred, nor was it said that any particular revolutionary results were achieved. At any rate, I cannot recollect that anything like that happened. I should merely like to point out that my interest in cold problems was in our particular sphere of these problems, that is the so-called earth-bound cold, at normal height or at the most in the mountains where it concerned soldiers in mountain troops. That was something which we discussed during various meetings, at first in 1942; it was discussed to a great extent, and very exact directives were contained in the reports of these meetings. You will find them in 1942 and you will find them in 1943. Naturally we were interested in cold problems, and it is quite a matter of course that whenever we were invited by the Luftwaffe to send our experts we did. The same thing is done everywhere, not only in the army and in the field of medicine, but in technical fields as well. Q. Well, I thought that was probably correct, General; now I want to put it to you that Holzloehner had made a very remarkable discovery and one which I am sure came to your attention. Holzloehner and Rascher had found out that this massive warm bath was an extremely effective way of reviving persons from shock due to long exposure to cold, a treatment which had been first discovered by a Russian in the 19th century but had been forgotten somehow. Wasn’t this a matter remarkable enough so that Schreiber, who was at this meeting, or one of the many other army doctors who were down there, would perhaps call it to your attention, after the extreme cold you had suffered in Russia the previous winter? A. I said already before that we were always interested in cold problems and as you say, very correctly, mainly because of this terrible winter of 1941-42. I knew before that our regulations which were valid up to the war and perhaps during the first year of the war, stated that people who were frozen had to be rewarmed very slowly. The entire population was informed that a frozen person should not be rewarmed too quickly. Even before that we included in our regulations that one should concentrate on rewarming, and certain forms of rewarming were described. If we army people who knew the Russian front were not as impressed by this warm bath, as you may think we were, it was probably because there were no warm baths available along the entire Eastern front, and this plays quite a large part in the impression any new invention may have made on us. Q. Well, now, General, let me put it to you this way. Did you make any changes in the basic directives concerning the rewarming after shock from exposure to cold after this Luftwaffe conference or after the conference in December 1942? A. If you look through the reports of the meetings and the directives it is quite possible that somewhere, I can’t tell you exactly where although I have it, something is said about warm or hot baths in regard to freezing. You yourself brought to our knowledge again, through a document, that in December 1942, that is, after Nuernberg, Holzloehner spoke about his rewarming questions during a conference in the Academy. That was reported to 300 or 400 men who transferred that information to the front and I am sure that later on new directives contained information about the warm bath, too. Q. I am sure it did, too, General. That is the reason I asked you because I think that there is no doubt that great importance was attached to the results of this experiment in Dachau by Rascher, Holzloehner, and Finke. I now want to ask you if you didn’t actually hear Holzloehner speak in December 1942 at the meeting of consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy? A. I cannot recollect that, and I must say once more that that is something which was done within the various expert branches. I am sure you will see that these expert branches dealt with these suggestions themselves. However much one so desires, it is not possible to participate in several expert branches simultaneously. Q. Well, then, to put it to you, General, this speech by Holzloehner is reported in our Document NO-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, and it goes on—you have a very short synopsis here of his report but he does give clinical observations in cases of deaths resulting from cold, and I find that you made some comments at this cold session on page 51 of the original report. It reads: “Handloser stresses the extraordinary importance of education also in combating cold effects and appeals to all medical officers, in their capacity as leaders of the health service, to see to it that through frequently repeated explanations each individual is taught to observe the necessary precautionary measures.” A. May I ask you where it is? Is it with reference to the lecture by Holzloehner? At any rate, it seems to be within the framework of the cold problem. Q. General, I will put the German to you so that you can see for yourself. General, let us read the little summary of the speech by Holzloehner because the Tribunal does not have this document before it. It reads: “Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner: “Prevention and Treatment of Freezing “In case of freezing in water of a temperature below 15° biological counter-measures are practically ineffective, whether in the case of human beings or animals. Human beings succumb to reflectory rigidity, increase of blood sugar, and acidosis, at an earlier stage and to a greater extent than animals. At a rectal temperature of below 30° under such conditions of distress at sea auricular flutter regularly sets in; at under 28° heart failure frequently occurs in human beings. (Over-exertion due to unequal distribution of blood, increased resistance, and increased viscosity.) Treatment with drugs is senseless and has no effect. In the case of human beings, best results are also achieved with hot baths. The foam-suit was developed as a prophylaxis against freezing in water below 15°.” Now, General, after that little summary of the talk by Holzloehner there were several other lecturers on freezing problems and then at the end we have the gentlemen who made some comments on these lectures; we find among them Bremer, Dr. Hippke, the man who commissioned these experiments, and Jarisch and Buechner. Now I want to ask you if this document refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us whether or not you heard this report by Holzloehner. A. Yes, after reading what I have in my hand now, it is quite possible that I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I have not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this document in my hands once before here in Nuernberg; you once gave it to me and I forgot about it. Q. Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations about human deaths resulting from cold in this lecture which you heard? A. I cannot tell you that. Q. Does it not say so in your own report here? A. It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as I was informed later, Holzloehner had gained a large amount of experience from his service on the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was something which was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency sea station near the Atlantic coast and near that there was a hospital where he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea. There was no cause to suspect anything special behind this. Q. Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human beings? A. No. Q. Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk Holzloehner gave in Nuernberg 2 months before this and, as I recall, there was some indignation in this meeting in October 1942, because all these gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no rumor of this seeped up from Nuernberg to Berlin in 2 months, so when the same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete ignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on living human beings in a concentration camp? A. I cannot say how far any discussions or any indignations were noted in Nuernberg. At any rate, I never heard anything about any rejection or any indignation. I could well imagine that if I were to hold a lecture somewhere and I afterwards gained the impression that there was some kind of obscurity, or some particular sensation, and if 2 months later, I gave the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my lecture and would draw my conclusions from what I had learned previously. I am sure that this might well have been the case here. At any rate after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and if one doesn’t look at the pages exactly, one must assume that the man noted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of Holzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show you that a few other lectures took place between the lecture of Holzloehner and the discussion. You will also have to admit that considering the fact that we were approaching winter again (this meeting took place in December 1942) my remarks did not refer so much to Professor Holzloehner’s lecture, but were merely a reminder that we wanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire interest on the front where freezing took place in order to help our soldiers. That is all this discussion was. * * * * * EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SCHROEDER[32] _CROSS-EXAMINATION_ * * * * * MR. MCHANEY: I don’t believe you have told the Tribunal yet about the conversation you had with Holzloehner on his freezing experiments, have you? DEFENDANT SCHROEDER: What experiments do you mean? What conversation do you mean? Do you mean in 1940? Q. General, you know as a matter of fact there apparently is some dispute between the prosecution and yourself about the precise date, but you knew during the course of the war that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau? A. Yes, I learned that in my office in 1944, as I said here before. Q. And, I am suggesting to you that after you learned that Holzloehner had been implicated in those experiments you called him in and talked to him? A. Yes, oh yes. I know when you mean now, yes. There are two things which play a part here. I said yesterday that in 1940 Holzloehner had furnished people who were rescued from the sea to the Rescue Station at Witze, where he first gained experience. Then I lost sight of Holzloehner, since I left the west in the year 1941, and I saw him again for the first time in the fall of 1944, when for some reason that I do not know, he visited one of the men in my office. At that time I spoke to him briefly, and since I had learned in the meantime that he was conducting, experiments in Dachau, I asked him whether that was correct or how he was doing it. I remember at that time he told me that he was conducting experiments based on the experience which he had gained on the coast, and he was supplementing these experiments by conducting experiments on human beings in Dachau. At that time he was speaking about six or seven criminals who had been condemned to death were put at his disposal for that purpose. At that time, he said nothing about any fatalities. I gained the impression then that the entire manner of the experiments had impressed him mentally. I had the feeling that he did not want to speak about it; his suicide later confirmed that. Q. Well, General, I think this is all rather significant. I think you should have probably made some mention of it before this date. When was this meeting with Holzloehner? A. I mentioned it during my interrogation; I think that was in the fall of 1944. I cannot remember the exact date. It could have been November 1944. I am not quite sure. Q. Well, this was after you had initiated the sea-water experiments, then; is that right? A. Considerably later, yes. Q. And, as I recall, you also said in this interrogation that you had seen this report by Holzloehner, which I understand you have denied heretofore; now, had you seen Holzloehner’s report or not? A. No, nor did I ever say that I had. He reported to me on this, but he did not show me a report. Q. Now, General, I am reading from a summary of an interrogation of you made on 21 October 1946, and one paragraph reads as follows: “Schroeder also knows about the ‘See-Not’ and ‘Winter-Not’ reports from which he could conclude that human beings were used for experiments. This could also be concluded from Holzloehner’s report on the freezing experiments, and it could furthermore be seen from the comments which Dr. Rascher wrote on the above matter. Schroeder learned about these matters in 1944.” Now, is this summary inaccurate? A. Very inaccurate. Q. All right, let us get it straight. In the first part of 1943 you received a report on the Nuernberg meeting, did you not? A. Yes. Q. In May 1944, Becker-Freyseng told you that Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, had carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates at Dachau, did he not? A. That is not the right way of putting it. He said that Holzloehner had made the experiments; nothing was said to me about Rascher and Finke. I did not know them then. I learned their names only since I was imprisoned. Q. You mean you had not heard up to then that Rascher had worked with Holzloehner on these experiments; is that right? A. No, I did not say that. I heard Rascher’s name for the first time in this report of 1945 when I was imprisoned. Q. Well, I do not know, General, but I am going to look in just a minute—I think Rascher’s and Finke’s names are mentioned in this report which you got in the first part of 1943 on the Nuernberg meeting. You do not recall that? A. No. Q. And I very well remember that Rascher had made a comment on this rather long lecture by Holzloehner, from which it could clearly be seen that Rascher himself was experimenting with Holzloehner; do you not remember that? A. I can say that now, because in the meantime I have seen these reports, “See-Not” and “Winter-Not,” and have read them through carefully and acquainted myself with the various names, and I know that in this report there is an extensive report by Holzloehner and after that a short remark by Rascher. I did not pay any attention to it at that time because I had no connections with Rascher, nor did I see any reason why I should; but I did interest myself in Holzloehner’s report because I knew him from working with him on the French coast. Q. Well, we will come back to the report in just a moment, but right now I want to go on with your discussion with Holzloehner. Can you tell us, more or less, exactly what he told you? A. That is a little too much to ask me to recall a brief remark that I made in 1944 on the occasion of a very short visit. I do recall that I met Holzloehner outside my hut, and I asked him to step in a moment; then I asked him about the experiments. He answered me briefly and that was the end of our conversation. The only thing that struck me was that Holzloehner, who previously had been a very lively and brisk person, seemed very depressed and worn out. I attributed that to the 5 years of war that had passed. That there were other reasons, perhaps, for this, I could only adduce later from his tragic demise. It could be that I commented to my adjutant on this subject. I am not sure at the moment, but I think it is quite possible because Augustinick knew Holzloehner very well and liked him. Perhaps Augustinick can be asked about that later. Q. You said a moment ago you got the impression that Holzloehner did not want to talk about these experiments, and you also had been dabbling in Dachau experiments yourself. I think under these circumstances it might be expected that you would have questioned Holzloehner rather closely about what went on in his experiments. You did not do that? A. He told me briefly that his observations from the English channel coast could be checked on experiments being performed in Dachau on criminals condemned to death, and that these experiments had been described in the report which he had submitted. That made it perfectly clear what was going on, so why should I ask anything further? I was not particularly interested in going into that specific result. Q. Well, were the sea-water experiments over at that time? A. Yes, some time before, and that must have been why Holzloehner came to me because these experiments had long been concluded. Q. You did not have any one in the nature of representative at the Nuernberg meeting in October 1942? A. No. Q. Now, you mentioned this report which you received on that meeting; that is Document NO-401, Prosecution Exhibit 93. You stated that you did not know that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner. I found a statement on page 11 of this report which reads as follows: “For the relevant statements, we have to thank the cooperation of Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher and Stabsarzt Dr. Finke; they refer to a stay in water of 2 to 12 degrees.” That statement indicates very clearly that Rascher and Finke were working with Holzloehner, does it not? A. Yes. Q. Now, I think you stated to your own defense counsel that it was impossible for you to conclude from this report that experiments had been carried out, but rather, you thought they were clinical observations made on people fished out of the North Sea, is that right? A. Yes, I based my testimony solely on the Holzloehner report which was the only thing that interested me. There were reports by Rose and others but I did not read them. I glanced through them briefly but gave no further attention to them because I did not know the people who had drawn them up. Q. Let’s just look briefly at one or two points here and see if they might not indicate to you, if you thought about it a little bit, that these were really experiments and not clinical observations on people who accidentally fell into the sea. For instance, on page 11 of the translation it states as follows: “The rapidity with which numbness occurs is remarkable. It was determined that already 5 to 10 minutes after falling in, an advancing rigor of the skeletal muscles sets in, which renders the movement of the arms especially increasingly difficult. This also affects respiration. Inspiration is deepened, and expiration is delayed. Besides this, heavy mucous secretions occur.” Now, when you read that little paragraph about a man who had been in the water 5 to 10 minutes where it is said that he had rigor of the skeletal muscles, where his inspiration is deepened and his expiration is delayed and where there is a heavy mucous secretion, did you imagine that they had Dr. Holzloehner in a lifeboat in the North Sea making these observations on some aviator who had fallen in accidentally? Did you think that, General? A. Yes, that’s what I thought. You don’t know the local situation at Visson. There were a beach and dunes, and a guard from the rescue station always stood on the dunes to keep an eye on the water and the surrounding country, particularly when flights to England were taking place, so that it actually did happen that fliers bailed out and fell into the water just in front of the shoreline. Rescue boats were ready at that time and went out to sea immediately, so that it was altogether possible that fliers who fell into the water close to the coast could very quickly be observed and rescued. These are the facts of what actually took place at that rescue station at that time. Q. On the same page they have this remark: “With the drop of the rectal temperature to 31°, a clouding of consciousness occurs, which passes to a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia if the decline reaches below 30°.” Now, do you suppose that they pulled this aviator in and inserted a rectal thermometer and found his temperature at 31° and then tossed him back and let it drop another degree, all the time watching closely a clouding of consciousness, and then hauled him back in when it was 30° and noted a deep, cold-induced anaesthesia? A. No, that isn’t the correct way to put it either. This is one of the observations that was new to us and to which we paid a great deal of attention in order to explain these incomprehensible fatalities, namely, the fact that when the people were removed from the water their temperature still dropped and simultaneously with the drop in temperature a fatal collapse of the heart occurred. This was one of our fundamental and new observations. And I must report again and again that this rescue house was a small place, but it did have the apparatus for observing these people very exactly. That was the sense of the whole thing. Q. General, you’ve already covered yourself a little bit by saying you didn’t read these discussions after Holzloehner’s lecture very carefully; but I want to read you the one by Rascher, in any event, and see if you won’t admit that if you had read this little comment by Rascher that there could have been no doubt whatsoever in your mind that experiments were carried out and not observations on aviators in the North Sea. This is on page 15 of the translation, and Rascher has said: “Supplementing the statements of Holzloehner, there is a report on observations according to which cooling in the region of the neck only, even if it lasts for several hours, causes merely a low sinking of the body temperature up to 1° C., without changing the blood sugar level or the heart function. Checking of the rectal temperature was carried out by taking the temperature in the stomach and showed complete agreement. After taking alcohol, body temperature decreases at a quicker pace. After taking dextropur, the decrease is slower than with the experiments in both a sober and an alcoholic condition. Hot infusions (10 percent dextro solution, table salt solution, tutofusin, table salt solution with pancortex) were successful only for a time.” Now, General, if you had read that, wouldn’t it have been perfectly clear that these were experiments? A. Today, of course, after this whole question has been exposed I should; but at that time I never suspected the possibility from that report that these were a special group of human experiments. I can say that here under oath, and I should like to reiterate it. That was my attitude toward the matter at that time and it has only been changed by what I have discovered here. Q. I might also point out to you that Benzinger’s comment expressly speaks of Holzloehner’s experiments repeatedly; but I assume that that also made no impression on you? A. I can say one thing to that. My comrades, the medical officers in my office at that time in Italy, had no notion either that human experiments were the basis for these reports. Never was one single word said about such a thing on the occasion of my inspection visits. Of course, during my visits to the Mediterranean such matters were brought up; but I never heard any indication that these reports were the result of a long series of experiments on human beings. In other words, others, too, did not see so clearly as is pointed out here that these were human experiments. Q. And you heard no rumors in the air force at all about these experiments, although there had been a large meeting at Nuernberg in October, with considerable comment there about these experiments? Holzloehner later gave a lecture before all the consulting physicians, at least those who attended the meeting on internal medicine where he spoke. He gave another report there on these experiments. You never heard any rumors in the air force about these things; is that right? A. No. Q. You never talked to Finke about these experiments, did you? A. I have stated frequently that I don’t even know Finke. * * * * * EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT SIEVERS[33] _DIRECT EXAMINATION_ DR. WEISGERBER: During the subsequent period you came in contact with the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher? DEFENDANT SIEVERS: I once went to Dachau in order to participate in administrative conferences at the time when Dr. Rascher, Professor Holzloehner, and Dr. Finke were concluding a cold experiment. That is to say, the experimental subject had just been placed into a room, but I didn’t see anything else of this experiment. Q. On the occasion of this experiment, or on the occasion of a discussion which perhaps followed, did you hear anything more in detail about Rascher concerning these experiments? A. These three men were very busy reading the apparatus used in connection with that experiment. I was told that it was necessary to apply the warm covers as quickly as possible. Professor Holzloehner stated that they had almost concluded their experiments and that further experiments hardly seemed necessary. No scientific questions were discussed at that time. Q. Did you see any report or did you receive reports from Rascher about these cold experiments? A. No. These reports also went directly to Himmler from Rascher, as becomes evident from the documents which have been submitted here. Q. In Document 1611-PS (_Pros. Ex. 85_), you find a letter sent by the Reich Leader SS to Dr. Rascher, dated 22 September 1942. In the second paragraph it states that it was sent to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers for information. Paragraph 1 mentions the interim report on the cold experiments by Dr. Rascher at the Dachau concentration camp. One could conclude therefrom that you received this interim report. A. This interim report went directly from Rascher to Himmler, otherwise Himmler wouldn’t have answered Rascher direct. I don’t think, however, that it is out of the question that Rascher had told Hitler in this interim report, or in some other way, that when I heard of these cold experiments I considered them to be perverse. I assume that by sending me that report Himmler’s opinion on that subject was to be transmitted to me, and that is why I received a copy of that letter for my information. Q. Now, would you be good enough to turn over one page, and you will find there Dr. Rascher’s letter dated 3 October 1942. (_NO-285, Pros. Ex. 86._) This letter is obviously directed to Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It becomes evident from that letter that Rascher applied to you in a number of matters, is that correct? A. Yes, I shall revert to that briefly, first of all concerning the low-pressure chamber. He says here that he turned to me in order to take steps regarding the low-pressure chamber. I didn’t do anything about that, at least not on the basis of this request by Rascher, only later when Himmler arrived at Munich and when he himself ordered me to send him this draft letter which was previously discussed. He further says that he turned to me regarding a teletype which requested the furnishing of women for these experiments. Since Himmler had already issued orders regarding the furnishing of experimental subjects, there was nothing left for me to do. Q. Didn’t you participate in a second cold experiment? A. Yes, together with Dr. Hirt, whom I had to accompany by order of Himmler, as he had been included in Rascher’s experiments with Himmler’s approval. Himmler probably had realized in the meantime that Rascher alone would not be sufficient in order to clarify these scientifically very extensive and difficult questions. Hirt could only come to Munich for one day because of his state of health and for that reason asked that everything be prepared beforehand, so that he could gain insight into all the work results which had been obtained so far. I told Rascher to prepare everything according to Hirt’s desire. A professional criminal was presented for the purpose of this experiment. Q. Was that a professional criminal who had already been condemned to death, and how did you know whether it was such a criminal? A. Before the experiment started Hirt wanted to look at the files because there was a possibility that this experiment would end fatally. The sentence was furnished by the Criminal Police Department of the Camp Administration. We saw that this was a sentence which had been passed by a regular court, and it became evident therefrom that this man had more than 10 years’ penitentiary behind him, and had been recently, sentenced to death because of murder and theft. Hirt furthermore asked the man whether he knew that this experiment might end fatally, whereupon the man answered that he was well aware of it. He said that he would have to die anyway for he was a confirmed criminal, and he just could not stop his criminal activity; therefore he deserved death. Q. Did you convince yourself of that by asking the experimental subject whether he was actually a volunteer? A. After Hirt’s questioning I personally asked the man whether he agreed to that experiment. He thereupon said that he was in full agreement, providing it didn’t hurt him. This assurance could be given to him because the experiment was carried out under complete anaesthesia. I didn’t participate in the entire experiment, but I saw that this man was given an anaesthetic. Q. You yourself saw the files from the criminal police? A. Yes, I read through them, together with Hirt. Q. Well, I guess there can be no doubt that this was a professional criminal sentenced to death by a regular court? A. This was a very regular sentence. All previous sentences were listed in the files, and I remember in addition to the death sentence, he had already had 10 years’ penitentiary. * * * * * Q. Now, would you please be good enough to turn to page 86 of the document book before you? This is a report about a so-called “Cold Conference” dated 26 and 27 October 1942. Did you receive this report in the Ahnenerbe? A. I certainly didn’t receive it and I don’t remember having seen it anywhere. Q. Didn’t Curator Wuest receive that report? A. I do not believe so. The scientific work in connection with Rascher, which only concerned Himmler personally, was always dealt with directly by Rascher and Himmler. These matters were only sent to Wuest if Himmler actually sent them himself. I don’t believe that has happened in this particular case. At any rate, Wuest never told me anything about it. These reports and the research assignments just discussed lay completely outside the interests and sphere of Wuest. Q. What do you know about the so-called dry-cold experiments of Dr. Rascher? A. I only know about these experiments on the basis of Himmler’s order which was sent by Himmler to Pohl and Grawitz because of the furnishing of the equipment. I don’t know whether these experiments were actually carried out. At any rate, I only found out about that here in this courtroom. As a prerequisite for the execution Rascher said that it was necessary for them to be performed in the mountains. Himmler had also ordered that these experiments be carried out in the grounds of the mountain villa at Sudelfeld. I was to see to it that accommodation was available there. Investigations, however, proved that the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable for that purpose. At the same time I had heard that there were a sufficient number of cases of freezing to be found in hospitals at the front. I therefore asked Rascher why it was necessary for him to carry out any further experiments. He evaded my question and merely declared categorically that he would have to abide by Himmler’s order. Q. Which year was that? A. That was at the end of 1942. Q. The order was at the end of 1942? A. The end of 1942. The conversation with Rascher about the accommodation took place afterwards. Q. And that was intended for the winter of 1943-44? A. No, for 1942-43. Since the terrain at Sudelfeld was not suitable, some other place had to be found and I handled this matter in a very dilatory manner. Rascher pressed me on the matter and Himmler was rather indignant, but after all I couldn’t create a house by myself. Himmler subsequently ordered that preparations be made for these experiments to be carried out at least in the next winter. I think I made a mistake, I think it must have been the winter of 1943-44. I’m sure it was 1943-44, and I think that afterwards Himmler said that preparations were to be made for 1944-45. These experiments, however, were never carried out because Rascher was already arrested in the spring of 1944. Q. In that case you are saying that these dry-cold experiments were not carried out in the mountains in the winter of 1943-44. You assisted in preventing these experiments from being carried out by delaying the finding of suitable accommodation? A. Yes. Q. I will now briefly summarize your testimony with reference to the count concerning cold experiments. MR. HARDY: If it please your Honor, the defense counsel has put questions to the witness and the witness has testified to these questions. I really think summations after each experiment are unnecessary here. That can take place in his closing statement. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: A short summation on the part of defense counsel might be in order, as long as it does not contain too much repetition. DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, your Honor. You accidentally attended the completion of a cold experiment by Dr. Rascher at Dachau. You had seen no reports about Dr. Rascher’s experiments and received no knowledge about them in any other way. The furnishing of the experimental subjects for the rewarming experiments were not your business, and you actually had nothing to do with it. You attended a further experiment under the circumstances which you have previously described. You know nothing about any dry-cold experiments being carried out in Dachau itself. You succeeded in delaying and finally completely frustrating the dry-cold experiments in the mountains. Is that correct? DEFENDANT SIEVERS: Yes, that is correct. Q. After searching your mind, did you do anything in that connection which went beyond the orders given you by Himmler? A. No, in no way at all. * * * * * ----- [28] Figure 14, headed “Mean Values from Group of Four Experiments each at 4° C. [39.2° F.] to 4.5° C. [40.1° F.] Water Temperature,” is a chart showing the skin temperature and the rectal temperature of four experimental subjects each of whom respectively in a sober state, was given 100 cubic centimeters of alcohol one hour before the start of the experiment, and was given 100 grams of pure dextrose one hour before start of the experiment. The three curves indicating skin temperature show drops to 16° C. and below after 60 to 80 minutes; the three curves showing rectal temperature show a low of 22.3° C. and 21.3° C. after 70, 100, and 110 minutes respectively, and then an increase to 31.3° C. after 130, 200, and 230 minutes respectively. [29] 1616-PS, Pros. Ex. 105, see p. 249. [30] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17-18 December 1946, pp. 595-695. [31] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 11, 12, 13, and 18 February 1947, pp. 2815-3104. [32] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 25, 26, 27 February 1947, pp. 3470-3700. [33] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 9, 10, 11, 14 April 1947, pp. 5656-5869. 3. MALARIA EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving malaria experiments (par. 6 (C) of the indictment). Only the defendant Sievers was convicted on this charge. In the case of the defendant Mrugowsky the judgment of the Tribunal makes no special reference to this charge. Although the defendant Rose was not charged with _special_ responsibility for participation in malaria experiments, the prosecution offered proof to show some participation by Rose in these experiments. However, the Tribunal in its judgment refrained from making a finding of guilt or innocence as to Rose, since malaria experiments were particularized in paragraph 6 (C) of the indictment and since Rose was not among those defendants who were charged with special responsibility by name (judgment, vol. II). The Tribunal said that the manner of the prosecution’s pleading “constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and was, in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, [and] that only such persons as were actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon to defend against the specific items. Included in the list of names of those defendants specifically charged with responsibility for the malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think it would be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.” “This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was inadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We think it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose’s knowledge of human experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.” The Tribunal did make findings of guilt or innocence with regard to several experiments which were not particularized in detail in the indictment and concerning which the indictment did not name any particular defendants as having special responsibility. For example, the prosecution introduced evidence concerning phlegmon, polygal and gas oedema experiments (_subsections 12-14, see pp. 653 to 694_) under the general charge of paragraph 6 of the indictment, which alleges that the criminal experiments “included, but were not limited to” the particularized experiments. (_See also introductions to sub-section 12-14, see pp. 653-4, 669-70 and 684._) The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the malaria experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Rose and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 280 to 283. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Sievers and Rose. It appears below on pages 283 to 288. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 289 to 314. b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT ROSE_ * * * * * With respect to the malaria experiments, two questions are presented for consideration: first, whether the malaria experiments were performed in a criminal manner, and second, whether the defendant Rose was connected with such experiments. That the performance of the malaria experiments in the Dachau concentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war was criminal has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In December 1941, while working in Italy, Dr. Claus Schilling met Conti who became interested in supporting further work by Schilling on malaria problems. A meeting was arranged with Himmler who gave his permission for experiments to be carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. Schilling began his work in Dachau in February 1942 and continued his experiments until the end of the war. He was primarily concerned with discovering a way of immunizing persons against malaria. During the course of the experiments, approximately 1,200 concentration camp inmates were infected with malaria either by being bitten by infected mosquitoes or by injections of malaria-infected blood. After having been infected, the prisoners were treated with various drugs, including quinine, neosalvarsan, and pyramidon. Most of the experimental subjects were non-German nationals. Of the experimental subjects infected, approximately 30 died as a direct result of the experiments and an additional 300 to 400 died as a result of complications. The above facts are established by the Review of the General Military Commission in the case of the U. S. against Weiss and others, held at Dachau, Germany. (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125._) Claus Schilling was a defendant in that case and was convicted and sentenced to death. In an affidavit submitted in evidence before that Tribunal, dated 30 October 1945, Schilling admitted that the experimental subjects were not volunteers. One of the assistants to Schilling in his experiments at Dachau was Dr. Ploetner, who was a member of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe under the defendant Sievers. Sievers conferred with Ploetner regarding the malaria experiments and received reports from him. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123; entries for 30 January, 22 February, 23 May, 31 May, 1 June, 24 August._) Rose stated that he learned that Ploetner was a collaborator of Schilling through an inquiry to the Journal of Tropical Medicine in the year 1944. Ploetner had published an article in that magazine and it had come to Rose’s attention. (_Tr. 6339._) The witness August Vieweg testified for the prosecution and substantiated the findings of the Military Commission at Dachau. Vieweg was first subjected to the malaria experiments himself and thereafter served as an inmate-assistant in the malaria ward. Vieweg testified that Schilling experimented on approximately 1,100 inmates, including Germans, Poles, Russians, and Jugoslavs. Among the Russian inmates used were prisoners of war. Seven or eight of the subjects died in the malaria station, primarily as a result of pyramidon poisoning. (_Tr. p. 428._) He also testified that to his knowledge, an additional 60 inmates died after having been transferred from the experimental station. He further stated that none of the inmates volunteered, that he personally did not, and that the experimental subjects were not freed as a result of undergoing the experiment. The original infection card from the files of Schilling in Dachau, showing the date of infection of the witness Vieweg with “Culture Rose,” was introduced. (_NO-983, Pros. Ex. 128_; _see also Tr. pp. 584-5_.) The defendant Rose participated in the criminal experiments of Schilling by furnishing him material with which to carry out the experiments. This material was furnished by Rose with knowledge of facts which would have led any reasonable man to the conclusion that Schilling was carrying out criminal experiments. Rose had known Schilling for many years and succeeded him as Chief of the Department for Tropical Medicine in the Robert Koch Institute. Moreover, Rose, by his own admission, was an adviser to Dr. Conti, who arranged for Schilling to carry out his experiments in Dachau. It is highly unlikely that such an arrangement would have been made without consulting Rose. Rose furnished Schilling with malaria spleens for his experiments in Italy during the year 1941, a fact which Rose denied on the stand until contradicted by his letter to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941. (_NO-1756, Prog. Ex. 486._) Rose continued to furnish infection material to Schilling after he set up his experimental station in Dachau. Rose and his witnesses admitted that anopheles eggs were sent to Schilling in 1942, but Rose, after that occasion, issued instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling because he did not agree with his research aims. (_Tr. p. 6415._) On 4 April 1942, Schilling wrote to Rose asking for “Culture Rose” to continue his experiments. This letter bears the dateline “Dachau, 3K, Hospital for Inmates,” and it was initialed by Rose on 17 April 1942. Schilling stated that he would be “very thankful * * * for this _new_ support of my work.” [Emphasis supplied.] That Rose complied with this request of Schilling’s is established because the witness Vieweg was himself infected with “Culture Rose.” On 5 July 1943, in a letter, also with the notation “Dachau, K3, Malaria Station,” Schilling thanked Rose for a consignment of atroparvus eggs and accepted Rose’s offer to send him his excess eggs. This letter mentions the “Prisoner August,” who obviously was the witness, August Vieweg. This letter was initialed by Rose on 27 July. (_NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488._) On the same date Rose replied to Schilling’s letter, advising him that at the next favorable opportunity, a shipment of anopheles eggs would be made to him. * * * * * _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ * * * * * Sievers had knowledge of and supported the criminal malaria experiments in Dachau. He testified that early in 1942 he learned from Himmler that Schilling was conducting malaria experiments in Dachau. (_Tr. p. 5692._) In a memorandum dated 3 April 1942 concerning a consultation between Sievers and Dr. May on the location of an experimental station for the Ahnenerbe, Sievers mentioned as a persuasive reason for locating in Dachau the fact that Schilling was carrying out his malaria experiments there. (_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126._) Although this memorandum gives the name as “Schling”, Sievers testified that the name Schilling was intended. (_Tr. p. 5693._) The witness Vieweg testified that in late 1943 or early 1944 Sievers made several visits to Schilling’s malaria station where he consulted with Ploetner, who was a collaborator of Schilling’s. (_Tr. pp. 445-7, 464._) He stated that Sievers consulted with Schilling and also inspected the laboratory. (_Tr. p. 423._) Sievers testified that the purpose of these visits and consultations was to arrange for the transfer of Ploetner to the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe. A number of entries in the Sievers diary for 1944 prove that Sievers was connected with and supported the malaria experiments. On 30 January he received a memorandum by Ploetner on malaria. A notation of 22 February states that “further work in the matter of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ploetner to be done through RGF [Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer Conti].” Ploetner, in addition to his work with Schilling, was also collaborating with Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments. (See entries of 29 January and 14 April.) On 10 May 1944, the entry indicates that Rascher’s research work was transferred to Ploetner. This was apparently a result of Rascher’s difficulties in connection with the kidnapping of children by him and his wife. On 23 May 1944, Ploetner was charged with the management of the Ahnenerbe division in Dachau. The entry for 31 May indicates that Sievers and Grawitz reached an understanding concerning Ploetner’s continued collaboration with Schilling. On 21 June, Sievers conferred with Schilling about limiting Ploetner’s activities with him after his transfer to the Ahnenerbe. Ploetner was actually appointed department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe on 27 June. The entry for 24 August 1944 notes that collaboration between Schilling and Ploetner had been agreed upon. (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) * * * * * c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ * * * * * _Malaria Experiments_ 1. Under the direction of Professor Dr. Schilling, malaria experiments were carried out in Dachau concentration camp in the years 1941-1944. 2. According to the statements in the verdict of the United States Military Court at Dachau of 26 January 1946 (_NO-856, Pros. Ex. 125_) a great number of people were killed in these experiments. 3. Sievers had not the slightest connection with either Professor Schilling’s malaria experiments or with any other malaria experiments. The prosecution charges Sievers with participation in malaria experiments. “As can be seen in all spheres of this devilish experiment program in Nazi Germany, the defendants charged with the malaria experiments had on their side an extensive knowledge of Schilling’s activity. In some cases they worked actively with the late Dr. Schilling”. (_Tr. pp. 403-4._) _For proof, the prosecution refers to NO-721, Prosecution Exhibit 126._ Regarding 3546-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 123, Sievers’ diary 1944, entries of 22 February 1944 and 31 May 1944, the prosecution states: “From this document it can be seen that on or about 1 April 1942 Wolfram Sievers had knowledge of Dr. Schilling’s activity in Dachau. This letter represents a proposal for planned further experiments and clearly shows that the distinguished Wolfram Sievers in his capacity as Reich Business Manager of Ahnenerbe had a finger in all these matters.” The defense has proved: Sievers stated in his cross-examination that the affairs which he discussed with Dr. May on 1 April 1942 in Munich had nothing whatsoever to do with malaria experiments. Sievers paid a social visit to Dr. Schilling in Dachau in the middle of the year 1944 in order to get Dr. Ploetner released for the manufacture of pectin. (_Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. pp. 5692-93._) Neither Sievers nor the Ahnenerbe nor the Institute for Military Scientific Research [Institut fuer Wehrwissenschaftliche Zweckforschung] had anything to do with malaria experiments. (_Cross-examination of Sievers, German Tr. p. 5693_; _Statement of the witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5877_.) Neither can there be proved from Point four of the memorandum of 1 April 1942 (_NO-721, Pros. Ex. 126_) any connection of Sievers with the malaria experiments. An affidavit of the secretary Hildegard Wolff relates how the memorandum of 1 April 1942 and the drawing up of Point four came about. She took down and typed the memorandum from Sievers’ dictation. (_Sievers 11, Sievers Ex. 8._) According to this, Sievers, in the very hurried dictation, said Frau Wolff should write down as Point four what Himmler had said in his telephone conversation about the erection of the institute in Dachau. Therefore, not Sievers’ but Himmler’s opinion is stated here. Through the discussion of 1 April 1942 between Sievers and Dr. May it had been made completely clear that human experiments within the framework of the research order to Dr. May were absolutely out of the question, not only for the reason that such experiments would have been rejected on principle, but also because human experiments had nothing whatsoever to do with the task of developing an insecticide for insects harmful to human beings. Moreover, no other kind of human experiment was carried out in connection with Dr. May’s work. The witness, Dr. May, testified concerning Sievers’ diary entry of 22 February 1944 that there never existed any cooperation between Dr. May, Dr. Ploetner, and Dr. Schilling. (_Witness Dr. May, German Tr. p. 5878._) That, however, would have been a necessary condition in order to classify Sievers’ administrative activity in this connection as participation. As to points four, five, six, seven, there is no occasion for statements concerning these points. _Summary_ Since Sievers took no part in the malaria experiments of Professor Schilling at Dachau or any other malaria experiments, he is not guilty of a crime. Thus any special responsibility and participation in malaria experiments is excluded. * * * * * _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT ROSE_ * * * * * _Statements Concerning the Question of Responsibility of the Defendant Rose for the Malaria Experiments Carried Out by Professor Claus Schilling at the Concentration Camp Dachau and Concerning the Question of Rose’s Participation in These Experiments._ In the indictment, Professor Rose is not charged with special responsibility for the malaria experiments carried out by Professor Schilling at the Dachau concentration camp or with participation. The defendant Rose is also not mentioned in Document Book No. 4 of the prosecution which deals with these malaria experiments. In the course of the verbal proceedings in the court, the prosecution has, however, preferred charges against Professor Rose to this effect and introduced several new documents in the trial during the cross-examination of defendant Rose (_NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487_; _NO-1753, Pros. Ex. 488_; _NO-1755, Pros. Ex. 489_; _NO-1756, Pros. Ex. 486_) and also heard the witness Vieweg concerning this question. (_German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. 464-516._) This evidence shows that among others also the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, under the direction of the defendant Rose, sent anopheles eggs and malaria cultures on a few occasions to Professor Schilling at Dachau during the years 1942 to 1943. At this juncture it should be mentioned that it is completely immaterial for the judgment of the case what the name of the culture of malaria tertiana was and whether or not its name was first changed by Schilling to “Culture Rose”. The above-mentioned evidence also shows that Professor Schilling told Professor Rose in two of his letters about his breeding of mosquitoes; finally it also shows that Professor Schilling asked the defendant Rose from Italy to procure for him spleens of persons whose death had been caused by malaria. This was in 1941, at a time when Schilling was not yet working in Dachau. According to the testimony given by the defendant Rose during cross-examination (_Tr. pp. 6412-3_), he evidently complied with Schilling’s request. The Tribunal will have to decide whether these above-mentioned activities of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute under the management of the defendant Rose or his own activities, constitute, within the meaning of the Penal Code, participation on the part of the defendant Rose in the deeds of Professor Schilling. In my opinion this decision can only be a negative one, for the followings reasons: The delivery of material necessary for malaria research such as anopheles eggs and malaria cultures was one of the official duties of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute. (_Rose 11, Rose Ex. 27._) This department had a section which dealt exclusively with these matters. This can be seen from both the yearly reports of the Robert Koch Institute and from the report covering the Third Conference East of Consulting Specialists discussing work-projects. (_Rose 38, Rose Ex. 10_; _Rose 10, Rose Ex. 26_; _Rose 12, Rose Ex. 28_.) Deliveries of this kind are internationally common practice and were never denied by the defendant Rose. It is also common practice to use the organs of human corpses for the carrying out of scientific research. (_Tr. p. 6474_; _Rose 51, Rose Ex. 50_.) The prerequisites for such deliveries are that they are requested either by well-known institutes or by renowned research scientists. It cannot be denied that Schilling, a coworker of Robert Koch and a member of the malaria commission of the League of Nations, was famous as a malaria research scientist. In a case of this kind, the non-delivery of such material would have been an express violation of traditional practice and of official duty. It is also not international usage for the orderer to be questioned about the intended use of the material before its delivery. (_Compare Mrugowsky 4a, Mrugowsky Ex. 96_; _Rose 49, Rose Ex. 48_; _German Tr., 19 June 47, p. 9680_.) Even if Professor Rose declared, in the witness box during examination on his own behalf, that he assumes full responsibility for it, it should be mentioned here that such deliveries are carried out in such a routine way that the chief of the institute often knows nothing about it since these matters are dispatched independently by the personnel employed by him in the laboratory. This also was the procedure in the case in question as the evidence shows unequivocally. (_Rose 35, Rose Ex. 32_; _German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 507_; _Tr. pp. 6020, 6352_.) Thus, it is by no means surprising that the defendant Rose could no longer remember the correspondence with Professor Schilling put before him by the prosecution during cross-examination especially since undoubtedly it often happens that, as in the case in question, although the letters are sent by the orderer to the head of such an institute personally, the dispatching of the order is nevertheless carried out independently by the personnel of the institute. Besides, the delivery of these materials by the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Robert Koch Institute to Professor Schilling was by no means a prerequisite for the carrying out of his experiments in Dachau, since it has already been established that Schilling obtained no less than 12 other malaria cultures from other institutes. (_NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487_; _German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 509_.) Professor Schilling also obtained mosquitoes from other institutes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 507._) Naturally these institutes could also not have had any scruples about sending material to Professor Schilling. In addition to this, Professor Schilling personally maintained a group of people to catch mosquitoes. (_German Tr., 16 Dec. 46, p. 508._) If Professor Schilling turned at all to the Robert Koch Institute in this matter, the main reason for doing so was that for decades he himself had been the head of the Department for Tropical Diseases of the Institute and that personnel were still working there who had formerly already been employed under his management. The defendant Rose did, as a matter of fact, oppose Schilling’s scientific approach to the problem as may clearly be seen from his opinion on Schilling for the Reich Ministry of the Interior (_Tr. p. 6021_) and from his lecture in Basel. (_Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31._) However, to judge by Professor Schilling’s personality and past he could, nevertheless, not conceive the idea that Professor Schilling’s work at Dachau could be anything but completely above reproach. Experiments on human beings in malaria research are first of all, a matter of course and common practice. Even if the defendant Rose always limited his own work to the traditional evaluation of therapeutic malaria infections, experiments on prisoners in this field must unquestionably be permissible from an ethical point of view, as can be proved by the malaria experiments on many hundreds of prisoners in American prisons. (_Karl Brandt 1, Karl Brandt Ex. 1_; _Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Ex. 103_; _Mrugowsky 80, Mrugowsky Ex. 76_; _Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49_.) Apart from the fact that the delivery of material to Schilling by no means obliged him to inform himself about the latter’s research work and its ways and means, Rose really had no knowledge whatsoever of the object of the research carried out by Schilling, and did not know the collaborators of the latter. (_Rose 29, Rose Ex. 34_; _Rose 30, Rose Ex. 33_.) Much less was he informed about the conditions under which Schilling was working in Dachau. The defendant Rose himself is a well-known malaria research scientist. Malaria research was the main study of his department at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and also later in Pfaffenrode. Professor Schilling only worked with malaria tertiana (benign tertian) in Dachau. (_NO-1752, Pros. Ex. 487._) Professor Rose, as an experienced malaria research scientist, knew of course that this form of malaria is not a dangerous one and that no complications are to be expected from it. (_Rose 50, Rose Ex. 49._) The witness Vieweg (_Tr. pp. 457-458_) also expressly stated that none of the prisoners died of malaria, but that the cause of death could be traced back to technical errors [Kunstfehler] or to complications, as, for example, faulty puncture of the liver resulting in hemorrhage due to omission of an operation and an overdose of pyramidon in therapy, outbreak of typhus among the experimental subjects and finally, wrong doses in the treatment with salvarsan. Just in passing it should also be mentioned here that the defendant Rose also opposed this last-mentioned method of treatment. This method was prohibited in the German Luftwaffe at his suggestion. (_NO-922, Pros. Ex. 435._) No further explanation is necessary to show that solely the person carrying out the experiments is responsible for technical errors and negligence in the process. It seems to me that not even his superiors who ordered the work, namely Himmler and Grawitz, were responsible for them. However, a person assigned to supervise these experiments would have been obliged to take action whenever he was informed of such technical errors or negligence. The defendant Rose, however, was neither assigned to supervise nor was he informed of these matters. It is also unfair to assume that he knew about these matters, because he happened to take part in the conference on freezing experiments which took place in Nuernberg in October 1942. Firstly, the freezing experiments carried out by Professor Holzloehner, although also taking place on Dachau, were in no way connected with the malaria experiments carried out by Professor Schilling. Furthermore, the participants of the conference were misinformed about the method employed in these experiments and about the status of the experimental subjects. (_Handloser 37, Handloser Ex. 18_; _German Tr., 12 Dec. 46, p. 315_.) Now, to be sure, it is known that Holzloehner’s, Rascher’s, and Finke’s freezing experiments were carried out in Dachau. That, however, was certainly not made public at the above-mentioned Nuernberg conference. Even if one of the participants suspected that experiments at a concentration camp were concerned, he would not have had the slightest reason to suppose that the concentration camp in question was Dachau. Schilling’s reports about his work were always sent to Himmler or Grawitz but never went any further. That also explains why no reports about Schilling’s experiments were found in the confiscated files of the defendant Rose. (_Tr. pp. 5566, 6021_; _German Tr., 13 Dec. 46, pp. 466-7_; _German Tr., 26 Mar. 47, p. 5106_; _German Tr., 2 Apr. 47, pp. 5420-1_.) Rose personally was the prototype of a worker above reproach in the field of malaria research and with regard to his care for the well-being of his malaria patients (_Rose 47, Rose Ex. 35_), as shown by the investigation undertaken by the competent American authorities. He risked his own life (_Rose 8, Rose Ex. 29_) in order to assure the orderly handing-over of his Malaria Research Institute in Pfaffenrode to the Americans—in contrast to Dachau, without burning files and the like, and also to insure continued regular care and medical treatment for his patients. (_Rose 31, Rose Ex. 36_; _Rose 32, Rose Ex. 37_; _Rose 33, Rose Ex. 38_; _Rose 34, Rose Ex. 39_.) It would be completely incomprehensible if such a man were to be made responsible for the technical errors and negligence of another who was not even under his influence. d. Evidence _Prosecution Documents_ Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page NO-856 125 Extracts from the review of the 289 proceedings of the general military court in the case of the United States vs. Weiss, Ruppert, et al., held at Dachau, Germany. _Defense Documents_ Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page Rose Document 11 Rose Ex. 27 Extracts from report of Professor 298 Dr. E. Gildemeister concerning the activities of the Robert Koch Institute—Reich institute for the fight against infectious diseases. Rose Document 47 Rose Ex. 35 Affidavit of Professor Dr. Hans 300 Luxenburger, 24 March 1947, concerning Rose’s interest in therapeutical malaria treatments. Rose Document 50 Rose Ex. 49 Extract from the affidavit of 302 Professor Dr. Ernst Georg Nauck, M. D., Hamburg 4, Bernhard-Nocht-Institute for nautical and tropical diseases. _Testimony_ Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness August H. 303 Vieweg Extracts from the testimony of defendant Rose 308 PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-856 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 125 EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES _VS._ WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL., HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY * * * * * A series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were conducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling (_R 157_).[34] Three hundred to four hundred persons died as a result (_R 204, 206_). The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set out in detail _infra_ in connection with Dr. Schilling. * * * * * _B. The common design at the Kaufering Branch Camps of Dachau_ * * * * * _C. The Individual Defendants_ * * * * * 15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ A special experimental station had been set aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments under the supervision of the accused Dr. Schilling (_R 191, 157, 482_). Schilling performed his research for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria (_R 192_). Requests for prisoners were made by Schilling (_R 159-160_). One such request which was admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested (_R 160, Pros. Ex. 38_).[35] A list of inmates was prepared in the camp physician’s office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were represented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a copy of the list (_R 284, 285, 287, Pros. Ex. 47, 48, 157_). There the list was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer who sometimes made a few changes in the list (_R 285_). These lists appeared about once every month since about 1943 (_R 285_). None of the 1,200 selectees ever consented or volunteered (_R 160-161_). Priests were often selected for these experiments (_R 356, 353_). An inmate, a priest named Father Koch, related his experience in that connection (_R 356_). He was first X-rayed and then sent to the malaria station (_R 356-357, 353, 215_). He was put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which he had to hold in his hands for about half an hour (_R 358_). That occurred every day for one week (_R 358, 363_). Every afternoon another box of mosquitoes was put in between his legs while he was in bed (_R 358, 363_). Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his temperature was measured each day and night (_R 358, 364_). He was given quinine (_R 358, 364_). In about 17 days he left the hospital (_R 359, 364_). After being released from the hospital he had to report back every Saturday (_R 360, 364_). Eight months later he had an attack of malaria, which recurred precisely every 3 weeks for 6 months (_R 359, 363, 364, 365_). The symptoms he felt were high fever, chills, and pains in the joints (_R 359_). Koch did not volunteer for the experiments nor did the other prisoners who were mostly Poles and Russians, who underwent the treatment with him (_R 356, 362_). The prisoners were infected with malaria by the injections of the mosquitoes themselves or the injections of extracts of the mucous glands of the mosquitoes (_R 157_). After having contracted malaria the prisoners were treated in different ways (_R 157_). Some, as Father Koch, were given quinine (_R 358_). Others were given neosalvarsan, pyramidon, antipyrin, a drug numbered 92516, and several combinations of these (_R 157_). Some people died as a result of these experiments (_R 158_). Schilling was present when autopsies were performed on some of those persons (_R 158_). Whenever anyone died who had been injected with malaria, a report of that death was made to the accused Schilling and the chief doctor (_R 158_). Some of the victims died from the intoxication of neosalvarsan and pyramidon, for many individuals could not withstand large doses of these drugs (_R 159_). From the autopsy it could be determined that a patient died of neosalvarsan since the reactions were similar to arsenic (_R 193, 194_). In the beginning of 1944 three deaths resulted from the use of pyramidon (_R 194_). These people were brought directly from the malaria ward to the autopsy room (_R 197_). Two young Russian boys who were transferred from the malaria ward to the general medical ward died within a day after their arrival because of overdoses of pyramidon (_R 394-395, 405_). They had been sent to the general ward so that the official cause of death which would be stated would not be malaria (_R 405_). Pyramidon has a toxic on the blood corpuscles which causes them to disintegrate (_R 195_). Malaria was the direct cause of 30 deaths and as a result of complications, 300 to 400 more died (_R 196, 197_). People who had died directly from malaria had come straight from the malaria ward while the 300 to 400 others had undergone the malaria experiment (_R 204_). These people who had been subjected to malaria may later have died of tuberculosis, pneumonia, or dysentery (_R 196_). Some of the patients whom Dr. Schilling used had had tuberculosis before undergoing the experiments (_R 11_). Fever type diseases have adverse effects on tuberculosis (_R 211_). An index of the malaria diseased people was kept in the hospital office (_R 198_). Schilling received various visitors such as Dr. Rabbit, who was a Reich SS physician at Oranienberg (_R 192_). A pretrial affidavit of the accused Schilling executed in his own handwriting on 30 October 1945 before 2d Lieutenant Werner Conn was admitted into evidence (_R 827, Pros. Ex. 122_). This statement reads in pertinent part and in translation as follows: “My name is Professor Dr. Claus Schilling. I have already worked on tropical diseases for 45 years. I came to the experimental station in Dachau in February 1942. I judge that I inoculated between 900 and 1,000 prisoners. Those were mostly inoculations for protection. These people, however, were not volunteers. The inmates whom I gave protective inoculations were not examined by me but by the current camp doctor. Before the inoculation there was usually an observation of several days. The last camp doctor was Dr. Hintermayer. As well as I can remember, in 3 years there were 49 patients who died outside the malaria station. The patients were always released by me as cured only after 1 year. “As remedy I used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan. I know for sure of six cases where I used pyramidon tablets to hold down the fever (_Pros. Ex. 122_).” * * * * * _V. Evidence for the Defense._ * * * * * 15. _Doctor Claus Karl Schilling_ The accused Doctor Schilling elected to testify and made the following unsworn statement: He was 74 years old, married, had one son, and was a physician. He had specialized in tropical diseases, particularly malaria, since 1898 (_R 1490, 1500_). Dr. Schilling studied under Professor Koch of Berlin, and graduated from Munich as a physician in 1894 (_R 1894_). He did research work in Africa on malaria, sleeping sickness, and tsetse fly diseases (_R 1497, 1498_). Dr. Schilling worked for the Rockefeller Foundation in Berlin, receiving a grant in 1911 for the study of various diseases and for a trip to Rome (_R 1499, 1500, Def. Ex. 19_).[36] In December 1941 in Italy Dr. Schilling met Dr. Conti, the Reich physician leader, who invited him to see Himmler (_R 1500, 1501, 1508_). Schilling went to Himmler who gave him the order to continue his studies at Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling had selected Dachau because it was near his birthplace (_R 1568-1569_). The question of using prisoners for experiments was not discussed (_R 1502_). In January 1942, Schilling went to Dachau (_R 1502_). Schilling only accepted this commission at Dachau because the League of Nations, of which he was a member, told him of the importance of curing the seventeen million known cases of malaria. He believed it was his duty to humanity (_R 1540_). He never became a member of the SS or the Nazi Party (_R 1503_). He was a “free, independent, research man.” (_R 1568._) Dr. Schilling infected thousands of prisoners with malaria “Benign Tertian” which is not fatal (_R 1503_). The purpose for this was to find a vaccination against malaria and today there is no vaccination against malaria except the one discovered by Schilling (_R 1503_). Dr. Schilling used mosquitoes and blood transfusions to infect the patients and received patients already infected (_R 1503, 1504_). The patients were divided into groups and were constantly watched, one group for the purpose of keeping up the strain and another for immunization purposes (_R 1505-1506_). The latter were injected repeatedly to step up their immunity (_R 1506_). Schilling re-infected about 400 to 500 patients and used quinine, atabrine, and neosalvarsan, and a dye No. 2516 which made the patients immune; to prove this he had to test by infecting them again (_R 1507_). Dr. Schilling could not work with animals because they are not receptive to malaria and men are used throughout the world (_R 1507_). He assumed that Admiral Stipp and Mark Boyd, two malaria authorities, used humans in their experiments (_R 1508_). Infected malaria has been used to cure paralysis (_R 1508_). Only about four or five of the patients refused to be immunized, but they consented after Schilling explained the importance of the work (_R 1509_). The selections of the patients were made as follows: Berlin allowed him thirty patients a month and he would requisition them through the camp physician from the commandant who contacted the labor leader (_R 1510_). The latter selected healthy prisoners and Schilling’s assistants chose the final names and sent them to Berlin, where the selection was approved (_R 1509, 1510_). These patients were carefully inspected and could not be refused by Schilling by order of Himmler (_R 1511_). The doses of neosalvarsan were 1.54 grams and at no time failed (_R 1512_). He used pyramidon to lower the body temperature although the drug has a bad effect on the blood corpuscles (_R 1513, 1514_). He used this drug only in 15 cases and found that two grams were not harmful. This was important so the body could react without fever (_R 1515_). Nobody died from pyramidon (_R 1515_). Malaria has been used to cure syphilis and neosalvarsan can destroy parasites in a fever (_R 1515_). Dr. Schilling never dealt with Dr. Blaha on any autopsies involving neosalvarsan poisoning. Discharged patients were told to report back if they felt sick (_R 1516_). Periodic checks were made of them and any patient was received back if there was sign of relapse (_R 1517_). If Schilling was asked to resume his work, he would do so only on volunteers (_R 1518_). Dr. Schilling was withdrawn as a witness, at this point, but resumed the stand later and testified as follows: In death through neosalvarsan all organs are affected (_R 1536_). Blood cells may die, but nothing like this happened in his cases (_R 1536, 1537_). It is impossible to determine death by malaria by a mere autopsy without a microscope, especially where there may be other complications (_R 1537_). Pyramidon is rarely the cause of death (_R 1537_). Out of the 100 people infected by Dr. Schilling with malaria, not a single one of them died of uncomplicated malaria (_R 1538_). Weight of the patients during experiments increased. Additional food was given and people suffering from contagious disease would be isolated (_R 1539_). Dr. Schilling never stated the wrong cause of death (_R 1539_). Dr. Schilling stated he couldn’t experiment on himself because he had had malaria in 1933 and men like him cannot be reinfected in most cases although malaria is a recurring disease (_R 1541_). If there is chronic malaria, the heart muscles will suffer as in all chronic diseases (_R 1543_). Malaria will increase the watery substance in the blood and the brain will suffer under chronic malaria (_R 1544_). Chronic malaria will weaken the body to make it susceptible to other diseases and one may die of another disease while having malaria (_R 1546_). Schilling had SS doctors helping him and examined all patients personally and supervised the records (_R 1546_). Schilling recognized Prosecution Exhibit 131 which stated that 19 cases were treated with pyramidon, three of whom died (_R 1547_). He declared these patients were suffering from typhus and were removed from the ward (_R 1547, 1548_). Although there was a typhus epidemic in November 1944 and he knew that people were dying, he continued his experiments (_R 1550_). Everyone who was inoculated remained at the station (_R 1550_). One patient was injected three times and later died of typhus (_R 1551_). He was given neosalvarsan, atabrine, and quinine. Pyramidon doses of three grams per day for five successive days were given. Dr. Blaha did not inform Schilling of the deaths due to pyramidon poisoning. If Schilling had been notified he would have stopped the experiment. An Italian named Calveroni was infected with blood and might have gotten typhus (_R 1556_). If a man is suffering from malnutrition, a big dose of neosalvarsan is not advisable (_R 1557_). If it would save his life, Schilling would give it to him (_R 1557_). It depended on the physical condition of the man and of what he was suffering; yet, Schilling gave the drug to Father Wicki who only weighed 50 kilos (_R 1558_), but Schilling says that Wicki was not a severe case (_R 1559_). Schilling gave 3 grams of neosalvarsan in 5 days, which was the largest dose he ever gave over that period of time. He does not remember giving drugs to sufferers of dysentery (_R 1562_). Schilling did not remember specific cases where he did not use caution (_R 1566, 1567_). He recalled the priest Stachowski who died, but doesn’t remember he died from neosalvarsan (_R 1567, 1568_). Dr. Schilling was not under the control of the SS (_R 1568_). He heard rumors about beatings, but did not concern himself with “things that were not my business” (_R 1569_). All his records had been burned (_R 1570_). Schilling denied all accusations against him other than what he admitted as part of his duty (_R 1572, 1573_). He declared that his work was unfinished and that the court should do what it could to help him finish his experiments for the benefit of science and to rehabilitate himself (_R 1574_). Mrs. Hubner, who knew Professor Schilling for 30 years, stated that she often saw him in Italy and in Germany and has known him to be of good reputation and of good veracity (_R 1519, 1520, 1521_). He told her his only aim was to help cure malaria (_R 1522_). She believed his intentions at Dachau were good (_R 1523_). Frau Durck, the wife of a university professor of anatomical pathology who was interested in malaria research, knew Professor Schilling since 1924 (_R 1525, 1526_). Schilling was always regarded in his field as a serious scientist (_R 1527_). She knew what he was doing at Dachau but her husband would not have done it (_R 1527_). Dr. Eisenberger, a lawyer for 52 years, knew Dr. Schilling for 30 years (_R 1527_). He considered Schilling highly respectable and reliable, and said Schilling was seeking to benefit science and would never do anything wrong (_R 1528_). Heinrich Stoehr, a male nurse at Dachau, testified it was known that Schilling worked on orders from Himmler (_R 1608, 1609_). The camp physician’s and Schilling’s assistants examined the patients prior to experimentation (_R 1609_). Dr. Brachtel, an SS doctor and assistant to Schilling, also performed atabrine experiments (_R 1610_). If a patient had a relapse from malaria, he was treated by Dr. Schilling (_R 1611, 1612_). Others were given quinine by some of the hospital staff (_R 1611, 1612_). Max Kronenfelder worked in the malaria station under Schilling from February 1941 to June 1943 (_R 1614_). He knew about a Dr. Brachtel, who also made private experiments on malaria without the knowledge of Dr. Schilling (_R 1615_). Kronenfelder took blood smears and performed minor details such as cleaning up (_R 1616_). Brachtel experimented with patients who had tuberculosis, helped by a man named Adam (_R 1617_). Adam was often in the morgue with Dr. Blaha (_R 1618_). Father Rupieper had been subjected to the malaria experiment in August 1942 (_R 921_). Other priests who were also subjected were Peter Bower, Gustav Spitzick, Amon Burckhardt, Fritz Keller, and Kasinemer Gasimer Rikofsky (_R 921_). * * * * * VI. Prosecution Rebuttal Evidence. _Common Design._ * * * * * 15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ When one of Dr. Schilling’s patients died there were orders to report that fact to the malaria station even though the man had died in another section of the hospital (_R 1712_). Toward the end of 1942 Professor Schilling was personally present at the autopsy of a man who died of neosalvarsan and he requested the brain, liver, kidneys, spleen, and a piece of stomach (_R 1712, 1731_). In that case Dr. Schilling dictated part of the findings with respect to the cause of death (_R 1712_). When the first three patients died from pyramidon in February 1945, a member from the malaria station and Dr. Hintermayer were present (_R 1713, 1723, 1731_). Dr. Blaha stated that in his experience as a physician the average patient could receive 3.3 pyramidon a day, and that the largest dose would be 2 grams per day, but that of course assumed that the individual was healthy and strong (_R 1713_). In Dr. Blaha’s judgment, the prison inmates could not be given more than 1½ to 2 grams for a few days (_R 1714_). If these people were to receive 3 grams per day for three successive days, signs of poisoning would be revealed (_R 1714_). Dr. Blaha stated that an autopsy revealed that death from pyramidon was the result of sudden suffocation which was not true in the case of typhus (_R 1725_). Death from typhus could be determined by certain indicia without a microscope (_R 1725_). Dr. Blaha explained that the ordinary mydol tablet contained 3 pyramidon and that it is sold over the open counter (_R 1722_). If taken in moderate doses it will not have any ill effects (_R 1722_). A leaflet of I. G. Farben, Indiana, which held the neosalvarsan contained the following instructions: “In between the individual infections, spaces of time should be permitted to elapse, from 3 to 7 days.” (_Pros. Ex. 134_) These were instructions for syphilis (_R 1564_). In paragraph five in the leaflet it read in part, “such caution in the use of neosalvarsan is recommended for undernourished and severe anaemic patients, tuberculosis, diseases of the lungs, heart, kidneys, liver, and intestines.” (_R 1564, 1565._) * * * * * X. Merits and Defense. * * * * * 15. _Dr. Claus Karl Schilling._ Dr. Schilling, at the call of Himmler, began conducting his malaria experiments at Dachau in February 1942. He continued these experiments until liberation of the camp. It was undisputed that the inmates whom Dr. Schilling used in his work were not volunteers. Dr. Schilling’s research was performed for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. His requests for inmates were made about every month. These lists were prepared in the camp physician’s office and then sent to the camp commander and labor office. About 1,200 selectees were thus chosen for subjection. Many of them were priests. The number of people who died from the malaria or from the drugs such as pyramidon or neosalvarsan is not known. Certainly some died. It is reasonable to infer that the deaths of many of the inmates from tuberculosis, dysentery, typhus, and other diseases were caused in part by the fact that those people had been subjected to malaria. Although Dr. Schilling’s motive may have been simply and purely a scientific one, his activities exemplified the Nazi scheme which existed at Dachau. The part he played in that scheme is clear. * * * * * XIV. Sentences. * * * * * In many respects the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He voluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he intended to perform. Being the educated and learned person that he was, Schilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work suited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have stemmed from his desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize Nazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists who either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system. It is believed that the sentence of the Court, which was aware of Schilling’s position in the scientific world, should be approved. * * * * * XVI. Actions. A form of action designed to carry the foregoing recommendations into effect, should they meet with your approval, is submitted herewith. [Signature] Charles E. Cheever [Typed] CHARLES E. CHEEVER Colonel, JAGD, Staff Judge Advocate. MILITARY GOVERNMENT COURT ORDER ON REVIEW Order No. 3. Whereas Martin Gottfried Weiss, Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, et al., were convicted of the offenses of Violations of Laws and usages of war in that they acted in pursuance of a common design, did encourage, aid, abet, and participate in the subjection of Allied nationals and prisoners of war to cruelties and mistreatments at Dachau concentration camp and its subcamps by the General Military Court appointed pursuant to paragraph 3, SO 304, Hq., 2 November 1945, at Dachau, Germany and each accused was sentenced to death by hanging except four: Peter Betz who was sentenced to life imprisonment, Hugo Alfred Erwin Lausterer who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, Albin Gretsch who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years, and Johann Schoepp who was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years by judgment dated the 14th day of December 1945, and Whereas the case has now come before me by way of review and after due consideration and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me, I hereby order: That the findings and the sentence in the cases of Weiss, Ruppert, Jarolin, Trenkle, Niedermeyer, Seuss, Eichberger, Wagner, Kick, Hintermayer, Witteler, Eichelsdorfer, Foerschner, Schilling, Knoll, Boettger, Betz, Endres, Kiern, Rewitz, Welter, Suttrop, Tempel, Lausterer, Becher, Kramer, Filleboeck, Schoettl, Gretsch, Kirsch, Langleist, Lippmann, Degelow, Moll, Schulz, and Wetzel be upheld. That the sentence imposed in the case of Eisele be reduced to confinement at hard labor for life. That the sentence imposed in the case of Puhr be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 20 years. That the sentence imposed in the case of Mahl be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 10 years. That the sentence imposed in the case of Schoepp be reduced to confinement at hard labor for 5 years, and for so doing this shall be sufficient warrant. Dated this 24th day of January 1946. [Signed] L. K. TRUSCOTT, JR., Lieutenant General, U.S.A. Commanding. PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 11 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 27 EXTRACTS FROM REPORT OF PROFESSOR DR. E. GILDEMEISTER CONCERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE—REICH INSTITUTE FOR THE FIGHT AGAINST INFECTIOUS DISEASES * * * * * 2. Malaria Research. _a. Cultures of strains._ The strain “Greece” of plasmodium vivax was bred in the department by Miss Lange till 31 December 1942, in the 30th continuous passage of man-mosquito-man. The number of infected patients up to that date was 379. The main work concerned the malaria treatment of paralytics and schizophrenics. In addition, however, there were a few therapeutic experiments with other diseases, in cases where the clinics concerned required mosquito bite infections in order to obtain a reliable malaria free from lues. The number of clinics and hospitals obtaining part or all their requirements of therapeutical malaria infection from the department rose to 11. In addition to the strain “Greece”, various other malaria strains were taken into the mosquito passage for comparative experiments; they were, however, not permanently maintained. This considerable amount of incoming clinical material was continuously collected and sorted although it has not yet been used. In the course of the research two more laboratory infections occurred due to mosquito bites. The following examinations by Dr. Hoering, Professor Rose, and Dr. Emmel were made possible by the maintenance of the anopheles colony and the malaria breed. _b. Parasite straining._ Dr. Hoering continued her work on the improvement of the microscopic presentation of malaria parasites. Despite certain improvements of the microscopic picture it was not possible to develop a procedure easily applicable in practice and superior to the established methods. _c. Artificial feeding and artificial infection of anopheles._ Dr. Hoering continued to develop the methods of artificial blood feeding of anopheles, evolved by Dr. Olzscha. In this artificial feeding the anopheles would not take citrated blood even though sugar had been added. Blood haemolized with water and saturated with sugar was taken, as well as liquid blood, although the addition of sugar was preferred. Artificial feeding of blood is biologically not altogether equal to natural feeding. The duration of life was almost the same with artificial feeding as with the normal feeding of the animal. However, females which were merely artificially fed, only laid eggs in exceptional cases. It is known that with anopheles which suck blood from the animal, the blood enters the duodenum without previously entering the sucking stomach, while other nutritious matter first reaches the sucking and reserve stomachs. It was previously assumed that the nature of the food, especially the number of cells, acted as indicative irritation. Dr. Hoering’s experiments with artificial blood nutrition showed this assumption to be wrong. Sweetened as well as unsweetened blood, which is used for artificial feeding, first enters into the reserve stomachs in the same way as a sugar solution. Further experiments proved that the piercing of a membrane also causes no indicative irritation. After the method of the artificial feeding with blood had been developed, Dr. Hoering carried out experiments with the feeding of infected blood containing malaria. Finally, it was possible to infect anopheles by artificial feeding of blood, so that normally developed sporozoites grew inside them. This is the first time that such an experiment was successfully carried through. _d. Conservation of malaria parasites._ Professor Rose had the experiments continued concerning the conservation of malaria parasites in liquids suitable for the conservation of blood. Even after 150 days malaria parasites could be demonstrated morphologically in individual cases. However, attempt at infection with such blood did not succeed. The continuation and repetition of these experiments are planned. The as yet unknown possibility of keeping malaria parasites alive in vitro for such long periods raises the problem of whether malaria parasites may become also dormant in human beings. The fact that an infection could be achieved in human beings with 90-day-old parasites proves that these preserved parasites did not lose their development and multiplying properties. The assumption of such dormant forms in the human being would offer new explanations for malaria relapses after long intervals of recovery. The department is engaged in morphologically characterizing the dormant forms observed in a test tube and in searching for the existence of such forms in clinical malaria cases. _e. The appearance of anopheles in the Warthegau._ Dr. Olzscha investigated the appearance of anopheles in 221 hamlets, villages, and scattered settlements of the Warthegau. Anopheles were found practically everywhere. The investigation of 600 individual clusters proved beyond doubt that except in a few cases where a definite determination was not possible, they belonged to the genus of messaeae of anopheles maculipennis. Only in one case were A. m. artroparvus found. * * * * * _h. Malaria treatment._ Professor Rose in cooperation with Obermedizinalrat Dr. Sagel, director of the Country Mental Institution in Arnsdorf-Saxony, and Dr. Mertens, Dr. Koenig, and Dr. Peters, Leverkusen, tested the efficacy of new synthetic remedies against mosquito sting malaria. The best method of administering a new and proved preparation was developed. * * * * * PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 47 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 35 AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. HANS LUXENBURGER, 24 MARCH 1947, CONCERNING ROSE’S INTEREST IN THERAPEUTICAL MALARIA TREATMENTS I, Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, born on 12 June 1894 in Schweinfurt, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, have been informed that I will be liable to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made in order to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. 1 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. Being a psychiatrist myself, I took an interest in Professor Rose’s malaria research insofar as we talked now and again about Rose’s progress and the results of his research. For me as a psychiatrist it was always noteworthy that Rose regarded cooperation with the psychiatrists of hospitals for the insane by no means only from the point of view of his interest in malaria research. On the contrary, he always showed definite interest in the related psychiatric-therapeutic questions. Contrary to the opinion formerly advocated by Wagner-Jauregg, he hoped to attain more thorough and permanent success in treatment by infection with mosquitoes as advocated by him (Rose) instead of the formerly customary blood transfusion, because in his opinion endothelia infection was also attained thereby. He also was particularly interested in the question of finding a benign tropical strain and employing it in treatment, in order to carry out thorough and long fever treatments on cases of paralysis relapse; this is generally unsuccessful when employing the usual tertiana strains in cases of relapse. He was especially interested in the possibility of therapeutic influence upon schizophrenia. In the well-known psychiatrist Dr. Sagel, he had a co-worker who advocated the opinion that schizophrenia, apart from its hereditary basis, must be caused by an additional external impairment, and he suspected that these causes lay in infectious diseases, especially rheumatic infections. Working from this assumption, he hoped for success with this disease similar to that with paralysis. This idea was not a new one. Similar experiments were conducted earlier. Rose was especially encouraged in this work by some impressive isolated successes in quite hopeless cases of schizophrenia. I can recall his joy as he told me, apart from other, cases, of a woman who was about to be divorced, after the head of the institution had declared her condition, which had existed for more than 3 years, to be incurable. In this case Rose’s treatment, according to his report, not only resulted in completely restoring the sick woman’s health but also led to her return to her family and the reestablishment of the marriage. Munich, 24 March 1947 [Signed] PROF. DR. HANS LUXENBURGER The above signature of Professor Dr. med. Hans Otto Luxenburger, residing in Munich, 22 Liebigstrasse 35/II, given before me, Notary, Theobald Petri, Administrator, is herewith certified and attested. Munich, 24 March 1947. [Signed] _Petri_, Notary (Theobald Petri), Notary Administrator of the Notary’s Office, Munich XVII Seal I certify that the above document is a true and correct copy. Nuernberg, 10 April 1947. [Signature] Dr. HANS FRITZ (Dr. Hans Fritz) Defense Counsel PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF ROSE DOCUMENT 50 ROSE DEFENSE EXHIBIT 49 EXTRACT FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF PROFESSOR DR. ERNST GEORG NAUCK, M. D., HAMBURG 4, BERNHARD-NOCHT-INSTITUTE FOR NAUTICAL AND TROPICAL DISEASES * * * * * Experimental infections of human beings with malaria tertiana (mild tertian malaria) have proved to be harmless and have very frequently been carried out on voluntary experimental subjects. It is well known that artificial infection with tertiana is also carried out as a cure against other diseases (paralysis, rabies). If the artificial infection is carried out carefully and under medical supervision, death or permanent damage to health should not occur. If the experiment with malaria tertiana, as carried out by Claus Schilling, was carried out with the same care, no danger to the experimental persons should have been entailed. Since Claus Schilling was a prominent scientist of international fame, it must be assumed that he carried out his investigations with the intention or the knowledge not to harm human life. This we find confirmed in the following: 1. Stitt’s diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment of Tropical Diseases, by Richard P. Strong, 7th edition, London, H. K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., 1945, page 59: “The question of the occurrence of immunity in malaria has been extensively studied in recent years, not only from the epidemiologic standpoint but from experimental inoculations which have been carried on in both men and animals. However, in interpreting the results of the inoculations in man which have been carried out by direct injection of blood containing schizonts or by the injection of sporozoites from mosquitoes or by the bites of infected mosquitoes, many factors regarding the virulence or number of the parasites inoculated, the species and conditions of infectivity of the mosquitoes, the temperature at which they have been kept, and other factors, must be taken into consideration in drawing conclusions with regard to the susceptibility of individuals to infection. Much of the work is still in the experimental stage, though some definite progress has recently been made.” * * * * * EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESS AUGUST H. VIEWEG[37] _DIRECT EXAMINATION_ * * * * * MR. HARDY: While you were an inmate at the concentration camp, did you ever undergo any medical experiments? WITNESS VIEWEG: I was used for malaria experiments by Professor Dachfinney at the Dachau concentration camp. Q. How many times were you subjected to the malaria experiments by Dr. Schilling? A. On five occasions I received injections of 5 cubic centimeters of highly infectious malaria blood. Q. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal what effect these experiments had on you; that is, did you have high fever, serious illness, and so forth? A. Quite often I ran a very high temperature. I got into a very exhausted condition, and after the injection I received large doses of medical drugs, quinine, ephedrine, and many others. I was in bed for weeks, and after one treatment there were 20 to 26 occasions in the course of the years 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946, when I had malaria attacks, so that for a long time I was unable to work. Q. At the present time, do you have recurrences of this malaria fever? A. This last year I was in the hospital from August 1st to 15th, again with malaria attacks. Q. How many recurrences of malaria have you endured since you were experimented on by Dr. Schilling? A. After my treatments in the experimental station had been concluded I stayed with Dr. Schilling, and there were 20 occasions when I was treated for recurrences. Q. Are you completely cured now, Witness? A. No. Q. After you had undergone the various experiments at the hands of Dr. Schilling, did you then become a worker in Dr. Schilling’s laboratory? A. After my first so-called immunization treatment had been concluded, the chief medical officer of that department sent me over to Dr. Schilling’s department for laboratory duties. Q. On what date did you assume those duties? A. I am afraid I can’t tell you that exactly, but it must have been on or about August 1942. Q. What were your duties in Dr. Schilling’s experimental station? A. In Dr. Schilling’s department I was in charge of animals. In other words, I cultivated animals, white mice, and canaries; in fact, I was in charge of that department. Q. Did you have any other or additional duties, such as file clerk or typist, Witness? A. For a certain period, I substituted for the clerk and I was in direct contact with Dr. Schilling on various occasions. I had a certain amount of business with the chemistry department, purchases from Dachau, and I was also in charge of the detachment which had to search the water near Dachau for anopheles mosquitoes. Q. While with Dr. Schilling, did you have the opportunity to read any of Dr. Schilling’s correspondence? A. I had frequent occasions to see the reports which Dr. Schilling sent in every 3 months, and sometimes I saw the answers which Dr. Schilling received from Berlin, as well as from some other chemical manufacturers. Q. Witness, can you recall to whom those reports were sent, in Berlin? A. These quarterly reports, which Dr. Schilling used to prepare, went to the SS Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reich Medical Officer. Q. You have referred to the fact, today, that you saw some of the answers Dr. Schilling received from Berlin; who was the originator of those letters that Dr. Schilling received from Berlin? A. As far as I can recollect, these replies were sent to Professor Schilling by Dr. Grawitz. Q. Do you know where Dr. Schilling received his material to be used in this research, that is, infected blood for the malaria experiments, fly eggs, and so forth? A. I can remember that Dr. Schilling received malaria fly eggs, so-called eggs from which he bred other flies, from Duesseldorf; they came from an insane asylum, but I can’t remember the name, and some from the Medical Institute at Rome that used to receive eggs. In fact, his material used to come from Berlin. According to my memory, it came from Professor Rose, and also from Athens; but I am afraid I cannot recollect the name there. Q. Do you know whether Professor Rose had any correspondence with Dr. Schilling? A. I remember that in connection with previous breeding attempts we were not too successful, and subsequently I saw a number of letters given to a stenographer by Dr. Schilling. They were addressed to Professor Rose. He was making certain explanations in them regarding certain types of insects, in connection with which my name was used. I am certain it went to Berlin and I am certain that answers were received on numerous occasions. Q. Did Dr. Schilling ever send any reports of these experiments to Professor Rose, to your knowledge? A. Whether he sent reports about malaria patients, I don’t know. At any rate, as far as these fly-breeding experiments are concerned, he had sent reports. I know that for certain. * * * * * Q. Witness, we will go back to the malaria experiments for the moment. What was the nationality of the people used for the malaria experiments, what type of people were they? A. The biggest proportion, approximately two hundred patients, used for the malaria experiments were Germans, a large proportion were Polish priests, and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslavs, and some Poles. Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments? A. Of the Russians, many were prisoners of war. Q. What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments from your knowledge? A. According to my knowledge, 1,084 experimental subjects were used for the malaria experiments. Q. Will you kindly tell us, Witness, how many of these subjects used in the malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments? A. According to my knowledge seven or eight died at the malaria station, either directly or because of the treatment with drugs. I can describe the details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards became ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that time, Dr. Brachtel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the hospital, made a liver puncture and the patient bled to death. Q. Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died from the experiments. Of that number who died, did the deaths occur in the malaria station itself? A. This was the number of dead who were not transferred by us to another department, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had been transferred to another station. Q. Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other patients who were transferred to some other station after they were experimented on? That is, did some others die after they were experimented on? A. Of our patients, during the years after they came to us for observation, I can recollect that another 60 patients died. I cannot say for certain they died of malaria or other results of the experiments. * * * * * _CROSS-EXAMINATION_ DR. FRITZ: I have a few questions to ask the witness. Witness, on Friday you seemed to be fairly well acquainted with certain malaria questions, obviously on the basis of knowledge gained with Professor Schilling. I would now like to ask you the following questions concerning some very important details: During your examination by the prosecuting counsel you spoke of certain regrettable incidents. A number of deaths had occurred during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by Professor Schilling. At the time you mentioned about seven cases, but you only described one in detail. The patient had yellow fever in addition to malaria and then bled to death because the liver was punctured. I now ask you to tell me something about the reasons for the other six deaths. WITNESS VIEWEG: The other six patients were the so-called “medicament death” cases. One patient died as a result of the salvarsan drug. The other one died as a result of the so-called “periphery” experiment, and the last four died as the result of a pyramidon experiment. Q. Were the patients who, after being released from the station of Schilling, suffered relapses sent back to Professor Schilling’s station? A. If they reported back to us, they were taken back to the station. Q. In that case did any patients die in Professor Schilling’s department who later on had malaria or relapses? A. Patients who were in danger of death were transferred to another station. Q. Do you remember whether malaria tertiana is a fatal illness? A. As far as I know nobody with us died of malaria tertiana. The deaths were a result of the secondary diseases which appeared because of the drugs used in the malaria experiments. Q. Did Professor Schilling say anything to you about these fatal cases which were under his responsibility and observation, and if so, what? A. The first two cases, the patient who died as a result of the punctured liver and the one who died because of the salvarsan injection, Dr. Schilling regretted very deeply. He tried to prevent such happenings as much as possible. In the last four cases, concerning the pyramidon experiment, he was told that the patients were in a very bad condition. Nevertheless, he insisted that they continue to receive the pyramidon drugs—I think it was 3 grams per day—and when these patients arrived at the delirium stage, they were transferred from our ward shortly before their death. Q. And now something else. On Friday you testified that Dachau received anopheles from Dr. Rose’s institute and that there was an exchange of correspondence about the difficulties you had in breeding these eggs. Do you know where Dr. Rose worked, in which institute? A. I think these letters were addressed to the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. Q. Do you know from this correspondence whether these replies came from Dr. Rose personally or from his assistant? A. That I cannot state from memory. I recall one reply from a lady who was in charge of the breeding of these eggs in Berlin. Q. That was probably an assistant who had worked with Rose for many years? A. Yes, but I think Professor Schilling first turned to Professor Rose, and probably the replies primarily came from Professor Rose. Q. Can you remember the name of the lady? A. No. Q. Do you know with whom Dr. Schilling had dealings and correspondence in addition to Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Rose? A. I cannot remember. I know that he corresponded with an institution in Duesseldorf called Graefenrad or something like that, and he requested the breeding of these eggs there, and they sent us flies, live flies. Q. Did you have the name “Rose” in mind, or did you only recall his name when you were first examined? A. No. The name “Rose” remained in my recollection because I, myself, was infected with the malaria called “Rose”. He had these various immunization groups, the so-called malaria stock, which had various different names, and I was with a group which was infected with a so-called Rose Culture. Q. You have testified before that you received eggs from Rome. You could not however remember the name. Was it perhaps Professor Vissireli, Dr. Rosni, or Dr. Raphaeli? A. I think it was Vissireli. Q. Did you also receive these eggs from Hamburg? A. We received no eggs from the Tropical Institute in Hamburg, but Professor Schilling corresponded with that Institute. Q. Can you remember in which year you received these eggs from the Robert Koch Institute, or rather from Professor Rose? A. It was in the summer of 1942. Q. You have told us about a number of these flies which you had to breed in the vicinity of Dachau. Were you present? A. There was one special detachment for this purpose, including an SS man and one or two inmates. That was in the swamps surrounding Dachau during the summer months. Various water tests were made, and according to the degree of heat of the swamps, Dr. Schilling ordered the waters to be infected with a mixture of pig food. This special detachment went around the cellars of the Dachau camp during the winter months and worked on that matter. Our laboratories then examined these anopheles flies, and used them for breeding purposes. Q. Can you state anything about the quantities caught? A. It varied in the winter—sometimes they brought 10, sometimes 30 to 50, and sometimes 60. Q. Did your department in Dachau deliver any such eggs to other departments? A. We delivered such eggs on one occasion, but I cannot remember where. Q. I now come to the question of malaria culture. From where did Professor Schilling receive his malaria cultures? A. I cannot say exactly. I know that he received malaria cultures from Essen and from Berlin. But this was in February 1942, when I had not yet arrived at the ward. I remember we had 12 different malaria cultures. I know that Professor Schilling used one, and another man used one—I think his name was Flugg—in order to give one such culture the name of “Flugg.” EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[38] _CROSS-EXAMINATION_ * * * * * MR. MCHANEY: Let’s go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941? DEFENDANT ROSE: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling’s malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian Government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior; then, either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, I gave an opinion, a written opinion, on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling personally in 1941. I am not certain whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can’t deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was 6 years ago. Q. Did you supply him with any material while he was working in Italy? A. No, nothing. Q. Who was Fraeulein von Falkenberg? A. You mean Fraeulein von Falkenhayn? Q. No, I mean Fraeulein von Falkenberg. A. I don’t know any Fraeulein von Falkenberg. Q. You are sure you didn’t supply Schilling with any material in 1941? A. I cannot remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I did not learn of it until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge. Q. Well, it is not terribly important, but let us let you have a look at Document NO-1756. In the meantime, when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau? A. I beg your pardon, I didn’t understand your question. Q. When did you give Schilling material, after he had gone to Dachau? A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, von Falkenhayn, and my secretary, Block. My secretary, Block, testified here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Fraeulein von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely. Q. Document NO-1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification. Q. Isn’t there a Fraeulein von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941? A. No. In the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation. A. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called Henry reaction; that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction also the spleen of dead persons is used. Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I, as head of the tropical medical department, was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner-Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter, my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked that if such an autopsy should occur there, the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about. Q. Did you ever supply any to him? A. As far as I can recall, in the course of several months, one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I cannot say for certain today. Q. Well, you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941; isn’t that right? A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand the question. Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments ago, before you saw the letter, to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now, after having seen the letter, state you did in fact give him some. A. Yes. I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes. I did not think of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin. Q. Let’s go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block said that the malaria eggs were supplied to Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942? A. Yes. That is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs. Q. Yes, that is right. A. I am inclined to agree that von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942. Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent? A. I cannot remember it. I don’t believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, after I had been given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau. Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling; is that right? A. I did not issue a precise order. I said that since we ourselves were using so many mosquitoes I didn’t want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But Fraeulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraeulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can’t clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can’t answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn’t know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn’t know that at the time. I learned it only a short time ago from Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some objections and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it. Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling? A. No. As I said on direct examination, the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn’t have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don’t know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don’t think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain was sent—that is quite sufficient—no matter whether it is called Rose or some other name. Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right? A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can’t answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work. Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don’t know, since I don’t have my files. Concerning any information about such infrequent correspondence and whether he wrote a certain letter 5 or 6 years ago, he says, “I would like to look that up in my files.” Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough, if you have copies of such a letter, to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 1941. That was in the same filing cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting on 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of the Interior. Q. You overestimate the prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn’t dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments? You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it? A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably. Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down? * * * * * A. I don’t know. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don’t know when. She didn’t mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz. Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor? A. “Prof. Claus Schilling “Dachau, 4 April 1942 “3 K, Hospital for Inmates “To Prof. Dr. Rose “Berlin, Fohrerstrasse 2 “Robert Koch Institute “Dear Colleague: “I inoculated a person intracutaneously with sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the second inoculation I do not have the sporocoides material because I do not possess the Strain Rose in the anopheles yet. If you could find it possible to send me a few anopheles infected with Strain Rose during the next few days (in the last consignment 2 out of 10 mosquitoes were infected), I would be able to continue this experiment and I would naturally be very grateful to you for this new support of my work. “The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding satisfactorily; I am working now on six tertiary strains. I remain with hearty greetings and “Heil Hitler! “Yours truly “[Signed] CLAUS SCHILLING” Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a “Strain Rose.” A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that. Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, “L. g. RO 17/4”? A. Yes, that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note “Settled EVF.” That is Erna von Falkenhayn on 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department, Fraeulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old chief although she denies it now; but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraeulein von Falkenhayn did even if she did not tell me about it. Q. Well, you saw the letter of 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling? A. I cannot tell you now. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Frau Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with 10 days before, you can see that such letters were opened by my secretary. Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn’t seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn’t corresponded with Schilling during these years. Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs? A. Yes. Those are a type of anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a type of anopheles I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus in my laboratory. Q. Suppose I put Document NO-1753 to you. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 488 for identification. This is another letter from Schilling. This one is dated a year later—5 July 1943, acknowledging, “with appreciation the receipt of your letter of 30 June and the consignment of atroparvus eggs.” I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last paragraph of the letter where it says: “Please give Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.” Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg? A. No, I am sorry I do not remember the name of this man. Q. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was August. Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had a change of heart yourself. Isn’t that right? A. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to testify anything from memory. You see here again that this matter was apparently dealt with by Fraeulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to me again. Q. Well, I didn’t read it that way, Professor. The first line acknowledges your letter of June 30th. A. Well, then it’s possible that I wrote to Schilling. Q. Frau Block suffered from bad memory about your correspondence with Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn’t she? A. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary remembers such things better, but it is, of course, possible to make mistakes if one doesn’t have access to the files. I have told you that I cannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence because I had too much correspondence. Q. Well, isn’t it possible you supplied material to him in 1944? A. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraeulein von Falkenhayn that the department for fever therapy never gave them any material and, at that time, I no longer had an office in Berlin. However, I must again rely on Fraeulein von Falkenhayn’s testimony. I myself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once or twice over long distance. Q. I put in Document NO-1755. This will be marked “Prosecution Exhibit 489” for identification. This is a reply from you to Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. This letter speaks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn’t it? A. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs, so that we could give up some of them. Q. There wasn’t as big a shortage as you thought; is that right? DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the defendant Rose. It is not impossible that it was written by an assistant and initialed “R.” I know the signature of Professor Rose, and I think the “R” looks a little different. Perhaps he might be shown the photostat. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Let the photostat be shown to the witness. DEFENDANT ROSE: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don’t think it’s very important. * * * * * ----- [34] All “R” references in Document NO-856 are to pages of the Record of the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. [35] “Pros. Ex.” references in this document are to prosecution exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. [36] “Def. Ex.” references in this document are to defense exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al. [37] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13 and 16 December 1946, pp. 418-468. [38] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6410-6484. 4. LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment (indictment, par. 6 (D)). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted and the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Blome were acquitted. The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the Lost (mustard) gas experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 315 to 324. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. It appears below on pages 324 to 334. This argumentation is followed by selection from the evidence on pages 336 to 354. b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_ * * * * * _Gas Experiments_ The treatment of wounds caused by chemical warfare agents was of considerable interest to military medical circles of Germany. On 1 March 1944, the Fuehrer gave Karl Brandt broad powers in the field of chemical warfare. (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270._) The decree itself is not available, but there is no dispute that Brandt’s jurisdiction extended to pharmaceutical products to treat gas wounds. So much he admits. (_Tr. p. 2629._) This necessarily involved a determination of the most effective method of treatment. That the decree included medical research on gas wounds can also be concluded from the fact that copies of the decree which Brandt sent to Himmler (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_) were forwarded to Grawitz and Sievers who had previously worked on this problem. (_NO-013a, Pros. Ex. 271_; _NO-013b Pros. Ex. 272._) In any event, on 31 March 1944, Sievers reported to Brandt about the research activities of Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Hirt had been experimenting on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp since November 1942. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) For a detailed description of Hirt’s experiments, see the brief against Sievers (p. 318 ff). Brandt admitted that Sievers gave him the written report by Hirt, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 268 (_NO-099_) and that this report shows on its face that experiments on human beings were performed by him. (_Tr. p. 2626._) It is significant to note that the report speaks of heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost. Moreover, Brandt admitted he talked to Hirt in Strasbourg in April after the meeting with Sievers. (_Tr. p. 2610._) Approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality were experimented on with gas, of whom about 50 died. They did not volunteer. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) Hirt continued his gas experiments at Natzweiler during the summer of 1944. (_Tr. p. 1058._) His gas research was classified “urgent” by Rostock in August 1944. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._) In addition to his participation in the gas experiments of Hirt, Karl Brandt personally furthered the criminal experimentation of Otto Bickenbach. Brandt testified that the gas experiments of Bickenbach came to his attention in the fall of 1943 on the occasion of a visit to Strasbourg to see a cyclotron; that later he helped him to arrange a laboratory; that he assisted him in obtaining experimental animals; that Bickenbach did not conduct experiments on human beings; that he helped him in 1944 after he had established this laboratory. (_Tr. pp. 2619, 2620._) The Sievers’ diary for 1944 contains the following entry under 2 February: “Met Professor Bickenbach in Karlsruhe and he advises that he has put his research work under the control of General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt. “Discussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt: 1. Professor Dr. Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein, contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning the phosgene experiments that were [and was] in Natzweiler with him. Commission is to be withdrawn; for our part Natzweiler is to be closed.” (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Brandt admits he was in Natzweiler, but insists that only animal experiments were conducted. This is in direct contradiction to statements contained in an official war crimes report of the Government of the Netherlands. (_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) Josef Kramer, former camp commander at Natzweiler, also stated that Bickenbach experimented on prisoners. (_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._) Brandt testified that he later assisted Bickenbach in establishing a laboratory in Fort Franzeky, which is near Strasbourg, and that he saw animal experiments there. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Bickenbach was a professor at the University of Strasbourg with Hirt and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2631._) The Bickenbach reports sent to Karl Brandt not only prove that Bickenbach and his collaborators Helmut Ruehl and Fritz Letz carried out phosgene experiments on 40 Russian prisoners of war, but that four of the subjects were killed as a result. (_NO-1852, Pros. Ex. 456._) This document completely destroys the credibility of the defendant Brandt. These reports on the phosgene experiments are designated top military secret and are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are all addressed to Plenipotentiary General Brandt. These reports obviously cover the same series of experiments which culminated in experiments on 40 prisoners detailed in the 7th report. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach by French authorities. The purpose of these experiments was to determine the effectiveness of a drug called hexamethylentetramine against phosgene poisoning. Certain preliminary studies are detailed in the 4th report, dated 11 August 1944, and mention is made of tests carried out on a “nervous Russian prisoner of war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties * * *”. The 7th report, which is undated, concerns experiments carried out shortly after 11 August 1944 (the date of the 4th report) as Strasbourg was overrun by the Allies a few months later. These experiments were performed on “40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those were protected orally, twenty intravenously and eight were used as controls.” On the basis of the 4th report, it can only be concluded that the 40 prisoners referred to were Russian prisoners of war. The experimental subjects are further described as being “persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found.” (_1852-PS, Pros. Ex. 456._) The experimental persons were subjected to phosgene poisoning with resulting death to no less than four subjects. (_Tr. p. 3404._) Other subjects suffered severe lung oedema. Defense counsel for Karl Brandt urged the possibility that this report was not received by him. Assuming _arguendo_ that the report was not mailed to Brandt, and, if received, not read, the fact remains that the experiments were performed by Bickenbach and his collaborators, whose work was directly controlled by Brandt. (_Supra._) Were there no other evidence on this point, the circumstances of the report having been addressed to Karl Brandt are sufficient proof of his responsibility. Moreover, the research of both Bickenbach and Hirt was classified urgent by Brandt’s Office for Science and Research under Rostock. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._) The continued interest of Brandt in research on chemical warfare agents and his knowledge of experiments on concentration camp inmates are shown by the report dated 31 March 1945 concerning experiments at the Neuengamme concentration camp. (_NO-154, Pros. Ex. 446._) Water decontamination experiments were carried out there on inmates. The report states that the “third series of experiments was carried out with an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost; in accordance with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Brandt.” _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ * * * * * _Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments_ From the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944, experiments to determine the most effective treatment for wounds caused by Lost (mustard) gas were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp under the supervision of Professor Hirt of the Reich University of Strasbourg. The experiments were ordered by Himmler and the Luftwaffe, and sponsored by the Reich Research Council. The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant Sievers supported this research on behalf of the SS. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._) The defendant Sievers participated in these experiments by actively collaborating with the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt, and with Hirt and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer. The record shows that Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least as early as 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler and Hirt. (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_; _NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_.) On 9 April 1942 Sievers wrote to Hirt that Himmler wanted detailed information from Hirt on his Lost experiments. Sievers went on to say: “We are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection with special secret experiments which we are at present conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief secret report for the Reich Leader SS on your Lost experiments? “But you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being, especially since the Reich Leader SS is staying permanently at the Fuehrer’s Headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a visit at Strasbourg as soon as possible. But perhaps it would be easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our secret experiments at Dachau.” (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) The wording of the letter makes it apparent that it was Sievers himself who brought Hirt’s research activities concerning Lost gas to Himmler’s attention. This is also proved by the fact that on 9 February 1942, he had already submitted to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Hirt’s report concerning the creation of a skeleton collection and research in the field of intravital microscopy. The latter experimentation involved the effect of Lost on the living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) Brandt informed Himmler about Hirt’s report on 27 February, and directed Sievers to report again on Hirt’s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) It was thus Sievers’ report on Hirt’s research activities which prompted Himmler to take an interest in Hirt’s Lost experiments. On 27 June 1942 Sievers forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt the information of Hirt concerning the use of mustard gas on combatting rats. In this letter he mentioned that he would have another conference with Hirt on this subject. According to Sievers, Hirt had voiced his expert opinion that Lost even “in a dilution of 1-100 is dangerous for man if it contacts the body in an adequate amount.” (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._) It was Sievers who forwarded on 2 June 1942 Hirt’s report on his experiments in treating gas wounds by vitamins. In his covering letter to this report, Sievers informed the defendant Rudolf Brandt that he was to meet Hirt “in order to discuss with him a more intensive application, continuation, and promotion of his research work”. In the report itself, Hirt stated that he had not been able to conduct experiments with Lost gas on human beings because of the offensive against France, but suggested such experiments particularly in order to determine the protective effect of vitamin treatment. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) In a memorandum of 26 June 1942 concerning support by the Ahnenerbe of the research work of Hirt on mustard gas, Sievers proposed that an Institute for Military Scientific Research be established within the Ahnenerbe to bring together Hirt’s and similar research and thus facilitate the organizational and technical execution of the experiments. He proposed appointing Hirt as an active member of the new institute as chief of Department H (Hirt). He also stated that Rascher, who was then performing high-altitude experiments in collaboration with Ruff and Romberg, should be appointed as chief of Department R (Rascher). He stated that the necessary supplies for the new institute would be easier to explain and more reasonable than if applied for under the name of Ahnenerbe alone. (_NO-2210, Pros. Ex. 483._) As a result of this suggestion by the defendant Sievers, Himmler directed the establishment of the Institute for Military Scientific Research within the Ahnenerbe in July 1942. In his letter to Sievers, Himmler requested that the new institute “support in every possible way the research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and promote all corresponding research and undertakings; to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to procure them * * *.” (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33._) Sievers proceeded to make all the necessary arrangements for carrying out the Lost gas experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. On 27 August 1942 in a letter to Gluecks of the WVHA, he stated that in connection with a visit to Hirt in Strasbourg he would like to take Hirt with him to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942 and he asked Gluecks to make the necessary arrangements with the commander of the camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._) In a file note dated 17 September 1942 Sievers stated that the conference mentioned in his letter to Gluecks had been held in Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, and that the working conditions there for the proposed experiments were favorable. Professor Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach would require automobile transport for part of the trip from Strasbourg to Natzweiler in order to perform their work there, and accordingly 20 liters of gasoline would have to be made available to the camp authorities each month. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers stated that the necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out our military scientific research work * * *”. He requested that Gluecks issue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to enter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their accommodation and board. He also stated that: “The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building are required, in particular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be covered by this office * * *.” (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480._) In a memorandum on 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials. Sievers was particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials were asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. He said that: “When I think of our military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible emergency.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt replied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942, and told Sievers that he had had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and that he had reported that they would be remedied. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex 180._) The witness Holl gave in his testimony an accurate and detailed description of the manner in which the Lost gas experiments were carried out. The execution of the experiments was supervised by Hirt in the experimental station Ahnenerbe in the Natzweiler concentration camp. In the middle of October 1942 the preparation for these experiments was finished and the actual experimentation began sometime in October or November, after the experimental subjects were given the same food as the SS guards for approximately 14 days. The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt on 30 experimental subjects with a liquid gas substance. (_Tr. p. 1051._) In spite of the fact that Hirt, before selecting these experimental subjects, had promised them that he would intervene with Himmler in order that they should be released as a reward if they would volunteer for the experiments, none of the experimental subjects of all the experiments carried out by Hirt volunteered. Political prisoners, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and also some German nationals were among the experimental subjects used. (_Tr. p. 1052._) The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt and an officer of the Luftwaffe in the following manner: One drop of the liquid was applied to the lower arm of the experimental subject. Approximately 10 hours later burns began to appear and spread over the whole body in every place where drops of the fluid contacted the skin. Some of the experimental subjects became partially blind. The victims of these experiments suffered terrible pain. Photographic pictures of the burns were taken daily. After the fifth or sixth day of the experiment, the first fatality occurred. The corpse of the victim was dissected and the autopsy showed that the greater parts of the lungs and other organs had been destroyed. On the following day, that is, on the seventh day of the experiment, another seven of the experimental subjects died. The remaining 22 were sent to another concentration camp after approximately 2 months when they had recovered sufficiently and became fit for transport. (_Tr. pp. 1052-3._) Other experiments on concentration camp inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp were carried out in the gas chamber approximately 500 meters distant from the camp. The experimental subjects had to enter this gas chamber two by two. They had to smash small ampules which contained the liquid. This liquid evaporated and the experimental subject then had to inhale the resulting vapor. Usually the experimental subjects became unconscious and were returned to the Ahnenerbe station for further observation of the results of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1053-4._) These results were approximately the same as those observed in the first series. The breathing organs of the experimental subjects were likewise destroyed. Their lungs had been eaten away by the gas. About 150 concentration camp inmates were experimented upon in this manner. (_Tr. pp. 1034-5._) Approximately the same percentage as in the first series died as a result of this type of experimentation. (_Tr. p. 1056._) Other Lost gas experiments were carried out by means of injection. These experiments were carried out in a special room adjoining the crematorium. The victims of these experiments died without exception. (_Tr. p. 1056._) Another type of experiment was carried out on the experimental subjects, who had to take the liquid orally. As Holl was transferred before Christmas 1943 to an outside camp, he was not able to give information on the results of this type of experiment. (_Tr. p. 1056._) He, however, returned once a month to the Natzweiler concentration camp and was therefore able to observe that the Lost gas experiments continued until autumn 1944, when the Natzweiler concentration camp was liberated by the Allies. (_Tr. pp. 1057-8._) From Holl’s testimony it is proved that approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationalities were experimented upon with gas by Hirt and his collaborators. About 50 of them died. None of the experimental subjects volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) On 7 April 1943, when the Lost experiments were well under way (_supra_), Himmler ordered an intensification of Lost research. At about this time the progress of Hirt’s Lost research was threatened by the transfer of Hirt’s assistant, Wimmer, a medical officer of the Luftwaffe. Since personnel matters fell within the scope of Sievers’ duties, he wrote to Rudolf Brandt protesting the proposed transfer of Wimmer and stating that if Wimmer left the Institute for Military Scientific Research, the Lost experiments would have to end. Sievers then outlined the proper procedure for securing the future services of Wimmer at the Ahnenerbe Institute. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._) Again, on 3 November 1943, Sievers, in order to further the Lost experiments and assure their continuation, made a certificate which enabled two of Hirt’s research assistants to obtain increased food rations. Sievers stated that the research activities in which these persons were engaged with Department H (Hirt), Strasbourg, of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe involved health-damaging poisons which had caused injuries to their health. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) The evidence clearly indicated that during the entire period covered by the Lost experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society. In early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treatment of Poisoning caused by Lost”. The report was described as from the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the Strasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due to Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this report. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer Decree giving him broad powers in the field of chemical warfare (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_), Sievers informed Brandt about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the report. This is proved by Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear that experiments had been conducted on human beings. (_Tr. p. 2626._) The proof has also shown that in October 1943 the defendant Blome, in his capacity as a Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, issued a research assignment for Hirt in support of his gas experiments. This is proved by the file index card on Blome’s research assignment in the Reich Research Council, where the assignment to Hirt by Blome is listed under SS priority number 0329. (_NO-690, Pros. Ex. 120._) Sievers admitted that a Reich research assignment to Hirt “on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms” was made. (_Tr. p. 5817._) He further admitted that at a conference in April 1942, Himmler told him that Hirt should make Lost experiments on human beings other than volunteer military cadets. (_Tr. p. 5679._) Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments. These arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental subjects. (_Tr. pp. 5842-43._) Sievers testified that the Lost experiments were harmful. (_Tr. p. 5810._) On the visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments and watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons. Sievers said that the experimental subjects told him that they were volunteers and Hirt confirmed this to Sievers. (_Tr. p. 5732._) The testimony of Sievers was contradictory as to his knowledge that the Lost experiments caused deaths. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt whether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the experiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects had died due to other causes. (_Tr. p. 5733._) On the other hand, Sievers seemed to be referring to Lost experiments when he stated that he knew of one condemned criminal who had died from the experiments. (_Tr. p. 5810._) As to the nationality of the experimental subjects, Sievers was of the opinion, in view of their manner of speech, that the test persons were Germans. (_Tr. p. 5812._) The proof, however, clearly shows that Sievers already, as early as January 1942, had knowledge that nonvolunteers were to be used for the Lost experiments of Hirt. In his letter of 3 January 1942, Sievers requested Hirt to submit comprehensive research reports to him in order that he might forward them to Himmler. Sievers assured Hirt that Himmler would permit Hirt to conduct experiments of any kind “on prisoners and real criminals who would never be released anyhow and on persons scheduled for execution.” (_NO-3629, Pros. Ex. 547._) Sievers’ diary entries indicate that his primary concern was making the necessary arrangements for the carrying out of the Lost experiments. On 25 January 1943 Sievers visited Natzweiler and consulted with the camp administration; on 28 January 1943 Sievers consulted with Pohl concerning the continuation of the Lost experiments and undoubtedly arranged for the allocation of test persons, although he testified that his conversation related to obtaining space for animals. (_Tr. p. 5736._) On 24 and 25 January Sievers received reports from Hirt on Lost experiments and on 17 March 1943 Sievers attended a conference at the Institute for Military Scientific Research where Lost experiments were reported. (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._) c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_ * * * * * _I. Experiments performed._ Counsel for the defense does not wish to make a statement in this connection. _II. Order to carry out the experiments._ The defendant Karl Brandt is not mentioned in connection with the order to carry out these experiments. 1. _Drug F 1001._ NO-199, Prosecution Exhibit 253, and NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, show that the order to carry out these experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp was given by Himmler or Reich Physician SS Grawitz in 1939. This is confirmed by the fact that the reports on the concluded experiments were submitted to Grawitz or Himmler. 2. _“Lost” experiments._ According to NO-098, Prosecution Exhibit 263, the order to Hirt was given on 13 July 1942 as shown in the letter dated 3 November 1942, which contains a research commission of the SS Institute for Applied Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe. According to 492-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 267, the order to carry out experiments was given by Himmler or Goering. In accordance with Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. pp. 5733-34_) Himmler, on 8 March 1944, ordered Hirt to carry out human experiments despite the latter’s arguments that only animal experiments could achieve further results. The issuing of this order is supported by the fact that the reports were sent to Reich Physician SS Grawitz to be passed on to Reich Leader SS Himmler. NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 269, contains a preliminary final report made by Hirt of the year 1941; NO-097, Prosecution Exhibit 260, Hirt’s final report of 2 June 1942 to be submitted to the Reich Leader SS; also NO-099, Prosecution Exhibit 268, Hirt’s 1944 proposals for treatment. This is also supported by the correspondence between Sievers and Hirt. NO-793, Prosecution Exhibit 258, reports on a conference with Himmler. 3. _N-substance._ The order to carry out the experiments was issued by Reich Physician SS Grawitz in connection with Schwab and after Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Panzinger had been heard. Reference is made to an instruction from Hitler and an order from Himmler of 15 May. _III. Reason for and aim of the experiments._ Statement of the defendant Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2383._) 1. _“Lost” and Drug F 1001._ Research work on a healing drug for injuries, not poisoning, caused by “Lost”. Experiments of this kind have been carried out by all nations since World War I, England being the leading nation in these experiments on human beings. The general need for experiments on human beings, and only those are relevant here, has been recognized by all nations as a military necessity. (_Karl Brandt 106, Karl Brandt Ex. 49_; _Karl Brandt 107, Karl Brandt Ex. 50_.) The necessity to carry out experiments increased in Germany, particularly during World War II, as all nations were eagerly engaged in the manufacture of “Lost” gas. The need became imperative in 1944 when reliable sources reported that the enemy was getting chemical-warfare agents ready. (_Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 12, Karl Brandt Ex. 11_.) 2. _N-substance._ Reasons for and aim of the experiments are unknown. N-substance is the name for “normal” substance. It is not a chemical warfare agent but a fuel substance, intended to be used for ignition. This N-substance is not to be mistaken for N-“Lost”, that is, nitrogen-Lost. (_Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Ex. 36_; _Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_.) _IV. Participation in the performance of the experiments._ 1. _Drug F 1001._ The experiments were carried out exclusively at SS offices on the orders of the Reich Leader SS. They were performed before the defendant Karl Brandt received his first official appointment. 2. _“Lost”._ The experiments were made by Hirt and Wimmer in the SS Institute for Military Scientific Research in Strasbourg. According to Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5788_) the defendant Karl Brandt did not have any influence on these institutions. The “Lost” chemical warfare agent does not act like gas, but in a dried form injures the skin. Ordinarily, experiments are made by all nations by applying small drops of “Lost” to the skin. They cause injuries to the tissue, which are treated with healing drugs. This procedure is demonstrated in Holl’s testimony. (_Tr. p. 1052._) 3. _N-substance._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5738_) shows that the experiments were not carried out due to a laboratory experiment of Professor Thyssen and an expert opinion sent to Himmler. _V. The experimental subjects._ _A. Number of experimental subjects._ 1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement. 2. _“Lost”._ The statements made by the witness Holl about the number of persons experimented upon must be treated with caution, since they do not originate with Holl, but were stated by the prosecution and merely confirmed by Holl. The testimony of Nales about experiments cannot refer to “Lost”. 3. _N-substance._ Since there were no experiments, no statement is made. _B. Consent of the experimental subjects._ 1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement. 2. _“Lost”._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5732_) shows that Hirt said that the experimental subjects had volunteered, following a lecture by Hirt. This testimony seems to be quite trustworthy, as it was usual to make similar experiments on officer candidates of the Academy of Military Medicine in Berlin. Testimony of Becker-Freyseng (_Tr. p. 8072_) as well as testimony of Sievers (_Tr. pp. 5730-31_); also testimony of the witness Nales (_Tr. pp. 10409-10471_). 3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement. _C. Type of experimental subjects._ 1. _F 1001._ The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the experimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case were foreigners used. 2. _“Lost”._ According to Sievers’ testimony, the persons used in the experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that the nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no significance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is no basis to judge the true state of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt’s testimony (_Tr. pp. 4930-34_) shows that he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements are conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the interrogators. 3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement. _D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects._ 1. _Drug F 1001 and “Lost”._ The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments, applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (_Tr. p. 1052_) do not entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (_Tr. p. 1050 ff._) and the affidavit of Wagner (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280_) also, to a certain degree, contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments, an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost” experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a committee. Sievers’ statement (_Tr. p. 5732_) reports a visit to Wimmer at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general condition was not impaired. (_NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253._) In contrast to this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the duration of the experiments. 2. _N-substance._ The experiments were not carried out. Over and above that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm. _VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl Brandt._ 1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders. 2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits: (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 5_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 6_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 4_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 5_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 89_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 37_). They show that this decree does not refer to an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and their research, but that it represents a production order referring to defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders (see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts with Himmler). (_Also Karl Brandt 120_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 35_.) The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is refuted by Karl Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 4930-34._) As a matter of fact the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide this from the enemy. (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_.) 3. Karl Brandt’s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by the fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from Spain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been predominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of cost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (_Karl Brandt 12_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 11._) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on work with N-gas (_NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279_) proves that the defendant Karl Brandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very different sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Exhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further confirmed by Sievers’ letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing experiments by “single possibilities”. NO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July 1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt’s researches in every possible way. 4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the decree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his affidavit, (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_; _Tr. pp. 4941-42_.) _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_ * * * * * 1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp. 2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30 April 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons are supposed to have suffered from severe burns. 3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The prosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers’ participation in the Lost gas experiments: Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_) concerning experiments with insecticides. Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (_NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_) concerning answer to Sievers’ letter. Sievers’ letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s treatises on intravital microscopy and Lost experiments. Sievers’ letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259_) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on the results of Lost experiments. Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s report on Lost wounds. Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the front. Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263_). Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt of 22 April 1943—concerning release of Staff Physician Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._) Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943—concerning Dr. Wimmer’s transfer. (_NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266._) Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of 8 November 1943—concerning the sending of special rations of food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 9 February 1942—concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt’s report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which enables one to observe a living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 269._) Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944—concerning the transmission of a Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (_NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272._) The Fuehrer Decree mentioned—of 1 March 1944—has not been submitted. Letter of the Office “A” to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944 concerning Sievers’ report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September 1942 (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_) concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp. Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942 concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._) Sievers’ memorandum concerning the carrying out of military scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17 September 1942. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) The defense refers to the following evidence: Lost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_; _Tr. p. 5679_; _Tr. pp. 8071-72_.) Professor Dr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University of Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (_Tr. p. 5731._) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself. (_Tr. p. 5733._) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to be carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers. Himmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on human beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942 Himmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had also mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in writing to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where it was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) The heading of this letter is remarkable: “Report on the Lost experiments carried out by order of the Wehrmacht.” Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the report that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost experiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time. From this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings, with the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt. However, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS on 27 August 1942. (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._) In a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt should carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Sievers set out for Natzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain whether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt’s report of 19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the laboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt’s report continues: “We were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards’ diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case. To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the experiment.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) As Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician to the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was asked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer, surgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr. Hirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr. Wimmer’s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (_NO-194, Pros. Ex. 265._) It was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory finance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he wrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the administration of the concentration camps. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481_; _NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482_; _NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_.) They contain only administrative matters. How little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document NO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the commandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice. As for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of the performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp, the following can be stated: Ferdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3 January 1947, said nothing about Sievers’ taking part in any way in the performance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration camp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The witness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS uniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost experiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement, especially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners’ guard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) The witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp hospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of Sievers’ presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any connection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (_Tr. p. 1099 ff._) Sievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also visited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost experiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the experimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about 10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One of the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and Sievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a scab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other hand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found that they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor Hirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of the experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a report on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for their release. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The lecture which Hirt had previously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by the witness Holl. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) This was the only visit Sievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After 25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already known from his diary entries. Sievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a physician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments and the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to be prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt whether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths which, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April 1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the experimental subjects who had reported for the “Burning Experiments” were _volunteers_. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers’ statement of 10 April 1947. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The witness admitted under cross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp physician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the planned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not precisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may certainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned experiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed by the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the choice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was present neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr. Hirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the question of volunteering. 4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give instructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments. Neither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost experiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate administrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt. 5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or become inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of the experiments. We still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some report or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments. As a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer, the “Proposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost” was produced. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) From this report nothing at all is to be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the experimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness of Sievers’ statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no more of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at Natzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal experiments. This must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and NO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give information on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the information which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence submitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under which they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that anyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the experiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter to Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31 March he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on the research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The contents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in his examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only stated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to him the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about being commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No discussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the performance of the experiments. This was the “report” from which the prosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had detailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 2365-66._) The question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report made by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of deaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt’s report did not disclose anything from which one could conclude that a special endangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt declared that he could arrive at further results only through experiments on animals. (_German Tr. p. 5734._) Finally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of the prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy constituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by Dr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (_Tr. p. 5734._) Letter from the firm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (_Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10_; _Tr. p. 5879_; _Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51_.) That intravital microscopic experiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not testified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any document. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become known to third parties through experimental subjects or records. 6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost experiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course of experiments against Himmler’s order. 7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of criminal negligence either. * * * * * d. Evidence _Prosecution Documents_ Pros. Ex. Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page NO-794 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 336 June 1942, concerning mustard gas and its effect on human beings. NO-098 263 Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf 337 Brandt, 3 November 1942, concerning research in the Natzweiler concentration camp. NO-193 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 340 April 1943, regarding prevention of Dr. Wimmer’s to active duty with the air force. NO-099 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the 341 proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost gas. NO-005 279 Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 344 November 1944, requesting prisoners for experiments. NO-1852 456 Extract from report on medical 345 experiments addressed to Karl Brandt. NO-978 480 Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 349 September 1942, concerning military scientific research work to be conducted at Natzweiler concentration camp. _Defense Documents_ Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page Karl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber 350 Ex. 11 on his efforts to purchase experimental animals in Spain and bring them to Germany. Karl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 351 Ex. 41 April 1947, concerning the urgency of experiments in the field of chemical-warfare agents and their countermeasures. Karl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 352 Ex. 42 April 1947, concerning the assignment of Karl Brandt in connection with chemical warfare. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-794 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 259 LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 27 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING MUSTARD GAS AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN BEINGS The Ahnenerbe The Reich Business Manager Berlin-Dahlem, 27 June 1942 G/H/6, g/Sch/4, A/1/101 S/wo To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt Personal Staff of the Reich Leader SS Berlin Subject: Use of mustard gas for exterminating rats. Re: Your letter of 13 July 1942—A 19/95/1942 Dear Comrade Brandt! On request SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg tells me: “Mustard gas in a dilution of 1:100 is dangerous to human beings if it contacts the body in an adequate amount. Above all, mustard gas is dangerously effective to clothing, as is known, even when greatly diluted, especially in connection with dampness. Mustard gas touching the skin even in a dilution of 1:100 causes reddening, possibly it causes little cysts without effecting necrosis. That is, the effect is much weaker than that of pure mustard gas. In spite of that, coming in contact with the clothes in sufficient quantities, especially in the regions of perspiration as the armpit, or the inguinal region, it can have exactly the same effect as concentrated mustard gas. For this, only a trace of it is frequently sufficient. This I experienced in a laboratory accident with a chemical student, who touched his armpit with one of the rabbits only for a second and a reddening ensued which spread over the entire body the following day, however, without further consequences. In my opinion, only a place which can be temporarily evacuated by human inhabitants can be used for gassing. The use of mustard gas in the vicinity of food stores, especially grain dumps, has to be absolutely excluded because one cannot know to what extent the rats carry the mustard gas there. Only gassing of rat holes would be possible with full application of precautionary measures. How this will work out technically, I cannot of course determine. Proper experts would have to judge that. Probably the case may be the same as with other poisons used for the extermination of rats (Phosphor-arsenic, strychnine, etc.)—that means that the use of every type of poison has two sides. In spite of this, your idea to try the extermination of vermin by means of poison gas does not seem strange at all, but an expert on poison gas would have to determine if there are not other means of killing rats which are less harmful to human beings.” With kind regards Heil Hitler! [Signature] SIEVERS P. S. I shall talk over this matter thoroughly with Professor Hirt one of these days, and I will see which poison gas expert we might consult for the solution of the problem. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-098 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 263 MEMORANDUM FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 3 NOVEMBER 1942, CONCERNING RESEARCH IN THE NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION CAMP The Ahnenerbe Reich Business Manager Berlin-Dahlem, 3 November 1942 S/Wo G/H/6 Personal Staff Reich Leader SS [Filing stamp] File Room Document No. Secret/51/16 [shorthand notation] _Note_ Re: Research order SS Hauptsturmfuehrer, Professor Dr. August Hirt, Strasbourg, at the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe. The Reich Leader SS [Himmler] ordered, in his letter of 13 July 1942—Journal number AR/48/7/42—that SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt carry out the research tasks assigned him, in conjunction with the Natzweiler concentration camp. It was determined at a conference, for which I drove, along with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt, to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, that the necessary conditions exist in Natzweiler. I reported on this orally on 9 September 1942, and afterwards in writing on 11 September 1942 to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who agreed and promised his full support. In view of the urgency of these research tasks, I asked SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt to go to Natzweiler again because until then no report on the beginning of the work had arrived. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt reported the following, among other things, concerning this conference which took place at Natzweiler on 19 October 1942: “The conference was due to the fact that until now nothing besides the detachment of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert had been accomplished. Nor had the installation of the laboratories been started to date. “It has now been decided to start with the laboratories this week. “It was further established that the camp for security suspects, Schirmeck, would erect the sheds. Its commander fortunately is ready, as he told us at once, to place the necessary people at our disposal free of charge; whereas Natzweiler would not have been in a position to do so owing to the overbearing and inconvenient demands of the workers. “We were furthermore informed that the prisoners who would later be used for experiments would have to be paid for by us during the period that experiments were being made upon them. “We are to request that the prisoners of the Lost experiment receive full rations (food for guards) to enable the experiments to be carried out under the same conditions as the troops would be under in a possible emergency. We intend for the time being to take 10 prisoners as subjects for experiments. “Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke said that he was refused the assistance of a second physician in supervising the experiments on patients, so that he probably would not have enough time to concern himself with the experiments. “The X-ray apparatus which I could procure here has not yet been definitely allocated by Berlin. We must get it immediately, otherwise we may lose it. “The installation of direct current causes difficulties. One, however, gets the impression that the building operators had not dealt with this problem at all. According to their opinion, a transformer should be procured which is able to transform 220 volts alternating current into direct current. This is most likely quite improbable at this place. “To equip the laboratory, I would ship the needed things (freezing microtome, incubators, etc.) from the stocks of the Anatomical Institute to Natzweiler during the next week. They remain, of course, the property of the Anatomical Institute. The two prisoners trained in handling the microtome can then be put to work. According to Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, both should be proficient at it.” On the basis of this report, I have the impression that not too much interest in cooperative work exists at Natzweiler. As such cooperation is ordered by the Reich Leader SS and as SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks is willing, the whole thing is not understandable to me. I was very much surprised by the fact that the prisoners to be used for experiments should be paid for. If we use only 10 prisoners for one experiment, which might under certain circumstances last 10 months, the cost for the prisoners alone would total approximately 4,000 RM. When I think of our military research work conducted at the concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special attention to the generous and understanding way in which our work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given. Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that to the German people in a possible emergency. The budget of the institute will be met, according to the order of the Reich Leader of the SS and as already discussed by me in detail with SS Standartenfuehrer Loerner, out of the funds of the Waffen SS. Under the supposition that the prisoners needed for experiments are in the prescribed condition as regards nourishment by this time, the experiments could start approximately on 10 November 1942. Special treatment in Dachau was never the subject of special instructions but was understood to be necessary and issued without further ado. On the occasion of his personal inspection of the experiments at Dachau, the Reich Leader SS also ordered special food as an additional measure. Just as the Reich Leader SS appeared one day at Dachau to have a look at the experiments there, this is possible at Natzweiler too. [Signature] SIEVERS SS Obersturmbannfuehrer 1. To SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt to read in reference to our discussion of today and with the request for help in comradely fashion in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. 2. Documents. [Initials] SI TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-193 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 264 LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 22 APRIL 1943, REGARDING PREVENTION OF DR. WIMMER’S TRANSFER TO ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE AIR FORCE Copy Ahnenerbe Society The Reich Business Manager Berlin-Dahlem, 22 April 43 G/H/6 S/No Note [Handwritten] Some information on W. is also in the files of Prof. Hirt Diary No. 41/8/43 G. Mue. To: SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. R. Brandt Personal Staff Reich Leader SS Berlin SW 11, Prinz Albrecht Str. 8. Subject: Dr. med. habil. Karl Wimmer, born on 24 October 1910, staff physician of the Luftwaffe, commanded by Air Gau Physician 7, Munich, for service with the Anatomical Institute of Strasbourg University. Co-worker at the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe Society, Department SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Hirt, Strasbourg. Re: Your letter of 10.42. No. AR/48/7/42. Our letter of 25.7.42. Dear Comrade Brandt! Effective immediately, Dr. Wimmer has been transferred to the XIth Fliegerkorps [subordinate operational Command of an Air Fleet], and according to information given by the Air Gau Medical Department 7 was to report today to Oberstabsarzt Dr. Jaeger, Berlin-Tempelhof, Manfred von Richthofenstr. 6./II. As Jaeger is going to be absent until 27 April, Dr. Wimmer will have to wait for a decision, until that date. The transfer of Dr. Wimmer means discontinuance of the gas experiments at Natzweiler and Strasbourg, as— 1. Replacement cannot be supplied due to the specialized knowledge necessary. 2. The practical knowledge gained by Dr. Wimmer through an extensive series of experiments can only be used by him. 3. On Dr. Wimmer’s leaving, SS Hauptsturmfueherer Prof. Dr. Hirt will have to take over his lectures and as he, considering his state of health, is already more than overworked, he can no longer go on with research work. Interim report on experiment results up to now will follow next week to be submitted to the Reich Leader SS. The intensification of experiments and research, as well as the continuation of the work at all, as ordered by the Reich Leader SS on the basis of our discussion on 7 April, is out of the question, if the small staff of co-workers at the disposal of Prof. Dr. Hirt, especially Dr. Wimmer, is withdrawn. The problems to be solved constantly demand scientists with long years of experience and specialized knowledge. Dr. Wimmer would now be employed only as an army doctor, which is totally uneconomical considering his knowledge and abilities, as his services as an army doctor will never be of vital importance as regards the war, while this may well be said of his scientific activities. Obviously the Recruiting Office of the Waffen SS at that time contented itself with the information of the Reich Air Minister and Supreme Commander of the German Luftwaffe, without concluding a definite agreement. I request immediate steps for this to be remedied; the best would be to order Dr. Wimmer to the Waffen SS at least until 31.13.43 [sic] and if necessary the Reichsarzt SS should send an army doctor in his place to the Luftwaffe for the time Dr. Wimmer is assigned to the Waffen SS. With best regards Heil Hitler! Yours [Signed] SIEVERS [typewritten] TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-099 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 268 REPORT BY HIRT AND WIMMER ON THE PROPOSED TREATMENT OF POISONING CAUSED BY LOST GAS Top Secret [Handwritten] Enclosure of Top Secret Z. I. A. H. No. 36 G. Tgb. S. 19, No. 170 From the Institute for Military Scientific Research Department H of the Research and Instruction Society Ahnenerbe (Reich Leader SS Personal Staff, Office “A”) Strasbourg, Anatomical Institute. _Proposed treatment of poisoning caused by Lost [Gas]_ (By Professor Dr. A. Hirt, and Staff Surgeon of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Wimmer, Strasbourg, 1944) _General Observations_ The effect of Lost as a poison gas is immediate and, by causing other pathological reactions within the cells and organs, it damages the entire efficiency of the individual cell as well as that of the organs. The organism stands the best chance of absorbing the damage caused by Lost if there is a large vitamin reserve in the body. In administering the vitamin treatment after Lost damage has been inflicted, care must be taken that the medicaments are not administered indiscriminately. The vitamin combinations (A, B complex, C) taken orally or vitamin B_{1} administered intravenously in glucose suspension have proved most effective. Both methods aim at raising the resistance of the reticuloendothelial system, while simultaneously introducing therapeutic measures to protect the liver which can be further strengthened by food with a high carbohydrate and vitamin content. When definite damage to the organs (liver, cardiac muscles, kidneys) manifests itself, vitamin treatment has to be discontinued and injections of B_{1} glucose substituted, as the excretion of the surplus quantity of vitamins results in a temporary additional overstimulation of the cells of the excretory organs. In addition the inter-connection between the effect of sulfanilamide and vitamin B complex should be noted. In the case of pulmonary complications (bronchial pneumonia, pulmonary abscess) which are treated with sulfanilamides, the administration of yeast is definitely not indicated. The general treatment, as set forth, especially the administration of vitamin B_{1} glucose, also has a salutory effect on the healing of cutaneous necrosis. In average and serious cases, the length of the healing process can thereby be considerably decreased. Supporting measures to be taken are bandaging the affected limb in splints until the appearance of clean granulation or placing the patient in a suitable recumbent position as well as vigorous, systematic psychotherapy. The psychological influencing of the largely apathetic Lost patient constitutes an essential part of the treatment, due to the possibility of thereby influencing the parasympathetic system (circulation, circulatory system). _Outline of treatment_ 1. All the directions given for the elimination of the Lost poison are to be followed carefully. Only _after_ elimination of the poison has resulted may Lost patients be treated and accommodated together in enclosed rooms. (Inhalation of Lost vapors!) 2. Damp dressings with Rivanol (0.1-0.05 percent) and Trypaflavin (0.1 percent) have proved to be a successful treatment of the _skin symptoms_ (reddening, swelling, blisters) of the first to fourth day. If necessary, ointment dressings (10 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment, etc.) may be applied. With the opening of the blisters, the exposed corium of the skin becomes extremely sensitive to the drying reflex. Introductory treatment; daily bathing with a potassium permanganate solution, constant damp dressings of Rivanol-Trypaflavin solution; later on ointment dressings (5 percent cod liver oil tannic ointment, boric acid ointment). With the development of _cutaneous necrosis_ and increasing disinfection of the affected parts of the skin, the damp dressings are to be substituted—if only for nursing reasons—by ointment dressings, after bathing with a potassium permanganate solution at body temperature, which are to be changed daily. Usually after the 17th day, the necrotic spots on the skin can be removed by drying them up or better still by brushing them off (under narcosis if necessary) with a potassium permanganate solution. In this way the local healing process is considerably shortened. With the beginning of the knitting of the skin granulation stimulating ointment dressings (alternately cod liver oil ointment, boric acid ointment, unguentine, etc.) are sufficient. Lexer’s cod liver ointment (only 2 hours, painful!) can provide a strong _stimulus_ should granulation formation be slow and drag itself out. 3. General treatment of average and serious Lost damage begins with administering a vitamin mixture compounded as follows: Vitamin A (in the form of Vogane oil) increasing from 4 to 10 drops daily. Vitamin C (Cantan—Cebion tablets) 2 tablets 3 times daily. Yeast powder 3 teaspoonfuls daily. One should consider whether a vitamin compound of similar preparation—if need be with the addition of glucose—should be produced for the combat troops. Such a powder mixture would have to be administered in increasing quantities as well. In all cases of absorbed Lost damage (liver damage indicated by increased secretion of urobilinogen in the urine, later icteric skin coloring, cardiac muscle damage with tachycardiacs, kidney damage with albumin secretion in the urine) treatment with vitamin mixtures is to be discontinued and to be substituted by injections of vitamin B_{1} glucose. (Betaxin—Betabion 2 cc.—also in larger dosages—intravenously with 10 cc. 20 percent glucose solution.) Injections are to be given slowly, since at the height of Lost damage the veins of the arms incline to thrombosis! In the latter case glucose has to be administered orally and vitamin B_{1} intramuscularly. There exists the possibility, in every case of considerable Lost damage, of a sudden failure of circulation (frequently between the 7th and 17th day) indicated by a weak response to heart and circulatory stimulants. Heart stimulants (strophanthin, caffeine, digitalis) and circulatory stimulants (sympatol, priscol, camphor, cardiazol) have therefore to be administered with care in serious cases. The therapeutic routine valid for all clinical treatment is particularly valid for cases of organic damage. TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-005 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 279 LETTER FROM GRAWITZ TO HIMMLER, 22 NOVEMBER 1944, REQUESTING PRISONERS FOR EXPERIMENTS The Reich Leader SS Reich Physician SS and Police _Diary No. 39/44 Top Secret_ Berlin W. 15, 22 November 1944 Knesebeckstrasse 50/51 Telephone: 924249.924374.924351.924406. Top Secret Subject: Experiment with N-substance. Reference: Order of Reich Leader SS of 15 May 1944 2 copies, 1st copy To: Reich Leader SS H. Himmler Field H. Q. Reich Leader: The Chief of the Technical Office in the SS Administrative Main Office, SS Gruppenfuehrer Schwab, contacted me in September of this year with the request to furnish him with two doctors, who as medical experts were to witness experiments with N-substance, which he was carrying out at the time by order of the Fuehrer. This was above all a matter of the clarification of the question whether N-substance was to be considered for chemical warfare or not. For this purpose I have furnished my leading pathologist, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Sachs, as well as the doctor working on the Ahnenerbe, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer University Teacher Dr. Ploetner. In accordance with the experiments carried out on 25 September 1944, the necessity has now arisen to carry out several experiments on human beings for the final clarification of the physiological effect of N-substance on and through the human skin. Five prisoners are necessary for the execution of these experiments. It is highly improbable that the experiments will cause any permanent damage. In accordance with your order of 15 May 1944, Reich Leader, I have obtained the opinion of SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Gebhardt, SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks, and SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger. They read as follows: _1. SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt_ “I am certainly in agreement with suggestion, and request that the directions for the supervision of the experiments be issued directly by the Reich Physician SS and Police.” _2. SS Gruppenfuehrer Gluecks_ “I have received your letter of 7 November 1944 with regard to the procurement of five prisoners for the experiments which are to be carried out with N-substance. “For this purpose I have had five prisoners in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp who have been condemned to death placed in readiness, on whom these experiments can be carried out.” _3. SS Oberfuehrer Panzinger_ “From the point of view of the criminal police the experiments to be carried out there are to be welcomed. Therefore, no misgivings exist against the handing over of prisoners for inoculation. “If political prisoners should be considered, the Chief of Office IV, SS Gruppenfuehrer Mueller would still have to be consulted, but he will certainly also grant permission.” I respectfully request the permission so that the experiments can be initiated. Heil Hitler! [Signed] GRAWITZ [stamp] Personal Staff of Reich Leader SS Received: 26 November 1944 No. 1991/44 TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1852 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 456 EXTRACT FROM REPORT ON MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ADDRESSED TO KARL BRANDT _Contents_ Report. (2d copy) 2 and 3 Phosgene experiments Ruehl 4 and 5 T-experiments Letz 6 Aerosol experiment Letz 7 Natzweiler (3d copy) 6. 1st copy 7. 1st copy * * * * * Top Secret 3 copies—3d copy To the Fuehrer’s Plenipotentiary General for Health and Medical Services, Surgeon-General Professor Dr. Brandt, Berlin Ziegelstrasse 5/9 Surgical Clinic at the University _7th Report_ On the protective effect of hexamethylentetramine in phosgene poisoning. Experiments were carried out on 40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those were protected orally, twenty intravenously, and eight were used as controls. _The method_ The chamber has a capacity of 20 cbm. In experiments I to XIV the chamber was given a coat of paint which had a strong deteriorating effect on phosgene. This decrease in concentration was measured after experiment XI; the curves are shown on chart I [not reproduced]. The greatest decrease measured was taken as basis for the calculations of the average concentration for experiments I to XI. In experiments XII to XV, the initial concentration and its decrease were measured separately in each case. In the tables II and III, c_{o} stands for the quantity of phosgene infused into the chamber in mg/cbm, c_{m} for the calculated average concentration, _t_ for the time of reaction. c_{m} was measured as an arithmetic medium from 5 to 7 and calculated on the curve values obtained through interpolation. B. The experimental subjects were all persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found. In the first experiments up to 6g hexamethylentetramine were given orally, later despite the much higher concentrations 0.06 g/kg body weight, orally as well as intravenously. _Results_ The intravenously protected experimental subjects, without exception, all survived the phosgene poisoning with a c. t. of 247 to 5,400. There were no symptoms of pulmonary oedema after intravenous protection even with a c. t. of 2,970. Only experiment No. 10 with a c. t. of 3,960 suffered pulmonary oedema of the first degree, which was overcome without any therapy and in experiment No. XIV the intravenous protection was penetrated to an extent to cause pulmonary oedema of the 3d degree, which however was overcome by oxygen inhalation. The experimental subject recovered. All control subjects fell ill. With a c. t. of 768 and 1,180 a first degree pulmonary oedema resulted which was overcome. With a c. t. of 2,275, one control subject died, the second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema but recovered. A c. t. of 5,400 killed one control subject after 4 hours, the other after 14 hours. After oral protection, a c. t. of 247 to 768 was suffered without any oedema, even when the protective solution of hexamethylentetramine was drunk only 2-3 minutes before the inhalation of the phosgene. Two control subjects showed a marked oedema with a c. t. of 768. With a c. t. of 1,485 one protected subject fell seriously ill with a second degree oedema, a second subject likewise protected, having breathed the same phosgenic air, was unaffected. The cause of this striking difference must be sought in the different resorption of the hexamethylentetramine on the one hand and in the different reaction and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects on the other hand. Even a c. t. of 2,275 resulted in only a slight pulmonary oedema in an orally protected test subject, whereas one control subject died after 4 hours, and a second contracted a second degree pulmonary oedema. The oral protection was penetrated by a c. t. of 5,400, the protected test subject died, as did the two control subjects. Experiment XV is characteristic of the test schedule and its results, and will therefore again be specially described. Of four test subjects, the first was protected orally, the second intravenously, the third received an intravenous injection of hexamethylentetramine after the poisoning, in order once more to ascertain the effect of therapeutic treatment, the fourth was not treated at all. The four subjects were placed in the chamber in which a phial containing 2.7 grams of phosgene was smashed. The test subjects remained in this concentration for 25 minutes. The phosgene content was measured three times during the inhalation. The readings showed an average concentration of 91 mg. per cbm. The subject protected intravenously remained healthy, and did not show the least signs of difficulties or symptoms, the orally protected subject contracted a slight pulmonary oedema, subsequently bronchopneumonia and pleurisy, from which he recovered. One control subject also survived his pulmonary oedema; the second died a few hours later, and the autopsy showed the characteristics of very serious pulmonary oedema. _Summary_ The conclusions of the experiment are impaired by the varying constitutions and the general poor state of nutrition and of physique of the experimental subjects, as well as by the different behavior and the different volume of respiration of the experimental subjects under gas, which was here demonstrated for the first time. But the experiments gave the following decisive conclusions: 1. A previous intravenous injection of 3 grams of hexamethylentetramine completely prevents serious toxic and fatal phosgene poisoning from a c. t. of 2,275. 2. An endurable quantity of hexamethylentetramine taken prophylactically weakens a fatal poisoning to such an extent that it can be overcome without treatment. c. t.=2,275. 3. Nonfatal but nevertheless oedema-producing poisonings are made positively ineffective by intravenous application, and are weakened by oral application, c. t. 250 to 1,980. 4. The oral application of hexamethylentetramine is no longer effective against phosgene poisoning of a c. t.=5,400, the intravenous injection, however, weakens the effect to such an extent that the protected subject is able to overcome a lung oedema. 5. The _dosis letalis minima_ (minimum lethal dose) based on these experiments cannot yet be determined with certainty. One c. t. of 2,275 resulted in the death of one experimental subject, and the second developed second degree oedema of the lungs which was cured. 6. Some of the protected experimental subjects who did not develop oedema of the lungs remained completely healthy, others suffered from slight bronchitis with a brief fever. In every case they recovered without treatment. * * * * * TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-978 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 480 LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO GLUECKS, 11 SEPTEMBER 1942, CONCERNING MILITARY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH WORK TO BE CONDUCTED AT NATZWEILER CONCENTRATION CAMP The Reich Leader SS Personal Staff The Chief of the Office Ahnenerbe Berlin-Dahlem, 11 September 42 Puecklerstr. 16 [handwritten] secret G/W/12 To: SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks Berlin-Oranienburg Subject: Military Scientific Research in Connection with the Natzweiler Concentration Camp. Reference: Personal discussion of the 9th inst. Brigadefuehrer, Based on my report that, as proposed by the Reich Leader SS, there is a good possibility for carrying out our military scientific research work in the Natzweiler concentration camp, I hereby summarize what awaits your approval: 1. Information to the commander’s office, Natzweiler concentration camp: SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach are authorized to enter the Natzweiler concentration camp. During their activity in the Natzweiler concentration camp, they are to be provided with accommodations and board. 2. SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, at present supply sergeant in the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp, is to be detached for service with the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Personal Staff Reich Leader SS, Strasbourg-Natzweiler section. Walbert will have to tend the animals under the supervision of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. It is requested that another man be assigned to the administration of the Natzweiler concentration camp in order to replace SS Oberscharfuehrer Walbert. 3. The transfer of two prisoners from the group which has been trained on the microtome for pathological research in the Buchenwald concentration camp is requested. 4. It is furthermore requested, that a younger physician be assigned to assist the camp medical officer, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blanke, in the Natzweiler concentration camp. 5. The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building are required, in particular the installation of the hood which can be produced with very little material. In accordance with attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the reconstruction. 6. All the expenses arising out of our activity at Natzweiler will be covered by this office. I have already discussed the accounting procedure with the administrative leader, SS Obersturmfuehrer Faschingbauer. In conclusion I would be very grateful to you, my dear Brigadefuehrer, if you would inform the commander of the Natzweiler concentration camp, that you have approved the execution of the work at Natzweiler, just as it was discussed with me there, and about which I reported to you in detail, and that you desire that we be given assistance in fulfilling the duties with which we have been entrusted by the Reich Leader SS. Heil Hitler! [Signed] SIEVERS SS Obersturmbannfuehrer 2. To SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. Hirt TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 12 KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 11 AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTHER SCHIEBER ON HIS EFFORTS TO PURCHASE EXPERIMENTAL ANIMALS IN SPAIN AND BRING THEM TO GERMANY _Affidavit 111_ I, Dr. Walther Schieber, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, have been duly warned that I am liable to punishment if I make a false statement. I affirm under oath that my deposition corresponds to the truth and was made to be offered in evidence before Military Tribunal No. I at the Palace of Justice, at Nuernberg, Germany. During the summer of 1944, Professor Karl Brandt informed me during discussions concerning the execution of the especially urgently operated Brandt—and defense—program against chemical warfare agents that he was having considerable difficulties in procuring animals which were needed for test purposes concerning the effect of the top chemical warfare agents and for which he had requests from testing office. At that time the problem was how to convert the production of chemical warfare agents on account of raw material shortage to the production of the top chemical warfare agent Sarin, the effect of which would not yet be finally determined. To carry out these tests, an action to procure animals was started by me in Spain, instigated by Professor Karl Brandt; because of the biological reaction parallels to human beings, apes resembling men were allegedly needed. An assistant was sent there especially for this purpose. For this, the armament office offered approximately 200,000 Swiss francs, and after my resignation as Chief of the Armament Supply Office in October 1944 from the Speer Ministry I made strenuous efforts, together with Professor Karl Brandt, to have a large number of animals brought by extremely difficult air transportation from Spain to Germany. These were put at Professor Karl Brandt’s disposal for the testing offices. [Signed] WALTHER SCHIEBER TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 101 KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 41 AFFIDAVIT OF DR. OTTO AMBROS,[39] 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE URGENCY OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICAL WARFARE AGENTS AND THEIR COUNTERMEASURES I, Dr. Otto Ambros, at present in Nuernberg, Justice Prison, having been duly informed that I shall render myself punishable if I submit a false affidavit, declare under oath that my statement is true and was made for presentation in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I in the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. During the war I was a director of I. G. Farben and had to work on chemical warfare agents and protective agents, and can therefore state the following: I got into touch with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt during 1944. On that occasion Professor Brandt told me he had to take an interest in chemical warfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed me a letter from Adolf Hitler referring to this subject. Furthermore, he stated that he did not understand very much about chemical warfare, as he was not an analytical chemist. His primary concern in this field was the question of the supply of materials for gas masks, i. e., activated charcoal and the synthetic materials and textiles which are necessary for these. Professor Brandt visited two poison gas plants at Dyherrnfurth and Gendorf, to become generally acquainted with the nature of poison gas itself. There was the greatest uneasiness at that time regarding protection against chemical warfare, as it was thought that the Allies would use poison gas. It was said that they had brought poison gas over with them when they landed at Tunis. It was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed to the possibility of the use of a new kind of poison gas. On the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical warfare protective equipment, as not even the most urgently needed gas masks were available, nor was it even possible to produce the required number. Nuernberg, 21 April 1947. [Signature] DR. OTTO AMBROS TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 103 KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 42 AFFIDAVIT OF DR. WALTER MIELENZ, 21 APRIL 1947, CONCERNING THE ASSIGNMENT OF KARL BRANDT IN CONNECTION WITH CHEMICAL WARFARE I, Dr. Walter Mielenz, born 20 November 1888 in Berlin, residing in Berlin-Friedenau, Ceciliengaerten 45 (business address: Berlin-Lichterfelde W, Kadettenweg 67, Telephone 245218), have been duly advised that I shall render myself liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my statement is true and was made to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal No. I, at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany. From 1933 to 1945 I worked at the Reich Air Ministry as an analytical chemist, technical advisor on the question of the protection of the civilian population against gas. I am familiar with the decree of 1 March 1944 in which special tasks were assigned to Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in connection with chemical warfare. As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as follows: “I have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service (Professor Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of the army and the civilian population) and to issue orders to the stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose. In questions of the protection of the civilian population against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe.” The decree certainly did not contain any order for research in connection with chemical warfare agents. The reason for the appointment of Professor Karl Brandt was the assumption that the initiation of chemical warfare by the enemy was shortly to be expected. This assumption was based on the fact that intelligence was accumulating, according to which gas was being prepared in large quantities by the enemy. Thus confidential agents reported that poison gas ammunition was being stored at Tunis and Dakar, and these reports were constantly being confirmed. The greatest alarm was caused by the examination of captured Russian gas masks, which showed that they afforded protection against far stronger concentrations of poison gas than it had so far been believed possible to achieve at the front. Their protective capacity far surpassed that of the German Army and civilian gas masks. From this fact, it could be concluded that the scientists and technicians of the Red Army had succeeded in developing new and particularly effective methods of attack in chemical warfare for known or new chemical warfare agents. The German measures for gas defense were totally inadequate in number, too. The civilian population in particular was exposed almost without defense to gas attacks because the issue of civilian and infants’ gas masks in many town and country districts was seriously behind schedule. The relevant figures for civilian gas masks in the different supply areas were between 10 and 70 percent of the population to be equipped, the average figure being about 32 percent, and for infants’ gas masks, about 7 percent. This estimate is based on the total number of civilian and infants’ gas masks manufactured up to that date, in relation to the total number of persons entitled to supply. This estimate did not take into consideration the fact that, without doubt a large part of the equipment which, in some cases had been in the hands of the population for years, was no longer completely fit for use on account of faulty unsuitable storage, or had been rendered useless by air raid damage, evacuation of the owners, and other reasons, or lost completely. The losses in civilian gas masks were estimated at about 15,000,000 (almost 50 percent of the total output up to that date) so that for the completion of the initial equipment (without reserves) the manufacture of 45,000,000 gas masks had to be planned. In view of these facts, Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was assigned the task of providing with the utmost speed for the improvement of gas defense to avert the danger which threatened. Through the initiative of Professor Brandt, the gas defense program was finally given the highest priority and had an equal standing with the program for the construction of fighter planes and tanks. I know that Professor Dr. Brandt was most strongly opposed to the propaganda demand spread by extreme Party circles for the initiation of chemical warfare by Germany. I regularly had to work with Professor Karl Brandt on gas defense and I know that in view of their importance and urgency, he dispatched all matters himself. The Department of Science and Research and its chief, Professor Rostock, were not concerned with these matters. The N-agent was not one of the chemical warfare agents. It is an incendiary agent composed of chlorine and fluorine (ClF_{3}); this N-agent has never been mentioned in connection with gas defense. I know that there existed in the Armament Ministry a special commission for the decontamination of drinking water; this had neither been established by Professor Brandt nor was it under his command. The task of this commission was the production of decontamination equipment but not the development of such equipment, and especially not the development of new processes for the decontamination of water. The repeated suggestions made by Professor Haase in this context were therefore beyond the field of activity of the commission. They were discussed, however, at a meeting in December 1944, at which I was present. At this meeting the representatives of the army and the air raid protection service stated that for their sphere, i. e., for the gas defense of the troops and the civilian population, there was no need to continue this work. Professor Brandt who was present at the meeting had already agreed in advance with the general opinion that the efforts of Haase did not admit of the expectation of any improvement on the experiences presented for consideration, and that they should therefore be rejected. He therefore asked me to work towards this end. As far as I know, the commission was never concerned with sea-water experiments. In particular, to my knowledge, the commission had no knowledge of human experiments for the testing of agents designed to render sea-water potable. I can state with certainty that the undertaking of gas experiments on human subjects was never spoken of by Professor Brandt and myself. Moreover, during discussions with army experts concerned with gas defense and chemical warfare, I never heard that Professor Brandt in any way suggested human experiments or otherwise spoke of such experiments. Nuernberg, 21 April 1947 [Signature] DR. WALTER MIELENZ ----- [39] Defendant in case of United States vs. Carl Krauch, et al. See Vols. VII and VIII. 5. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS a. Introduction The defendants, Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Schroeder, Genzken, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Becker-Freyseng, Oberheuser, and Fischer were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sulfanilamide experiments (par. 6 (E) of the indictment). During the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Schroeder, Blome, and Becker-Freyseng. On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, Oberheuser, and Fischer were convicted and the defendants Rostock, Genzken, and Poppendick were acquitted. Regarding the defendant Rudolf Brandt, the judgment makes no reference to this charge. The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the sulfanilamide experiments is contained in its final brief against the defendant Gebhardt. An extract from that brief is set forth below on pages 355 to 364. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant Gebhardt. It appears below on pages 364 to 370. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 371 to 391. b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution _EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_ * * * * * A. SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS Experiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide on infections were conducted in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp from 20 July 1942 until August 1943. These experiments were performed by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) Gebhardt personally requested Himmler’s permission to carry out the sulfanilamide experiments and their execution was his responsibility. (_Tr. pp. 4024-5._) He himself carried out the initial operations. (_Tr. p. 4032._) The experimental subjects consisted of 15 male concentration camp inmates, who were used during the preliminary experiments in July 1942, and 60 Polish women who were experimented on in 5 groups of 12 subjects each. The purpose of the experiments was stated in a preliminary report by Gebhardt dated 29 August 1942, in which he stated: “By order of the Reich Leader SS, I started on 20 July 1942 at Ravensbrueck concentration camp for women on a series of clinical experiments with the aim of analyzing the sickness known as gas gangrene, which does not take a uniform course, and to test the efficacy of the known therapeutic medicaments. “In addition, the simple infections of injuries which occur as symptoms in war surgery had also to be tested; and a new chemo-therapeutic treatment, apart from the known surgical measures, had to be tried out.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) The sulfanilamide experiments, as substantially all of the experiments with which the case is concerned, were directly related to the German war effort. Allied propaganda about the “miracle drug” sulfanilamide was having considerable effect on the confidence of the German soldiers in their medical officers. Heavy casualties had been sustained from gas gangrene on the Russian front in the winter of 1941-42. The theoretical question to be answered by these experiments was whether the wounded should be treated surgically in the front line hospitals or should be treated by field medical officers with sulfanilamide and then sent down the long lines of communication to a base hospital for further treatment. (_Tr. pp. 4010-14._) The same report cited above states that the defendant Fischer was appointed by Gebhardt as his assistant; Dr. Blumenreuter, a subordinate of the defendant Genzken, made available the surgical instruments and medicines; the defendant Mrugowsky put his laboratory and co-workers at the disposal of Gebhardt; and Dr. Lolling, chief medical officer of all concentration camps, assigned Dr. Schiedlausky and the defendant Oberheuser as co-workers. This preliminary report concerns itself with the early experiments on 15 male subjects to determine a mode of infection with gangrene. Gebhardt was assisted by the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, which made available the bacteria and gave advice on the method of bringing about gangrene infection artificially. The experimental technique was described in the report as follows: “The point was to implant the lymph cultures on the damaged muscle tissue, to isolate the latter from atmospheric and humoral oxygen supply, and to subject it to internal tissue pressure. The inoculation procedure was as follows: a longitudinal cut of 10 centimetres over the musculus peroneus longus; after incision into the fascia the muscle was tied up with forceps in an area the size of a five-Mark piece; an anaemic peripheral zone was created by injection of 3 cc. adrenalin and in the area of the damaged muscle the inoculation material (a gauze strip saturated with bacteria) was imbedded under the fascia, subcutaneous adipose tissue and skin sutured in layers.” (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) In the first series of experiments the subjects were infected with staphylococci, streptococci, para oedema malignum, bacteria Fraenkel, and earth. The resulting infections were not considered serious enough, and a conference was held with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS and the bacteria used in bringing about the infections were changed. Six additional male subjects were then infected, but again the results were not considered serious enough. After further consultation with the collaborators in the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, the infectious material was changed by adding wood shavings. During the course of these experiments the subjects were treated with various types of sulfanilamides, including catoxyn and marfanil-prontalbin, the latter being strongly recommended by the Army Medical Inspectorate. Efforts continued to make the gangrene infection more serious, and the report concluded with the following paragraph: “We are now investigating the problem as to why the gangrene in the present cases did not fully develop. Therefore, the injuring of the tissue and the exclusion of a muscle from the circulation of the blood were undertaken during a separate operating session, _and the large-scale necrosis resulting therefrom, was to be inoculated with bacteria strain which had already had one human passage_. For it is only when the really definite clinical picture of the gangrene has appeared that conclusions may be drawn on therapy with chemo-therapeutics in connection with surgical operations.” [Emphasis supplied.] (_NO-2734, Pros. Ex. 473._) This report was certified as a correct copy by the defendant Poppendick. In his zealousness to protect his fellow defendants, Gebhardt testified that neither the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS nor the defendant Mrugowsky played any part in these experiments, and that the infectious material was sent to him by Grawitz. (_Tr. p. 4179._) This is clearly contradicted by his own report cited above. Following the conclusion of the preliminary experiments on the male prisoners, experiments were continued on female Polish inmates. The affidavit of the defendant Fischer states that three series of operations were performed, each involving 10 persons, one using the bacterial culture and fragments of wood, the second using bacterial culture and fragments of glass, and the third using culture plus glass and wood. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) These experiments were undertaken during the month of August 1942. While Fischer speaks of experimental groups of 10 persons each, the defendant Gebhardt testified that the groups were composed of 12 experimental subjects. (_Tr. p. 4056._) On 3 September 1942, after 36 women had been experimented on, Reich Physician SS Grawitz visited Ravensbrueck and inspected the experimental subjects. He asked Gebhardt how many deaths had occurred, and when it was reported that there had been none, he stated that the experiments did not conform to battlefield conditions. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. p. 4057_.) In order to make the gangrene infections still more severe, a new series of experiments involving 24 Polish female inmates was carried out. In this series the circulation of blood through the muscles was interrupted in the area of infection by tying off the muscles on either end. This series of experiments resulted in very serious infections and a number of deaths occurred. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206._) Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser all admit that three of the experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments. (_NO-228, Pros. Ex. 206_; _Tr. pp. 4059, 5492_.) Other evidence, however, proves that five died as a direct result of the experiments and six were executed by shooting at a later date. (_Tr. pp. 1438, 1449, 797, 845, 863._) Four of the Polish women who were subjected to these experiments testified before the Tribunal. Most of the women who were used as subjects had been active in a resistance movement. (_Tr. pp. 787, 816, 840, 857._) Only healthy inmates were used. (_Tr. pp. 786, 815, 836, 856, 860-1._) None of them volunteered for the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 789, 819, 842, 844-5, 861._) On the contrary, they protested against the experiments both orally and in writing. (_Tr. pp. 789, 794, 823-5._) They stated that they would have preferred death to continued experiments, since they were convinced that they were to die in any event. (_Tr. pp. 795, 824, 863._) They testified that 74 Polish women, 1 German, and 1 Ukrainian woman were experimented upon. (_Tr. pp. 1438, 796, 818, 862._) Since Gebhardt placed the total number of Polish female experimental subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments at 60, the additional 16 women mentioned by the witnesses may well have been subjects in the bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments. (_Tr. p. 1462._) The witness Kusmierczuk was one of the subjects in the sulfanilamide experiments. She is a Polish national and arrived in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in the fall of 1941. (_Tr. p. 857._) She was operated on in October 1942 and a severe infection developed in her case. (_Tr. p. 858._) She remained in the hospital from October 1942 until April 1943, but her wound was still not healed at the time she was discharged from the hospital. Her condition deteriorated and she was readmitted to the hospital on 1 September 1943. (_Tr. p. 860._) She left the hospital the second time in February 1944, but her wound did not finally heal until June 1944. (_Tr. p. 861._) She identified the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser as having participated in the experiment upon her. (_Tr. p. 860._) Kusmierczuk suffered permanent injuries as a result of this experiment, and her condition was described by the expert witness Dr. Leo Alexander. (_Tr. pp. 864-9._) The post-operational care of this woman was not handled by Gebhardt and Fischer, but by the camp doctors. On the occasion of her second admission to the hospital in September 1943, Kusmierczuk was operated on by Dr. Treite in an effort to cure the deep-seated infection. (_Tr. p. 861._) [See photographs, pp. 898 to 908.] The expert witness Maczka, who worked as an X-ray technician in the Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the course of the experiments, testified concerning deaths of the five Polish experimental subjects resulting from the sulfanilamide experiments. Weronica Kraska developed typical tetanus symptoms a few days after the experimental operation was performed on her. After a brief illness she died under cramps caused by tetanus. (_Tr. p. 1438._) Kazimiera Kurowska was artificially infected with gangrene bacillus. She was a healthy Polish girl of 23 years. From day to day her leg became blacker and more swollen. She was given care for only the first few days. After that she was taken to Room 4 in the hospital where she lay for days in unbelievable pain and finally died. Maczka was able to observe this case personally and in her opinion immediate amputation would have saved her life. (_Tr. pp. 1439-40._) It is quite clear that if a German soldier’s life had been endangered by gangrene infection, an amputation would have been undertaken immediately. In this experiment, where the very effort was to develop a serious gangrene infection and to test the effects of sulfanilamide preparations, it is equally clear why the leg of Kurowska was not amputated. Aniela Lefanowicz was infected with oedema malignum. Her leg kept swelling more and more, the blood vessels eroded, and she died from bleeding. Maczka testified that the blood vessels should have been tied off and an amputation carried out in order to save her life. She was completely neglected after the first 2 or 3 days. (_Tr. pp. 1440-1._) Zofia Kiecol died under similar circumstances. (_Tr. p. 1441._) Alfreda Prus was infected with oedema malignum the same day as the witnesses Kusmierczuk, Kiecol, and Lefanowicz. She was a beautiful, young 21-year-old girl, and a university student. She proved to be stronger than Kiecol and Lefanowicz and for that reason she lived a few days longer. She suffered terrible pain and finally died of hemorrhage. (_Tr. pp. 1142-3._) Kusmierczuk was the only subject to survive that series of experiments. (_Tr. p. 1443._) It is hardly necessary to point out that all of the experimental subjects suffered severe pain