Rascher, one of Himmler's minor satellites, was at the time an assistant at the Institute. He, Rascher, suggested the possibility of securing Himmler's consent to conducting the experiments at Dachau. Weltz seized upon the suggestion, and thereafter arrangements to that end were completed; Himmler giving Ms consent for experiments to be conducted on concentration camp inmates condemned to death, but only upon express condition that Rascher be included as one of the collaborators in the research.
Rascher was not an export in aviation medicine. Ruff was the leading German scientist in this field, and Romberg was Ms principal assistant. Weltz felt that before he could proceed with Ms research those men should be persuaded to come into the undertaking. He visited Ruff in Berlin and explained the proposition. Thereafter Ruff and Romberg came to Munich, where a conference was held with Weltz and Rascher to discuss the technical nature of the proposed experiments.
According to the testimony of Weltz, Ruff, and Romberg, the basic consideration which impelled them to agree to the use of concentration camp inmates as subjects was the fact that the inmates were to be criminals condemned to death who were to receive some form of clemency in the event they survived the experiments. Rascher, who was active in the conference, assured the defendants that this also was one of the conditions under which Himmler had authorized the use of camp inmates as experimental subjects.
The decisions reached at the conference were then made to Hippke, who gave Ms approval to the institution of experiments at Dachau and issued an order that a mobile low-pressure chamber which was then in the possession of Ruff at the Department for Aviation Medicine, Berlin, should be transferred to Dachau for use in the project.
A second meeting was held at Dachau, attended by Ruff, Romberg, Weltz, Rascher and the Camp Commander, to make the necessary arrangements for the conduct of the experiments.
.The mobile low-pressure chamber was then brought to Dachau, and on 22 February 1942 the first series of experiments were instituted.
Weltz was Rascher's superior; Romberg was subordinate to Ruff. Rascher and Romberg were in personal charge of the conduct of the experiments. There is no evidence to show that Weltz was ever present at any of these experiments. Ruff visited Dachau one day during the early part of the experiments, but thereafter remained in Berlin and received information concerning the progress of the experiments only through his subordinate, Romberg.
There is evidence from which it may reasonably be found that ate the outset of the program personal friction developed between Weltz and Ms subordinate Rascher. The testimony of Weltz is that on several occasions he asked Rascher for reports on the progress of the experiments and each time Rascher told Weltz that nothing had been started with reference to the research. Finally Weltz ordered Rascher to make a report whereupon Rascher showed Ms superior a telegram from Himmler which stated, in substance, that the experiments to be conducted by Rascher were to be treated as top secret matter and that reports were to be given to none other than Hirmler. Because of this situation Weltz had Rascher transferred out of Ms command to the DVL branch at Dachau. Defendant Romberg stated that these experiments had been stopped soon after their inception by the adjutant of the Reich-far Ministry, because of friction between Weltz and Rascher, and that the experiments were resumed only after Rascher bad. been transferred out of Weltz's Institute.
While the evidence is convincingly plain that Weltz participated in the initial arrangements for the experiments and brought all parties together, it is not so clear that illegal experiments were planned or carried out while Rascher was under Weltz's command, or that he knew that experiments which Rascher might conduct in the future would be illegal criminal.
There appears to have been two distinct groups of prisoners used in the experimental series. One was a group of 10 to 15 inmates known in the camp as "exhibition patients" or "permanent experimental subjects". Host, if not all; of these were German nationals who were confined in the camp as criminal prisoners. These men were housed together and were well-fed and reasonably contented. None of them suffered death or injury as a result of the experiments. The other group consisted of 150 to 200 subjects picked at random from the camp and used in the experiments without their permission. Some 70 or 80 of these were killed during the course of the experiments.
The defendants Ruff and Romberg maintain that two separate and distinct experimental series were carried on at Dachau; one conducted by them with the use of the "exhibition subjects"; relating to the problems of rescue at high altitudes; in which no injuries occurred; the other conducted by Rascher on the large group of non-volunteers picked from the camp at random; to test the limits of human endurance at extremely high altitudes; in which experimental subjects in large numbers were killed.
The Prosecution submits that no such fine distinction may be drawn between the experiments said to have been conducted by Ruff and Romberg; on the one hand; and Rascheron the other; or in the prisoners who were used as the subjects of these experiments; that Romberg -- and Ruff as his superior --. share equal guilt with Rascher for all experiments in which deaths to the human subjects resulted.
In support of this submission the members of the Prosecution cite the fact that Rascher was always present when Romberg was engaged in work at the altitude chamber; that on at least three occasions Romberg was at the chamber when deaths occurred to the so-called Rascher subjects; yet elected to continue the experiments. They point likewise to the fact that; in a secret preliminary report made by Rascher to Himmler which tells of deaths, Rascher mentions the name of Romberg as being a collaborator in the research.
Finally they point to the fact that, after the experiments were concluded, Romberg was recommended by Rascher and Sievers for the War Merit Cross, because of the work done by him at Dachau.
The issue on the question of the guilt or innocence of these defendants is close; we would be less than fair were were not to concede this fact. It cannot bo denied that there is much in the record to create at least a grave suspicion that the defendants Ruff and Romberg were implicated in criminal experiments at Dachau. However, virtually all of the evidence which points in this direction is circumstantial in its nature. On the other hand, it cannot be gainsaid that there is a certain consistency, a certain logic, in the story told by the defendants. And some of the story is corraborated in significant particulars by evidence offered by the Prosecution.
The value of circumstantial evidence depends upon the conclusive nature and tendency of the circumstances relied on to establish any controverted fact. The circumstances must net only be consistent with guilt, but they must be inconsistent with innocence. Such evidence is insufficient when, assuming all to be true which the evidence tends to prove, some other reasonable hypothesis of innocence may still be true; for it is the actual exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof. Therefore, before a court will be warranted in finding a defendant guilty on circumstantial evidence alone, the evidence must show such a well-connected and unbroken chain of circumstances as to exclude all other reasonable hypotheses but that of the guilt of the defendant. What circumstances can amount to proof can never be a matter of general definition. In the final analysis the legal test is whether the evidence is sufficient to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt the understanding and conscience of those who, under their solemn oaths, as officers, must assume the responsibility for finding the facts.
On this particular specification it is tile cdiBictaort of the Tribunal that the defendants Ruff, Romberg and Weltz, must be found not guilty.
FREEZING EXPERIMENTS:
In addition to the high-altitude experiments, the defendant Weltz is charged with freezing experiments likewise conducted at Dachau for the benefit of the German Luftwaffe. These began at the camp at the conclusion of the high-altitude experiments and were performed by Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the medical services of the Luftwaffe. Non-German nationals were killed in these experiments.
We think it quite probable that Weltz had knowledge of these experiments, but the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he participated in them.
C O N C L U S I O N Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Siegfried Ruff is not guilty under either Counts Two or Three of the Indictment; and directs that he be released from custody under the Indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns; and Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Hans Wolfgang Romberg is not guilty under either Counts Two or Three of the Indictment; and directs that he be released from custody under the Indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns; and Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Georg August Weltz is not guilty under either Counts Two or Three of the Indictment; and directs that he be released from custody under the Indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns.
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Crawford will continue the reading of the Judgment.
JUDGE CRAWFORD: DEFENDANT BRACK.
"Should you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me to inform you, that then I would have to order the apparatus so urgently needed with the greatest speed.
Heil Hitler.
Yours Viktor Brack" Brack testified from the witness stand that at the time he wrote this letter he had every confidence that Germany would win the war.
Brack's letter was answered by Himmler on 11 August 1942. In the reply Himmler directed that sterilization by means of x-rays be tried in at least one concentration camp in a series of experiments, and that Brack place at his disposal expert physicians to conduct the operations.
Blankenburg, Brack's deputy, replied to Himmler's letter and stated that Brack had been transferred to an SS Division but that he, Blankenburg, as Brack's permanent deputy would "immediately take the necessary measures and get in touch with the chiefs of the main offices of the concentration camps."
A Polish Jew testified before the Tribunal that while confined in Auschwitz concentration camp he was marched to Birkenau and forcibly subjected to severe x-ray exposure and was castrated later in order that the effects of the x-ray could be studied.
A French physician of Jewish descent who was confined at Auschwitz from September 1943 to January 1945, testified that near Auschwitz was Birkenau camp where people were sterilized by SS doctors. About 100 male Poles who had been sterilized at Birkenau were attended by the witness after the operations. Later this group were castrated by the came physicians.
The record contains other evidence from which it is manifestly plain that sterilization by means of x-rays was attempted on groups of persons who were painfully injured thereby; and that castration followed the x-ray procedures.
Brack's part in the organization of the sterilization program with full knowledge that it would be put into execution, is conclusively known by the record.
EUTHANASIA PROGRAM:
The euthanasia program, which was put into effect by a secret decree of Hitler on the day that Germany invaded Poland, has been discussed at length in the judgment in the case against Karl Brandt.
Brack contents that he was basically opposed to this program and that, on occasion, he assisted certain of his Jewish friends to escape from its consequences. But be that as it may, the evidence is that whatever sentiments Brack may have entertained toward individual members of the race, he was perfectly willing to and did act as an important administrator in furthering the euthanasia program. After it had gotten under way, he wrote letters to various public officials, explaining to them how to keep the matter secret and to allay the public sentiment against the program.
This much is shown by Brack's own statements. As a witness on the stand he testified that while at first he did not understand the full import of the program, he decided, after a talk with Bouhler, to collaborate in carrying out the assignment and to execute Bouhler's orders.
He participated in the initial meetings called for the purpose of placing the project in operation. He was present at meetings of the experts, as well as at administrative discussions. He often acted as Bouhler's representative, frequently making decisions which called for the exercise of personal judgment and a wide latitude of discretions.
Brack admitted that such were his activities in the program, that one might well have come to the conclusion that he was the influential man in euthanasia.
As Bouhler's deputy he addressed a meeting at Munich, where he explained the purpose of Hitler's decree and mentioned the draft of a law which was being prepared to give complete legislative sanctity to euthanasia -- a law, incidentally, which was never in fact enacted. He represented Bouhler in April of 1941 in a meeting attended by Nazi judges and prosecutors. He testified that the Ministry of Justice had become considerably embarrassed because of the euthanasia program, and that he was present at the meeting for the purpose of imparting information concerning the salutary features of euthanasia to those who were present.
Brack gave the Tribunal considerable information concerning the method of extermination by euthanasia; stating that the program was so designed as to render the process inconspicuous and painless. In December 1939 or January 1940 Brack, Bouhler, Conti and some other doctors were present at the administration of euthanasia, to four experimental subjects. The victims were led into a gas chamber which had been built to resemble a shower room. The patients were seated on benches and poisonous gas was let into the chamber. A few moments later the patients became drowsy and finally lapsed into a death sleep, without even knowing they were being executed. On the basis of this execution "Hitler decided that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients." According to Brack these persons were not Jews because as Bouhler had explained to him "the philanthropic action of euthanasia should be extended only to Germans."
The evidence is plain that the euthanasia program explained by the defendant, gradually merged into the "Action 14 F 13; which, briefly stated, amounted to an extermination of concentration camp inmates by methods and agencies used in euthanasia. One of the prime motives behind the program was to eliminate "useless eaters" from the scene, in order to conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more important use of the German armed forces.
Many nationals of countries other than Germany were killed.
Brack's direct connection with and participation in the execution of euthanasia is conclusively proven by the evidence in the record.
MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION:
Under Count Four of the Indictment the defendant Brack is charged with being a member of the organization declared criminal by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence slows that Brack became a member of the SS in 1929 and voluntarily remained in that organization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally implicated in the commission for war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under Counts Two and Three of the Indictment.
CONCLUSION Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Viktor Brack guilty under Counts Two, Three and Four of the Indictment.
BECKER-FREYSENG The defendant Becker-Freyseng is charged under Counts Two and Three of the Indictment with personal responsibility for, end participation in, High-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Seawater, Epidemic Jaundice and Typhus Experiments.
The prosecution has abandoned all charges except as to High-Altitude, Freezing. Sea Water and Typhus experiments, and hence only these will be considered.
The defendant Becker-Freyseng joined the Nazi Party in 1933. In 1940 he was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In 1943 he was promoted to the rank of Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
From August 1941 until May 1944 the defendant was an assistant consultant to Anthony, Chief of the Referat for Aviation Medicine, Berlin.
This department dealt with all questions concerning aviation medicine and reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. When Schroeder became Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe on 1 January 1944, the defendant became the consultant for Aviation Medicine in Schroeder's office.
HIGH ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS:
As shown elsewhere in the Judgment, high altitude experiments for the benefit of the Luftwaffe were conducted at Dachau Concentration Camp, on non-German nationals, beginning in February or March 1942. These experiments had been approved, in principle, at least, by Hippke, Chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. A mobile low-pressure chamber which had been in the possession of the Department of Aviation Medicine, Berlin, was transferred to Dachau for use in the experiments. Concentration camp inmates were killed while being subjected to experiments conducted in the chamber.
During the time the experiments were conducted, defendant BeckerFreyseng was an assistant consultant to Anthony, Chief of the Referat for Aviation Medicine, Berlin. All low-pressure chambers owned by the Luftwaffe were under the general control of that office.
It is submitted by the Prosecution that the record shows that Becker-Freyseng was a principal in, accessory to, aided, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises involving the commission of these experiments.
The evidence upon this charge is not deemed sufficient to preponderate against a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilty participation in the experiments here involved.
FREEZING EXPERIMENTS:
It is claimed that in June 1942, Becker-Freyseng was informed from certain of his official files that a meeting to consider experiments to investigate the treatment of persons who had been severely chilled or frozen would be held in Nurnberg the following October (Referred to as the "Cold Congress"). It is contended that the directive which set the experiment into motion was issued, from the office of the Department for Aviation Medicine, that the funds and equipment were supplied by that office, and that Becker-Freyseng had knowledge of the experiments, and that he admitted such knowledge.
As to all this, the proof is clear that Becker-Freyseng was actively employed in organizing and was present at the so-called "Cold Congress." But, more than the evidence discloses is needed to establish that he had any later part in or connection with the experiments themselves, or that he had any controlling relationship to their initial establishment.
TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS:
The evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsibility of the defendant Becker-Freyseng in connection with the typhus experiments.
SEA WATER EXPERIMENTS:
We Have discussed the sea water experiments in that portion of our Judgment which deals with the case of the defendant Schroeder. As was pointed out there, two methods of making sea water drinkable were available to the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer method, had been chemically tested and apparently produced, potable sea water; the other, the so-called Berka process, which changed the taste of the sea water but did not reduce the salt content.
Becker-freyseng as Chief Consultant for Aviation Medicine in the office of Schroeder arranged for a conference to be held in May 1944 to discuss the testing of these two methods. At the conference the defendant reported on various clinical experiments which had been conducted by certain von Sirany to test the Berka process. He came to the conclusion that the experiments had not been conducted under sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress to make the findings conclusive.
As a result of the conference it was decided that new experiments should be conducted.
We learn from the report of the meeting which is in evidence that two series of experiments were to be conducted. The first, a maximum period of six days during which one group of subjects would receive sea water processed with the Berka method; a second group, ordinary drinking water; a third group no water at all; and the fourth group, such water as would be available in the emergency sea distress kits then used. During the duration of the experiment all persons were to receive only an emergency sea diet such as provided for persons in distress at sea.
In addition to the 6-day experiment it was determined that a 12-day experiment should be run. The report on this series reads as follows:
"Persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as diet also the emergency sea rations.
"Duration of experiments: 12 days "Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent injuries to health, that is, the death, of the experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS."
By letter dated 7 June 1944 Schroeder requested the Reichsfuehrer SS to allow him to use concentration camp inmates for the sea water experiments. The letter stated, among other things, the following:
"As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be carried out for a period of four 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 concentration camp Dachau, this camp would be very suitable...."
When on the stand as a witness the defendant Becker-Freyseng admitted that he prepared the substance of the letter for Schroeder's dictation and signature.
Thus with actual knowledge of the nature of the Berka process and the fact that if used over prolonged periods it would cause suffering and death, Becker-Freyseng counselled and conferred with his Chief concerning the necessity for experiments wherein the process would be used. He gave advice upon the exact procedure to be used in the 6-day and 12-day experimental series. He framed, the letter to Himmler requesting the use of concentration camp inmates at Dachau for experimental subjects. He called the defendant Beiglboeck to Berlin to explain to him the details and purpose of the experiments. He issued the order under which Beiglboeck went to Dachau to begin the experiments. He received Beiglboeck's report after the experimental series had been concluded.
Throughout all stages of the affair, from its inception to its conclusion, the defendant knew of the dangerous nature of the experiments. He knew that deaths were reasonably to be expected. He knew that concentration camp inmates were to be used as experimental subjects. It is impossible to believe that he supposed that the inmates of the camps, who were to be furnished by Himmler, were to be volunteers. The entire language of the letter which was written to Himmler asking for experimental subjects entirely refutes such implication.
The evidence shows conclusively that Gypsies of various nationalities were used as experimental subjects. They were former inmates of Auschwitz who had been tricked into coming to Dachau under the promise that they were to be used in a special labor battalion. When they arrived at Dachau they were detailed to the sea water experiments without their voluntary consent being asked or given.
During the course of the experiment many of the experimental subjects were treated brutally and endured much pain and suffering.
It is apparent from the evidence that Becker-Freyseng was criminally connected with the experiments, and that the experiments were essentially criminal in their nature.
To the extent that the crimes committed by him or under his authority were not war crimes, they were crimes against humanity.
CONCLUSION Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Hermann BeckerFreyseng guilty under Counts Two and Three of the Indictment.
SCHAEFER The defendant Schaefer is charged under Counts Two and Three of the Indictment with personal responsibility for and participation in seawater experiments.
Konrad Schaefer was a scientist whose special field of research was chemical therapy. In 1 November 1941 he was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In spring of the following year he was transferred to the Luftwaffe Replacement Depot in Salow and from there to the Luftwaffe base at Frankfurt on the Oder. In summer of 1942 he was transferred to Berlin and assigned to the staff of the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine. His chief assignment at the Institute was to do research on the problem of sea emergency for the Luftwaffe. This included research work on various methods to render sea water potable. Schaefer remained in his position at the Institute without ever having attained officer rank.
In May 1944 the defendant was ordered to be present at a meeting to be held at the German Air Ministry in Berlin, called to consider further research on making sea water potable. Some months previous to the meeting, Schaeder had developed a process which actually precipitated the salts from sea water, but it was thought by the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service to be too bulky and expensive for military use by the Luftwaffe.
Present were Schaefer; Becker-Freyseng, research adviser to Schroeder; Christensen, of the Technical Bureau of the Reich Ministry of Aviation; and others. The subject of discussion was the feasibility of using the Schaefer process, or of turning to another process known as the Berka method.
The latter method, while cheap, did not precipitate salts time - as Schaefer, previous to the meeting, had already reported to Schroeder. Nevertheless, these in command, of the meeting agreed that that experiments should be conducted on concentration camp inmates to determine the extent to which the Berka method might be usable.
The experiments later conducted have been described at length in dealing with the case of Schroeder. Due to his attendance at this meeting, Schaefer is- sought to be held, criminally responsible in connection with the sea water experiments.
The record has received careful attention from the Tribunal. You where have we been able to find that Schaefer was a principal in, or accessory to, or was otherwise criminally involved in or connected with the experiments mentioned. In fact, the record fails to show such as might be implied from his attendance at several meetings of the parties who were actively interested therein. Nowhere in the testimony or elsewhere is it revealed that Schaefer voted, for commencement or prosecution of the experiments or in any other manner aided in their execution.
CONCLUSION Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Konrad Schaefer not guilty of the charges contained in the Indictment and directs that he be released from custody under the Indictment when the Tribunal presently adjourns.
HOVEN The defendant Hoven is charged under Counts Two and Three of the Indictment with special responsibility for and participation in Typhus and other vaccine experiments; gas oedema experiments; and the euthanasia program.
In Count Four he is charged with being a member, after 1 September 1939, of an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal.
Hoven joined the SS in 1934 and the Nazi party in 1937. Soon after the outbreak of the war he joined the Waffen-SS. In October 1939 he became assistant medical officer in the SS Hospital at Buchenwald Concentration Camp. In 1941 he was appointed medical officer in charge of the SS troops stationed in the camp. He became assistant Medical Officer at the camp inmate hospital and in July 1942 he became Chief Camp Physician. He remained in the latter position until September 1943. At that time he was arrested on the order of the SS Police Court in Kassel for having allegedly murdered an SS non-commissioned officer who was a dangerous witness against Koch, the camp commander.
TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS:
The vaccine experiments with which Hoven is charged were conducted at Buchenwald under the supervision of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding alias Ding-Schuler. They have already been described at length in other portions of this judgment.
The Prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoven was a criminal participant in these experiments In collaboration with the SS camp administration he helped select the concentration camp inmates who became the experimental subjects. During the course of selection he exercised the right to include some prisoners and to reject others.
While perhaps not empowered to initiate new series of experiments on his own responsibility -- that apparently being a power which only Ding could exercise -- the defendant worked with Ding on experiments then in progress. He supervised the preparation of diary notes, fever charts, and report sheets of the experiments. Occasionally he injected some of the subjects with the vaccines. He acted as Ding's deputy in the conduct of the experiments. He was in command of Experimental Block 46 in Ding's absence. During the period of Hoven's activity in the experimental station no less than 100 inmates were killed as a result of the typhus experiments. Many of these victims were non-German nationals who had not given their consent to be used as experimental subjects.
GAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS:
It is asserted in an affidavit made by Dr. DingSchuler, who was in charge of Blocks 46 and 50, Buchenwald, that toward the end of 1942 a conference was held in the Military Medical Academy, Berlin, for the purpose of discussing the fatal effects of gas oedema serum on wounded persons. During the conference Killian of the Army Medical Inspectorate and the defendant Mugrowsky reported several cases in which wounded soldiers who had received oedema serum injections in high quantities died suddenly without apparent reason. Mugrowsky suspected that the fatalities were due to the phenol content of the serum. To help solve the problem Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part in a euthanasia killing with phenol and to report on the results in detail. A few days later Hoven, in the presence of Ding, gave phenol injections to several of the concentration camp inmates with the result that they died instantly.
In accordance with instructions Ding made a report of the killings to his superior officer.
The fact that Hoven engaged in phenol killings is substantiated by an affidavit voluntarily made by Hoven himself prior to the trial which was received in evidence as a part of the case of the prosecution. In the affidavit Hoven makes the following statement: "There were many prisoners who were jealous of the positions held by a few political prisoners and tried to discredit them. These traitors were immediately killed and I was later notified in order to make out statements that they had died of natural causes.
"In some instances I supervised the killings of these unworthy inmates by injections of phenol at the request of the inmates, in the hospital assisted by several inmates. Dr. Ding came once and said I was not doing it correctly, and perform a some of the injections himself, killing three inmates who died within a minute.
"The total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom 60 were killed by phenol injections, either by myself or under my supervision, and the rest were killed by heating, etc. by the inmates."
EUTHANASIA PROGRAM:
The details of the euthanasia program have been discussed by us at length in dealing with the charges against certain other defendants; consequently they will not be repeated here.
In the Hoven pre-trial affidavit, portions of which were quoted while discussing gas oedema serum experimentation, the defendant gives us a partial picture of the euthanasia program, in the following statement:
"In 1941 Koch, the Camp Commander, called all the important SS officials of the camp together and informed them that he had received a secret order from Himmler that all mentally and physically deficient inmates should be killed, including Jews. 300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent to the "Euthanasia Station"at B*rnburg for extermination. I was ordered to issue falsified statements of the death of these Jews, and obeyed that order. This action was known as '14 f '13."
When the defendant Hoven took the stand in his own defense he attempted to discredit the effects of the statements contained in his affidavit by testifying that the affidavit was taken as a result of interrogations propounded to him by the Prosecution in English and that he was not sufficiently familiar with the language to be fully aware of the inculpatory nature of the statements he was making.
The Tribunal is not impressed with these assertions. The evidence shows that prior to the war the defendant had lived for several years in the United States, where he had acquired at least an average understanding and comprehension of the English language. When he was on the witness stand the Tribunal questioned him at length in order to ascertain the extent of his knowledge of English, and in particular, of his understanding of the meaning of the words used by him in his affidavit. As a result of this questioning the Tribunal is convinced that no undue or improper advantage was taken of the defendant in procuring the affidavit, and that at the time of his interrogation by the Prosecution Hoven know and understood perfectly well the nature of the statements he was making.
The facts contained in the Hoven affidavit were convincingly substantiated by other evidence in tho record; the only real difference being that tho evidence shows the defendant to have been guilty of even many hundreds more murders than are admitted by him in his affidavit. As stated, in essence, by one of the Prosecution witnesses in connection with the subject: Hoven personally killed inmates in the hospital barracks by injection. These people were mostly suffering from malnutrition and exhaustion. Hoven must have killed 1,000 of every nationality. These inmates were killed on the initiative of Hoven with no request from the illegal camp administration or the political prisoners.
It is obvious from the evidence that throughout his entire Service at Buchenwald, Hoven attempted to serve three masters: The SS Camp Administration, the criminal prisoners, and the political prisoners of the camp. As a result he became criminally implicated in murders committed by all three groups involving tho deaths of non-German nationals, some of whom were prisoners of war and others of whom were civilians. In addition to these, he committed murders on his own individual responsibility. There can be nothing said in mitigation of such conduct. To the extent that the crimes committed by Hoven were not war crimes, they were crimes against humanity.
MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION:
Under Count Four of the Indictment the defendant is charged with being a member of an organization declared criminal by the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.