"Brandt was my immediate superior in medical affairs".1 Schroeder stated that "Karl Brandt, Handloser, and Rostock were informed of the medical research work conducted by the Luftwaffe".2 In addition to his position as General and Reich Commissioner of the Health and Medical Services, Brandt was also a member of the Presidential Council of the Reich Research Council, an organization which gave financial support for criminal experiments.
In the number two seat in the defendant Handloser who held supreme power over the Medical Services of all branches of the Wehrmacht. Early in 1941 he was appointed Army Medical Inspector and Army Physician. He held these positions until September 1944, and as such had complete command over the entire Army Medical Services, which was by far the largest of the medical branches of the Wehrmacht. In his capacity as Army Medical Inspector, Handloser had subordinated to him the Consulting Physicians of the Army, the Military Medical Academy, the Typhus and Virus Institutes of the OKH at Cracow and Lemberg, and the Medical School for Mountain Troops at St. Johnann. He attained the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant General), the highest military medical rank.
On 28 July 1942, Handloser was elevated to the newly created position of Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht. This was the same decree which appointed Brandt General Commissioner, to whom Handloser, on the military side, and Conti, on the civilian side, were subordinated. Handloser was charged with the coordination of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and all organizations and units subordinated or attached to the Wehrmacht, including the Medical Services of the Waffen SS. Prior to this decree there were four separate medical 1. NO-443, Pros.
Ex. 10, R. 99.
2. NO-449, Pros. Ex. 130, R. 474.
branches of the Wehrmacht, the Army, Luftwaffe, Navy, and Waffen SS, each operating independently of the other. Pursuant to this decree, Handloser was appointed to coordinate and unify their operations and was directly responsible to Keitel as Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht (OKW). He had authority over the Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, and Waffen SS Medical Services, and all organizations and services employed within the framework of the Wehrmacht, and over "all scientific medical institutes, academies and other medical institutions of the Services of the Wehrmacht and of the Waffen SS".1 He was the adviser of the Chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht in all questions concerning the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and of its health guidance. In the field of medical science, his duties were to carry out uniform measures in the field of health guidance, research and combatting of epidemics, and all medical matters which required a uniform ruling among the Wehrmacht, and further, in the evaluation of medical experiences.
One of the principal means used by the defendant Handloser in coordinating scientific research was the joint meeting of Consulting Physicians of the four branches of the Wehrmacht. At the Second Meeting East of Consulting Physicians in December 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, Handloser himself pointed out quite clearly the task of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht in unifying medical scientific research. In addressing the full meeting he said:
"The demands and extent of this total war, as well as the relationship between needs and availability of personnel and material, require measures, also in military and medical fields, which will serve the unification and unified leadership. It is not a question of "marching separately and battling together", but marching and battling must be done in unison from the beginning in all fields.
"As a result, as concerns the military sector, the Wehrmacht Medical Service and with it the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht came into 1. NO-227, Pros.
Ex. 11, R. 101 being.
Not only in matters of personnel and material --even as far as this is possible in view of special fields and special tasks which must be considered -- but also with a view to medical scientific education and research, our path in the Wehrmacht Medical Service must and will be a unified one. Accordingly, the group of participants in this Second Work Conference East, which I have now opened, is differently composed from the First Work Conference in May of this year.
Then it was a conference of the army; today the three branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and Police, the Labor Service and the Organization Todt are participating and unified.
"You will surely permit that I great you with a general welcome and with the sincere wish that our common work may be blessed with the hoped for Joint success.
"I would, however, like to extend a special greeting to the Reich Chief of Health Services, Under Secretary Conti, who holds the central leadership of medical services in the civilian sector. I see in his presence not only an interest in our work themes, but the expression of his connection with the Wehrmacht Medical Service and his understanding of the special importance of the Wehrmacht in the field as well as at home. I need not emphasize that we arc as one in the recognition of the necessity to assure and ease the mind of the soldier, that he need not worry about the physical well being of the homeland as far as this is within the realm of possibility in wartime." 1.
Again, at the Fourth Meeting of Consulting Physicians in May 1944, the defendant Karl Brandt stressed the importance of Handloser's position, saying:
"Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser, you a soldier and a physician at the same time, are responsible for the use and the performance of our medical officers.
"I believe, and this probably is the sole expectation of all concerned, that this meeting which today starts in Hohenlychen will be held for the benefit of our soldiers. The achievements to date of your physicians. Herr Generaloberstabsarzt, confirm this unequivocally, and their readiness to do their share makes all of us proud and - I may also say - confident.
"It is good simply to call these things by their names and to look at them as they are. This meeting is the visible expression of it it is, it shall be and it must be so in every respect; the consulting physicians are gathered around their Medical Chief. When I look at these ranks, you Generaloberstabsarzt 1. NO-922, Pros.
Ex. 435, R. 2050.
Handloser, are to be envied; medical experts, with the bast and most highly trained special knowledge, are at your disposal for care of the soldiers. In reciprocal action between yourself and your medical officers, the problem of our medical knowledge and capacity are kept alive." 1.
This was no accolade paid to a man without power and influence. If Handloser is not responsible for the crimes committed by the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht, and especially of the Army and Luftwaffe, then no one is responsible.
In the number three seat we have the defendant Rostock who, as Brandt's special deputy, was charged with the task of"centrally coordinating and directing the problems and activities of the entire Medical and Health Services" in the field of science and research. Even prior to his appointment to that position in the Fall of 1943, Rostock was one of the responsible leaders of the German medical profession. In 1942 he was appointed Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Berlin. In the same year he became Consulting Surgeon to Handloser as the Army Medical Inspector. He attained the rank of Brigadier General (Generalarzt). As Chief of the Office for Science and Research under Brandt, it was Rostock's task to coordinate scientific research in Germany. He received reports as to the issuance of research assignments by the various agencies in Germany, and determined which of such assignments should be considered "urgent". He also served as Brandt's alternate on the Reich Research Council.
In the number four seat we have the defendant Schroeder, who from 1 January 1944 until the end was the Chief of the 1 NO-924, Pros.
Ex. 437, R. 2067 Medical Services of the Luftwaffe.
From 1935 until February 1940 Schroeder was Chief of Staff to his predecessor, Erick Hippke as Luftwaffe Medical Inspector. From February 1940 until January 1944 he served as Air Fleet Physician of Air Fleet II, when he replaced Hippke as Chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe. Simultaneously he was promoted to the rank of Generaloberstabsarzt. As Chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe, all medical officers of the German Air Force were subordinated to him. His position and responsibility are clear and unequivocal.
In seat number five is the defendant Genzken who, as Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS, was one of the highest ranking medical officers in the SS. He joined the Nazi Party in 1926 and in 1936 he wont on active duty with the SS in the Medical Office of the SS Special Services Troops (SS-Verfuegungstruppe), which subsequently became the Waffen SS. In the Spring of 1937 the Medical Office (Sanitatsamt) of the SS was enlarged and split into two departments. Genzken was made Director of the department charged with the supply of medical equipment to and the supervision of medical personnel in the concentration camps. In this capacity he was the medical adviser to the notorious Eicke, predecessor of Pohl as the commander of all concentration camps. Sachsenhausen, Dachau, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Flossenburg and Neuengamme, among others, were under the medical supervision of Genzken. Few men could have been better advised as to the systematic oppression and persecution of the helpless prisoners of these institutions.
In May 1940; Genzken became Chief of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS in the SS Operational Headquarters, with the rank of Oberfuehrer (Senior Colonel). The SS Operational Headquarters was subordinated to Gruppenfuehrer Hand Juettner and was one of the twelve main offices of the Supreme Command of the SS.
While Juettner was Genzken's military superior, his technical or medical superior was Reichsarzt-SS Grawitz for whom he served as deputy on many occasions. In 1942 his position became known as Chief of the Medical Services of the Waffen SS, Division D of the SS Operational Headquarters. He attained the rank of Gruppenfuehrer in the SS and Generalleutnant of the Waffen SS (Lieutenant General). Among the offices subordinated to Genzken was that of the Chemical and Pharmaceutical Service under Bluemenreuter, and Hygiene under the defendant Mrugowsky. Mrugowsky was attached to Genzken's office as a hygienist in 1940 and was at the same time Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS which, in turn, was subordinated to Genzken. On 1 September, 1943, the Medical Services of the SS was reorganized and, among other things, Bluemenreuter, Mrugowsky, and the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS were transferred to the Office of the Reichsarzt SS, Grawitz. Thereafter the direct subordination was to Grawitz rather than to Genzken.
And then there is the defendant Blome, Gruppenfuehrer (Major General) in the SA, Deputy Reich Health Leader, Deputy Leader of the Reich Chamber of Physicians and the National Socialist Physicians Association, Representative for the Department of Medical Study, Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, and Chief of Research on Bacteriological Warfare. As the closest associate of Conti, he cannot be omitted from the list of the powerful Conti was the highest authority in the field of civilian health administration.
The decree of 28 July 1942, signed by Hitler, concerning the reorganization of the medical services, defines the position of Conti as follows:
"In the field of civilian health administration the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Interior, and the Chief of the Health Administration of the Reich (Reichsgesundheitsfuehrer), 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."
There was not a single medical question which did hot reach the Reich Health Department of the Nazi Party and the Reich Chamber of Physicians, subordinated to which were all physicians in Germany, with the exception of those on active duty with the armed forces and in the SS. As a member of the Reich Research Council, Blome was personally connected with plans and enterprises involving criminal medical experimentation.
These were the responsible leaders of the Medical Services of Germany. Who, then, is missing from this illustrious gathering? During the course of the trial, we have frequently heard mentioned the names of Conti and Grawitz. Indeed, the defendants would have us believe that in these two men, together with Hitler and Himmler, resided the exclusive responsibility for the manifold crimes with which we are here concerned. I hardly need call attention to the fact that all are dead. All of them took their own lives rather than face the bar of justice. No one can deny that those men were, indeed, guilty. But this in no way serves to exonerate these defendants, who all played important roles in the mad scheme. It is a curious thing that not one of the defendants has pointed an accusing finger at a living man. If they are to be believed, all the guilty parties to these crimes are dead. According to them, justice must seek retribution only from the cadavers. The Luftwaffe 1. NO-080, Pros.
Ex. 5, R. 93 defendants have been strangely silent as to Hippke, who, but for a belated capture, would have a prominent seat in the dock.
Those defendants who worked with the dead criminals such as Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick with Grawitz, and Blome with Conti - ask the Tribunal to say that their association was honorable and pure, that their work was in another field, that their masters' crimes come as a great surprise, and were never known to them.
The evidence proves, however, that they not only knew of and supported these crimes, but also took a personal part in them.
In connection with the responsible positions of these defendants, and most particularly of Karl Brandt and his assistant Rostock, Handloser, Schroeder, Genzken, and Blome, I wish to call to the Tribunal's attention the decision of the Supreme Count of the United States in the case of In re Yamashita.1 On 25 September 1945, Yamashita, the Commanding General of the Fourteenth Army Group of the Imperial Japanese Army in the Philippine Islands was charged with violation of the laws of war. He thereafter pleaded not guilty, was tried, found guilty as charged and sentenced to death by hanging. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed with the Supreme Court purporting to show that Yamashita's detention was unlawful for the reason, among others, that the charge preferred against him failed to charge him with a violation of the laws of war.
The charge stated that Yamashita, between October 9, 1944 and September 2, 1945 in the Philippine Islands, "while commander of armed forces of Japan at war with the United States of America and its allies, unlawfully disregarded and failed to discharge his duty as commander to control the operations of the members of his command, permitting them to commit brutal atrocities and other high crimes against people of the United States and of its Allied and dependencies, particularly the Philippines; and he.....thereby violated the laws of war". The military commission which tried Yamashita-found that the atrocities and other high crimes had been committed by members of the Japanese armed forces under his command, that they were not sporadic in nature but in many cases were methodically supervised by Japanese officers, and that during the 1 66 Sup.
Ct. 340 (1946).
period in question Yamashita failed to provide effective control of his troops as was required by the circumstances. The Supreme Court stated the question for their decision in the following languages "It is not denied that such acts directed against the civilian population of an occupied country and against prisoners of war are recognized in international law as violations of the law of war ..... But it is urged that the charge does not allege that petitioner has either committed or directed, the commission of such acts, and consequently that no violation is charged against him.
But this overlooks the fact that the gist of the charge is an unlawful breach of duty by the petitioner as an army commander to control the operations of the members of his command by permitting them to commit the extensive and widespread atrocities specified. The question then is whether the law of war imposes on an army commander a duty to take such appropriate measures as are within his power to control the troops under his command for the prevention of the specified acts which are violations of the law of war and which are likely to attend the occupation of hostile territory by an uncontrolled soldiery, and whether he may be charged with personal responsibility for his failure to take such measures when violations result".
The Court held that the charge was sufficient and that the law of war "plainly imposed on the petitioner, who at the time specified was military governor of the Philippines, as well as commander of the Japanese forces, an affirmative duty to take such measures as were within his power and appropriate in the circumstances to protect prisoners of war and the civilian population. This duty of a commanding officer has heretofore been recognized, and its breach penalized by our own military tribunals".
This decision is squarely in point as to the criminal responsibility of our defendants in this dock who had the power and authority to control the agents through whom these crimes were committed. It is not incumbent upon the Prosecution to show that this or that defendant was familiar with all of the details of all of these experiments. Indeed, in the Yamashita case, there was no charge or proof that he had knowledge of the crimes. In the case before the International Military Tribunal, proof was submitted that the Reichsbank, of which the defendant Funk was president, had received from the SS the personal belongings of victims who had been exterminated in concentration camps.
In that connection the Tribunal said in its Judgment:
"Funk has protested that he did not know that the Reichsbank was receiving articles of this kind. The Tribunal is of the opinion that he either knew what was being received or was deliberatelyclosing his eyes to what was being done".
But we need not discuss the requirement of knowledge on the facts of this case. It has been repeatedly proved that those responsible leaders of the German medical services in this dock not only know of the systematic and criminal use of concentration camp inmates for murderous medical experiments, but also actively participated in such crimes. Can it be held that Karl Brandt had no knowledge of these crimes when he personally initiated the jaundice experiments by Dohmen in the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp and the phosgene experiments of Bickenbach? Can it be found that he knew nothing of the criminal euthanasia program when he was charged by Hitler with its execution? Can it be said that Handloser had no knowledge when he participated in the conference of 29 December 1941 There it was decided to perform the Buchenwald typhus crimes, when reports were given on criminal experiments at meetings called and presided over by him? Was Rostock an island of ignorance when he arranged the program for an presided over the meetings at which Gebhardt and Fischer lectured on their sulfanilamide experiments, when he classified as "urgent" the criminal research of Hirt, Haagen, and Bickenbach? Did Schroeder lack knowledge when he personally requested Himmler to supply him with inmates for the sea water experiments? Can it be found that Genzken had no knowledge of those crimes when the miserable Dr. Ding was subordinated to and received orders from him in connection with the typhus experiments in Buchenwald, when his office supplied Rascher with equipment for the freezing experiments? Was Blome insufficiently informed in the fact of proof that ho collaborated with Rascher in the blood coagulation experiments, issued a re 1 Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol.
1, p. 306.
search assignment to him on freezing experiments and to Hirt on the gas experiments, as well as performed bacteriological warfare and poison experiments himself?
No, it was not the lack of information as to the criminal program which explains the culpable failure of these men to destroy this Frankenstein's monster. Nor was it lack of power. Can anyone doubt that Karl Brandt could have issued instructions to Handloser and Conti that doctors subordinated to them were not to experiment on concentration camp inmates. It is no excuse to say that Hitler and Himmler approved the policy and that his efforts may have failed. Certainly they approved it. But the fact is that Brandt also approved of and personally participated in the program. He was the "highest Reich authority" in the medical services, not Himmler. The medical services were Brandt's primary function, while Himmler had a few other tasks to keep him busy, such as running the SS, the Ministry of Interior, the German Police, and the Home Army, to mention a few.
Nothing could have been easier for Handloser than to issue a general directive that officers of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht were to keep out of concentration camps. If he could not have done so, then we must conclude that no one could have. Handloser had no peer in the military medical services. And what Handloser could have done for all branches of the Wehrmacht, Schroeder, Genzken, and Blome could have done with respect to the Luftwaffe, the Waffen SS, and the Reich Health Department.
The conclusion is inescapable that the crimes of these responsible leaders is a hundred fold greater than that of the wretches who executed the murderous experiments in the concentration camps. Theirs was the power, the opportunity, and the duty to control and their failure is their everlasting guilt.
Dr. Hochwald will continue the presentation for the prosecution. BY DR. HOCHWALD:
May it please the Tribunal:
This Tribunal is faced with no difficult legal questions as to whether the acts proved in this case constituted crimes. Many of the medical experiments with which this case is concerned have long since been held to have been criminal by a number of different courts, The International Tribunal stated that:
"The inmates were subjected to cruel experiments at Dachau in August 1942, victims were immersed in cold water until their body temperature was reduced to 28° Centigrade, when they died immediately. Other experiments included high altitude experiments in pressure chambers, experiments to determine how long human beings could survive in freezing water, experiments with poison bullets, experiments with contagious diseases, and experiments dealing with sterilization, of men and women by X-rays and other methods." 1 The International Military Tribunal held that the foregoing experiments constituted War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity.
In the case against Erhard Milch, recently concluded before Military Tribunal No. II, the high altitude and freezing experiments performed at Dachau were adjudged to be crimes. Similarly, in U. S. vs. Weiss at al., tried before a Military Commission in Dachau, a large number of Dachau concentration camp officials were found guilty on proof including the high altitude, freezing, malaria, sepsis, and seawater experiments. Dr. Claus Schilling was sentenced to death for his part in the malaria experiments. In a recent case in the British Zone concerning atrocities committed in the Ravensbruck Concentration Camp, Scheidlausky, Rosenthal, and Treite, who were camp doctors in Ravensbruck, were all tried and sentenced to death, in part on the basis of evidence of the sulfanilimide and bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration experiments which were performed by the defendants Gebhardt, Fischer and Oberhauser.
The law with respect to the criminality of the so-called euthanasia program in the Third Reich is equally clear. This Tribunal is not called upon to define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate 1 Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol.
1, p. 252.
with respect to euthanasia. The Prosecution asks only that this Tribunal find, as other Tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law in the Third Reich permitting euthanasia and that the execution of persons under the guise of euthanasia, with the connivance and assistance of the defendants Karl Brandt, Brack, Blome and Hoven, constituted the crime of murder and was a War Crime and Crime Against Humanity. Again, the foremost authority on the legality of euthanasia as practiced under the Nazis is in the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal. It was there hold that:
"During the war nursing homes, hospitals, and asylums in which euthanasia was practiced as described elsewhere in this judgment, came under Fricks jurisdiction. He had knowledge that insane, sick, and aged people, 'useless eaters', were being systematically put to death. Complaint 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." 1 This finding draws no distinction between German nationals executed under the program and non-German nationals.
These executions are described with the word "murder" and constitute War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under the Charter and Control Council Law No. 10. This was one of the principle crimes which led to the judgment or guilty and the sentence of death against Frick. How much greater is the guilt of the defendant Karl Brandt.
The review of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate in the case of the U.S. vs. Klein, Wahlman, et al., held at Wiesbaden, 1 Ibid.
, Vol. 1, p. 301; see also p. 247.
Germany from 8 through 15 October 1945, is a clear precedent that the execution of non-German nationals pursuant to the euthanasia program constituted the crime murder. Since the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have repeatedly held that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of euthanasia was in violation of German Criminal Code and punishable as murder. It is interesting to note that in a case before the District Court for Criminal Cases in Vienna in July 1946, Dr. Ernst Illing, who was charged with putting to death children under the euthanasia program, testified that he was called up by Hefelmann, one of the subordinates of the defendant Brack, and given a letter signed by Adolf Hitler according to which the defendant Karl Brandt was given the task of putting into effect and working out administrative regulations for the killing of incurable idiotic children. Illing stated that after examination and decision by a scientific medical committee, Dr. Brandt, or the deputy designated by him, would give the order in each individual case. Illing was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death by hanging.
The Court of Assizes in Berlin, in the session on 25 March 1946, found the defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and sentenced them to death for their activities in the euthanasia program. The Court of Appeals in the same case rejected the appeals of both defendants. The court stated that, "It cannot be mistaken that the defendants Wernicke and Wieczorek are only the last links of a long chain, and that they were preceded by persons whose guilt is still greater." In Karl Brandt and Victor Brack we have in this dock the first and third links in that long chain. The second link, Mr. Bouhler, has found his salvation in self destruction with a time bomb. Not far behind in this chain of organized mass murder was the defendant Blome and while Hoven may not have sat among the leaders, he was more tangibly rewarded by way of bribes as the paid killer of Buchenwald.
Defenses Time does not permit a detailed analysis of the proof against these defendants.
The Prosecution is filing with the Tribunal briefs against each of the defendants, and I shall therefore restrict myself to a few observations about the common defenses and a number of the more interesting specific defenses.
The defense evidence comes from three main sources -- affidavits, witnesses, and testimony of the defendants. The overwhelming bulk of the defense documents consists of affidavits. These, for the most part, are affidavits as to character, which are replete with such statements as ".....I cannot imagine that he approved or even knew of the 'scientific' experiments which scorn all humanity and all medical ethics."1 Then there was a great flood of affidavits swapped around among the defendants themselves, which usually take the form of saying, in effect, "I didn't mean what I said about you before the trial began." There is scarcely a defendant in the dock who was not the grateful beneficiary of a few kind words from that resistance worker Sievers. This reached the extreme when several defendants submitted affidavits in their own behalf.
When one sifts through this mountain of affidavits, a small residue is finally reached which bears, to a greater or lesser degree, upon the ultimate facts in issue. These we find are, in the most part, sworn to by parties to the very crimes which they seek to explain away. Among them, to name a few, are statements by Miss Crodel, assistant to Haagen in the Natzweiler typhus experiments; Blemenreuter, chief of the office for Chemical and Pharmaceutical Service under Genzken and supplier of equipment for a number of experiments, including the sulfanilamide and freezing crimes; Cremer, Chief of the Medical School for Mountain Troops at St. Johann under Handloser, and a collaborator with Rascher; and Vonkennel, chief of the Experimental Department V in Leipzig and a collaborator of Poppendick in the Buchenwald typhus experiments. Such affidavits 1. Handloser Ex. 49 lack any credibility whatever.
Vonkennel, to give a specific case, solemnly assured us in his sworn statement that his Research Department V "never had anything to do with the hormone experiments of Dr. Vaernet, with typhus, or with experiments concerning burns".1 However, in a letter from Poppendick to Mrugowsky, which was submitted by the Prosecution after Herr Vonkennel's affidavit, he requested that a drug developed by Vonkennel be tested as to its therapeutical effect on typhus in the experimental, station in Buchenwald and concluded his letter by stating that:
"Professor Dr. Vonkennel considers it very advisable that Dr. Ding should call on him in his clinic in Leipzig for the purpose of discussing this rather different therapy. The necessity for absolute secrecy is stressed to all institutions concerned."2 I need not remind the Tribunal that the drug was in fact sent to Buchenwald for testing in the criminal typhus experiments.
Then there are the affidavits which attempt to explain away this or that document which shows the crime on its very face, Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, finding themselves in this embarrassing dilemma with respect to the report on the seawater conference of 19 and 20 May 1944, obtained from the obliging Christensen, who signed the damning report, an answer to their figurative appeal to "say it ain't so". Christensen in his sworn statement said, in effect, that the report was drawn up from memory several days after the event by his assistant Schickler, who was really a pretty stupid fellow anyway and was not apt to understand or remember much which went on in the meeting, that although he (Christensen) signed the report he didn't read it, and in any event Schroeder's office called him after their receipt of the report and pointed out numerous, but unspecified, mistakes, and that he didn't change the report because it was superseded by a latter meeting.
Yes, it was all sweetness and light, if one finds if possible to 1. Poppendick Ex. 7 2. NO-1184, Pros.
Ex. 476, R. 5639 believe the statements of these parties to the crimes.
What has been said with respect to the defense affidavits is also true of the defense witnesses. Those few who were in a position to know what they were talking about were testifying as much for themselves as for the defendants. It is patently impossible to deal with the testimony of all those witnesses, but one may take Bernhardt Schmidt and Eugene Haagon as typical cases. The Ding Diary on the typhus experiments in Buchenwald proves that on 8 February 1943; Dr. Eyer of the Typhus and Virus Institute of the OKH in Cracow, which was subordinated to Handloser, and Dr. Schmidt, a hygienist attached to Handloser's staff, inspected the typhus experimental station. This entry in the Ding Diary was corroborated by the work report of the Typhus and Virus Institute of the Waffen SS in Buchenwald for the year 1943. Schmidt was called as a witness for the defendant Handloser and testified that he and Eyer made the long trip to Buchenwald for the very important purpose of demonstrating to certain SS doctors, whom he could not name, how a glass container of yellow fever vaccine should be broken open. Although Eyer and Schmidt were very much interested in typhus problems, and although there was a typhus experiment in progress in Buchenwald on the very day they were there, Dr. Schmidt asks the Tribunal to credit his testimony that they knew nothing of that. Even the defendant Rose found Dr. Schmidt's testimony somewhat hard to accept. He said: "Berhardt Schmidt's testi-money is clear proof to me what sort of nonsense a witness can say when he is under the pressure of fear and is afraid he will express himself to publicity and to the public eye by his testimony".1 Eugene Haagen, who was called principally on behalf of Schroeder, Rose and Becker-Freyseng, to explain his typhus experiments in Schir-mock and Buchenwald, told an equally incredible story.
He carried out vaccinations in these concentration camps only because the camp commander feared an epidemic and Haagen wished to do what he could to avoid this 1. Transcript, p. 6201 - 2.danger.
Although there was insufficient typhus vaccines in Germany to vaccinate all personnel especially exposed to the disease, Haagen showed admirable concern for the concentration camp inmates. He affirmed to the Tribunal time and again that he carried out no vaccinations in Schirmeck after May 1943 and in Natzweiler after February 1944. He testified that the Prosecution witness Hirtz perjured himself when he said that two of the inmates used by Haagen as experimental subjects in Schmirmeck in the Summer of 1943 died. Haagen was squarely impeached on these and other significant points by the notes on his own typhus experiments, which he identified as having been written by Miss Crodel, his trusted assistant for many years. The entry for 6 July in these notes proves that on that day Haagen was in Schirmeck for the purpose of withdrawing blood from ten inmates who had been used to test a new living typhus vaccine. The entry gives the serum titer value of 8 of the experimental subjects, and is concluded with the laconic note "the other two were not here any more".1 Thus, it would seem to even the most critical observer that the testimony of Hirtz, who personally sewed up the bodies of these two inmates in paper bags and delivered them for cremation, is somewhat more reliable than that of Haagen. The Crodel notes show that not only did Haagen conduct experiments in Schirmeck after May 1943, but that he was still doing so as late as January 1944. With respect to the criminal experiments in Natzweiler which he swore were finished in February 1944, the entry for 25 May 1944 states that 30 persons were innoculated in Natzweiler"...during the incubation period (a transport containing also sick people) 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June, of these 2 died".
Insufficient time is available to give the perjurous testimony of Haagen the attention it so richly deserves. But I think it fair to say by way of summary that substantially the only truthful answer he gave to questions propounded both by the defense and prosecution was when 1. NO-3852, Pros.
Ex. 521, R. 9660 my distinguished opponent, Dr. Tipp, opened the examination by saying: