Because of this limitation of competency and working arrangement it is impossible that Prof. Handloser could have exercised a direct and personal supervisory authority over Medical Officers which were active in the individual institutes of the training group C of the Army medical academy.
However the Army Medic Academy was only one of altogether seven institutes which were directly subordinate to the Army Medical Inspectorate.
They were located in Berlin, Cracow-Lemberg, in St. Johann and in Brucelles. All institutes had the same military relationship as the Army Medical Institute so that the official business was transacted in the same manner with these institutes.
But these Institutes were only a fraction of the units and tasks which were part of Professor Handloser's field of activity. If one considers now that Prof. Handloser was not only Army Medical Inspector, but also at the same time Army Physician and Chief of the Army Medical Service in which capacity he had equally important and time consuming tasks and (if one considers too) that, as has been proven, he very frequently went on official inspection trips in front line areas and only personally present in Berlin during 1/10 of his time, then one can gain the proper point of view for judging the question whether the duty for supervisory authority of Prof. Handloser made at all possible a personal and direct control of all Army Medical Officers active in units and motituts subordinate to him.
It could only be the task of a Medical Officer heading such a vast field of problems to take care, within the frame work of his duty for supervisory authority, that the intermediate superior officers had sufficient qualifications for their jobs and that the military report and communications system was organized as well as possible. It was Prof. Handloser's task, in his field of activity, to gain the proper control of the "overall picture". Prof. Handloser performed his duty as supervisor by being most fastidious in the selection of the subordinate "Leading Medical Officers", by doing everything possible to convince himself personally how the tasks were being accomplished and by scrutinizing most carefully the reports in the field of the Medical Service, in substantiation of which he has put in evidence Dok.
HA-65, Exh. 62.
The Prosecution has produced no facts going to prove that Prof. Handloser, after being informed of culpable behavior on the part of one of his subordinates, would have failed to take steps. In view of this fact, it is not necessary to present proof of this. But it is nevertheless worthy of note that the evidence brought forth has given symptomatic indication that Prof. Handloser, when he did have knowledge of abuses, took care to have them stopped. I refer to the affidavits of the Swiss Oberstarzt Dr. Theodor Brunner and the chairman of the Mixed Physicians Commission, the Swiss Oberstarzt Dr. A. von Erlach.
The charges brought against Handloser can be characterized as lacking in concrete statements of incrimination.
The Prosecution has produced no documents and no witnesses to substantiate its charge of personal particular responsibility and participation in the individual deeds.
Go through the 19 document books and supplementary documents put in by the Prosecution and you will look in vain for Handloser's signature under an order or directive. One single document (Doc. 1323exh 452) bears his signature, and this document is one of the most convincing documents in his exoneration.
I may be permitted to ignore the various affidavits by Rudolf Brandt which the Prosecution has here put in evidence. The value of this evidence is patented. If the Prosecution feels that it must have the co-defendant, Rudolf Brandt, confirm assumptions which the prosecution cannot itself prove and for which Rudolf Brandt also, according to his sworn testimony, lacks all concrete substantiation.
Prof. Handloser was for 3 3/4 years (from 1 Jan 1941 to 31 Aug. 1944) Army Medical Inspector. If the Prosecution has not been able to produce one single document from nearly four years of the defendant's activity as Army Medical Inspector that bears on the criminal experiments and that contains Handloser's name as signature or as the person responsible, then this fact refutes prima facie the assumption of the Prosecution.
Prof. Handloser as Army Medical Inspector, was the highest man in the Military-medical hierarchy of the Army. This was an important position and his staff, the Army Medical Inspectorate, was a large organization of which the Chief of Staff was Generalartzt Dr. SchmidtBruecken. This staff was in Berlin whereas Handloser spent 90% of his time in Headquarters at the fronts. All receipts, letters, reports, went through the registry office, the departmental chiefs and the Chief of Staff. Prof. Handloser received nothing that had not previously come to the attention of the registar, the departmental chief or the Chief of Staff. All conferences that Handloser had with his department chiefs were also known to the Chief of Staff who, as a matter of principle, had to be informed of them beforehand. All discussions with third parties were arranged for by the Chief of Staff; he saw to it that an expert was present at such discussions.
If Professor Handloser had conferences with other officers or outside his own office he was accompanied by an expert in the matter that was to be discussed.
The results of these discussions were in every case set down in some identifiable form such as orders, letters, directives, file notes. The orders went down through the hierarchy to the last office, which was to carry the order out. The directives were distributed to a larger or smaller number of other persons. The circle of persons who, in Prof. Handloser's immediate vicinity and in the larger field of the office in question, had to have knowledge of every fundamental or general decision or directive of Prof. Handloser's was very large.
Therefore Prof. Handloser could do nothing, order nothing, plan nothing, without its happening that this inevitably became known in the outside world and to a specific circle.
The person who inevitably knew of occurrences within the Army Medical Inspectorate was the Chief of Staff Generalarzt Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken the person who inevitably knew of the occurrences in the Office of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services was the Chief of Staff Generalarzt Wuerfler. The functions of these two Chiefs of Staff have been carefully described by Prof. Handloser in the affidavit HA 29, exh. 4 and the two chiefs of staff have confirmed under oath the correctness of his description, In this connection the mutally corroborative testimony is important that within the sphere of Handloser's office absolutely nothing could take place of which the chiefs of staff could have been ignorant, and that they in their official positions never had knowledge of experiments such as are at issue in this precedence.
The second catagory of those who knew of occurrences was the leading and chief medical officers, since they were the intermediaries between top and bottom and between bottom and top, so that every order or directive from above, as well as every report from below had to pass through them along official channels.
From this catagory the defendant has spontaneously been sent numerous affidavits which I have put in evidence and which show that Handloser never issued orders or directives which violate the recognized precepts of medical practice. The same is true for the catagory of consulting physicians, who have confirmed Handloser's exemplary orientation as a doctor.
Finally, the sworn testimony of the co-defendants and witnesses: Prof. Karl Brandt, Prof. Gebhardt, Prof. Rose, Prof. Mrugowsky, Generalarzt Wuerfler, Generalarzt Schmidt-Bruecken, Generalarzt Dr. Jaeckel, Prof. Gutzeit, has proved that Prof. Handloser never spoke with any of these men about experiments on human beings in concentration camps.
What an extraordinary man Prof. Handloser must be if he, whether as instigator, abettor, or participant, had anything to do with the experiments on human beings in concentration camps. Although, as we have seen, his activities were subject to continuous and inevitable check, he would have had to be able, in an incredibly subtle way, to keep secret or to camouflage, throughout the entire duration of his activities as Army Medical Inspector and Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, everything that referred to human experimentation in concentration camps. Handloser, as the "man behind the scenes," would have had to conceal, in a masterfully fashion, his "true" intentions and his "criminal" actions from his chiefs of staff, his associates, his leading medical officers, his consulting physicians, and even those who knew of the human experiments, so skillfully that no one had any inkling of them.
Is that possible? No, Your Honors, that is impossible. The Prosecutor himself said "there is no secret about Handloser" (p. 3630 German transcript) These words are important and are valuable in Handloser's defense; his actions, his orientation, his personality, are clear as day. This is so far true that in his case even that can be seen which is otherwise obscure in criminal cases; the subjective aspect of the facts, his true intention and his medical, soldierly, and human orientation.
This becomes entirely clear from his speeches before the consulting physicians and from the prefaces that he wrote for the printed reports on the conferences.
The Prosecution has put in evidence various excerpts from the conference reports from the consulting conferences and in order to incriminate the defendant Handloser, has referred to him as the man in charge of the consulting conferences. In order to find the truth it appears important to examine the words that Handloser uttered at a time when he did not have to concern how Germany's enemies would construe his words.
If he had been in any way connected with innovating new methods of research that deviated from the previously accepted rules, if indeed, as the Prosecution asserts, he had provided the incentive for the experiments in Buchenwald, what would have been more natural than for him to claim the credit or at least to make his interest known in such representative addresses. In point of fact, however, Handloser's addresses contain no word that allows one to deduce that he even had knowledge of these experiments on human beings. The defendant Handloser, also, cites his statements and asserts that no chief of the medical services of a nation waging war could have spoken differently in essence.
This brings me to the count in the indictment "Typhus Experiments," the only count of the indictment in which Prof. Handloser is brought into immediate association with the incriminating experiments.
The following constitutes the typhus problem in the Handloser case:
The prosecution states that Professor Handloser, because of the Army's interest in the production of typhus vaccine, used the SS and its research institute in Buchenwald to make use of new methods in the matter of artificial infection with typhus bacilli. These methods were not in accordance with the recognized rules for medical research.
During presentation of evidence by the prosecution and during cross-examination the interest which Prof. Handloser had in the typhus problem was emphasized again and again, a fact which was never contested by Prof. Handloser but which has no probative value in its general aspects, but which is capable of making the finding of the judgment more difficult.
The typhus problem comprises:
typus research production of typhus vaccine the procurement and distribution of typhus vaccine.
Professor Handloser never contested to have been interested in all these questions. He definitely denied, however, that, within the framework pf his line-of-duty fight against typhus, he was interested in typhus research which is solely under indictment here.
It is confusing to derive the assumption that an interest in illegal and improper research existed from a duty-bound interest in research itself. This would constitute a reversal of the burden of evidence. Rather it is to be assumed because of lack of indications and evidence that a duty-hound interest in definite research according to legal and recognized medical rules was intended i.e., the normal state of affairs is rather to be assumed.
It is equally incorrect to point to the interest of the Army in an attempt to characterize the general assumption.
Professor Handloser, during the critical period (end of 1941, beginning of 1942) was only medical inspector of the Army. He became Chief of the Army Medical Service only on 1 August 1942. Not only the Army, however, but also the other branches of the armed forces, the Waffen SS, the Home Front, the prisoners of war -- that is, the Allies -and the population of the occupied territories were interested in combatting typhus. On top of that, Professor Handloser, as Army Medical Inspector, had the research Institute for virus of the OKH in Krakau/ Lemberg under his jurisdiction which produced typhus vaccine from the intestines of lice and he worked on its completion and on its increase of production.
After all, it was not as if one had still to invent typhus vaccine.
Besides the Weigl vaccine, which was made from intestines of lice and which I have mentioned, there were still the various processes of vaccine production from hen eggs and the vaccine according to Durand and Giroud, for the production of which the lungs of guinea pigs were used. These vaccines had already been tried and proved and used to a limited extent. For these vaccines then only the proof of their efficacy on a large scale in relationship to the Weigl vaccine was still missing.
It was necessary to carry out this test in order to achieve the largest degree of certainty.
The normal method for this was the epidemiological experiment; that is, the vaccination of a large number of people in areas threatened by typhus by using the vaccines to be tested, in equal amounts, side by side. Such a vaccination on a large scale, however, has nothing to do with experiments as they are indicted here. It is a preventive vaccination with a tested and tried vaccine, at least on a limited scale.
In first place, however, stood as primary and decisive measure in the struggle against typhus the combating of the louse. From the very beginning of the typhus crisis all the offices of the Wehrmacht (Medical Officers and troop leaders) were reminded, through large scale propaganda, of the principle: "the struggle against typhus consists in the struggle against the louse." This sentence was disseminated on hundreds of thousands of posters. Simultaneously, on the entire Eastern front both decentralized and centralized delousing stations were set up. In addition, the troops were, to a consistently increasing extent, provided with louse power.
At the conference of the consulting physicians in May 1942 the typhus problem occupied the center of the stage. Following four basic lectures there was a discussion in which 23 speakers participated. Professor Habs said, "the basic principle must remain 'delousing controls typhus; on the front hot air delousing is sufficient" (page 52 of the conference report). Policies for the combating of typhus which were drawn up at this conference begin with the sentence, "the combating of the body louse is the basis for the combating of typhus." That was the situation at the end of 1941.
Professor Handloser's interests are clearly to be seen. They were (a) primarily the combating of the louse, (b) increasing the production of typhus vaccine. Thus, it was not the problem of typhus research that stood in the foreground but the extension of the struggle against the louse and the increase in the production of the reliable Weigl vaccine, as well as of other tested vaccines.
This latter problem was the deeper reason and incentive for the letter that Professor Handloser sent to the Reich Health Leader, Dr. Conti, who was competent for the Government General and the Homeland, on 10 November 1941 (Document No. 1323, Exhibit 452). This is the only prosecution document that bears Handloser's signature and it proves the correctness of his orientation toward the typhus problem. It confirms that the OKH Institute in Crace-Lemberg had been asked to provide typhus vaccine but that the Army's requirements could hardly be met by this Institute and that increasing requirements were to be expected for the Homeland.
Therefore, Professor Handloser proposed that the production of typhus vaccines should be placed in the hands of the pharmaceutical industry.
Pursuant to this suggestion Staatssekretaer Dr. Conti, who, as I have just said, was competent for the Homeland and the Government General, ordered: "discussion of production of typhus vaccine by the pharmaceutical industry." He oriented the Robert Koch Institute, which was subordinate to him, the Behring Works in Marburg, which had already previously delivered typhus vaccine and the I.G.Farben Industrie, whose representatives, Demnitz and Zahn, took part in the discussion on 29 December 1941 in the Reichs Ministry of the Interior.
It can accordingly be assumed that the conference on 29 December 1941 in the Reichs Ministry of the Interior on the typhus situation is to be attributed to Professor Handloser's suggestion in his letter of 10 November 1941. But there can be no doubt that this conference was to and did concern itself solely and exclusively with the question of vaccine production and not with the question of research methods such as were used in Buchenwald.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, your time has expired.
DR. NELTE: I deeply regret that; because of that I shall not be in a position to read the most important passages in my plea; but perhaps I could use the 20 minutes that Handloser would have for his final statement -- 15 to use in his place.
THE PRESIDENT: How long would the balance of your argument consume, counsel?
DR. NELTE: I believe 20 minutes would suffice, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you may have 15 minutes at the opening of tomorrow afternoon's session.
Now, this Tribunal will not be in session tomorrow morning. The Tribunal will now be in recess until one-thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Dr. Nelte may then have 15 minutes which is not to be taken as a precedent by other counsel. I suggest other counsel remember to read the more important portions of their arguments first instead of at the last.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until one-thirty o'clock tomorrow.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until one-thirty tomorrow afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 15 July 1947, at 1715 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 15 July 1947, 1330-1700, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal; will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel for the defendant Handloser has been allowed an extra fifteen minutes to conclude his argument. He may proceed.
DR. NELTE for Handloser: I shall continue with my final plea.
The basic assertion in Handloser's case is his alleged participation in typhus conference which took place on 29 December 1941, and where, it is alleged, the decision was made to conduct typhus experiments in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.
The Prosecution has not proved this fact, quite the contrary has been proved.
On 29 December 1941 a conference about the typhus vaccine problems took place in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Not even the Prosecution has alleged that Handloser took a part in it.
Now, in order to save the note in the Ding Diary, the Prosecution alleges that a second conference took place on the same day about which, however, no record or other document has been submitted.
Now it has been proved that, by expert opinion and Dr. Kogon, that the first page of the Ding Diary in the formulation as submitted has been falsified, therefore no probative value can be attached to it.
Neither in the affidavits Ding-Schuler NO-257, Dr. Hoven NO-429, and Mrugowsky NO-423, which deal with the typhus experiments in Buchenwald, nor in the entire remainder of the Ding Diary are Handloser's name and the Medical Inspectorate of the Army mentioned at all.
Above and beyond this, this one testimony of all alleged participants in the conference who are still alive refutes the statement that a conference of the alleged persons, leading to the alleged result, ever took place.
And finally, Dr. Rose's testimony under oath and the camouflage letter of Mrugowsky of 5 May 1942 prove that Dr. Conti instigated the experiments.
Also, if we suppose that Handloser, in his capacity as Medical Inspector of the Army, was present at such a meeting, it would be in contradiction to all logic and experience of life that he was never in Buchenwald, no report about the experiments ever reached the Medical Inspectorate of the Army, Handloser never spoke about the matter with his Chiefs of Staff, Handloser never spoke with Dr. Ding.
Handloser was Medical Inspector of the Army and Chief of the Medical Service of the Army. His position as Medical Inspector of the Army was strong and vested with authority to give orders.
The Prosecution, however, strives to stress Handloser's position as Chief of the Medical Services of the Army and to enlarge its importance because only thus they can construct a contact with the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe and of the Waffen-SS and thus establish a relation with the research work which is indicted here.
The investigation of the functions, rights, and duties of Handloser in his capacity as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service has occupied much space in the argument of the prosecution and the defense. This appeared necessary to the Prosecution because the edicts of 1942, 1944, and the Service Regulation 1944 gave no indication for the asserted competence of Handloser, and furthermore, because no evidence of a personal criminal responsibility of Handloser, as Chief of the Armed Forces Medical Service, could be produced in regard to the illegal experiments or his participation in them as charged.
If the Prosecution attempted to prove Handloser's authority to issue orders, it was not done to show that he had issued ordinances of this type by reason of this right to issue orders, for they do not exist. It was done to demonstrate his duty of exercising supervisory authority in this field, to show that he had to receive reports, and finally to be able to assert that he had incriminated himself because he had done nothing. The evidence submitted has shown quite clearly that it was his duty to direct the adjustment of personnel and material affairs within the branches of the Armed Forces as is evidenced by the first sentence of the decree of 1942. Within the scope of this sphere of duties, Professor Handloser was charged with the combination, or as it was generally called the coordination of all common problems in the field of the Armed Forces Medical Service.
The task of coordination given to Professor Handloser did not mean that all problems of the medical service, which were of the same nature, or capable of being consolidated, automatically came under the jurisdiction of the Chief of the Medical Service. It was rather his duty to examine which part of the immense Medical Service was suitable for coordination. Whenever Handloser thought that a certain department was suitable for coordination, he tried to reach an agreement with the Medical Chiefs of the branches of the Armed Forces; for, since he had no powers of command, the coordination could only take place in conjuction with the Medical Chiefs. After the coordination had been accomplished, he was empowered to issue directives in this field which did not have the character of an order.
It has become, clear, furthermore, that neither by reason of the decree of 1942, which was competent for the period from 1 August 1942 to 31 August 1944, nor by reason of the decree of 1944 and the Service Regulation, Handloser was the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht branches or the Waffen-SS, and that therefore he had no jurisdiction or supervisory authority in these organizations. The testimony of Handloser, Genzken, Gebhardt, Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler and the official remark in the 1944 Service Regulation have shown quite unequivocally, regarding the relation of the Chief of the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht and the Medical Services of the Waffen-SS, that relations between the Wehrmacht Medical Service agencies and the Waffen-SS was confined in time and substance to the necessary tactical subordination for supplying medical service for the Waffen-SS divisions during front line commitment. The testimony further shows that Professor Handloser had no influence on the medical system of the Waffen-SS, that is, on affairs and scopes of activity of the Medical and Sanitation Service of the Waffen-SS.
The research of the Luftwaffe, according to testimony of Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, was not under the jurisdiction, nor under the supervisory authority of Handloser as Chief of Medical Services.
I come now to the conclusion:
The prosecution defined the National Socialist ideology as the source of disregard for human life and thereby of the illegal experiments. This is one of the imponderable arguments for the greater readiness to adopt an attitude which deviates from the general ethical standard. The prosecution did not submit any special statements on this point, but merely expressed in a general way that the German medical profession as a whole was "infected by the paralyzing poison of Nazi superstition."
Professor Handloser has stated his attitude toward National Socialism on the witness stand. Numerous affidavits have testified that he consistently took the course of an upright man and that he opposed Party influences whenever they were contradiction to his ethical views.
If you read the opening statements of Professor Handloser in the printed records of the meetings -- please do this -- you will acquire a picture of his character as doctor and soldier. They are the confession of a man, who had devoted the whole of his life to a profession, the whole purpose and end of which is to help suffering humanity in its darkest hours. When war comes, with all its horrors, wounds and pestilences, when men are called up to kill and destroy, it is the doctors who, in the guise of soldiers, stake their all, under the ensign of the Red Cross, to heal or at least alleviate the pains and diseases of war. While the brutal business of war weakens the ethical laws, the highest achievement of culture and the soldier on the field loses his reverence for human life, the medical officer's task is increased far beyond the level of peacetime ethics. In the ethical chaos of war he is the symbol of human and brotherly love, for he is called upon to help friend and foe alike.
That the German doctors of the Wehrmacht in toto fulfilled this high task is proved convincingly among other things by the fact that no complaints were made about what they did, either on the battle front, on the home front, in the occupied territories, in military hospitals, or in prisoner of war camps.
This ethical attitude as confirmed also by the affidavits of the Swiss doctors Dr. von Erlach, and Dr. Bruenner, Professor Handloser will not claim as his merit; for the mass of German doctors, most of whom came from civil life, brought with them the ethics of their profession.
But I, as his defense counsel, may point out that only a strong character, rooted firmly in the ethics of his profession and of humanity, could maintain the spirit of the whole medical officer corps on such a high moral plane during such a war.
You have the opinion of his military superiors and the testimonials of the leading general physicians under him, the unsolicited affidavits of the Generalaerzte in the Garmisch PW camp, and of the Generalaerzte in Munster Camp C. The complementary counter piece to this is the testimony given him by the leading general physicians under him. The picture which emerges is that of a truthful and sincere doctor and soldier, irreproachable as a superior, upright and honest as a subordinate. This picture is completed by the numerous other largely spontaneously sent affidavits concerning the nature of the man Handloser. I think the plain examples of Dr. Drexler in his affidavit prove more adequately than any words that Handloser acted up fully to the principle of humanity, and that a person showing these characteristics cannot possibly have had any connection with and cannot possibly have approved of experiments which violate the principles of medical ethics. Professor Handloser, however, denied all knowledge of such connections too, and I think I have proved that this attitude is credible, and why. The testimonies of the two Chiefs of Staff, the Generalaerzte Dr. Wurfl and Dr. SchmidtBruecken, given under oath, appear to me convincing for the professional side of the problem. Moreover, tin the last instance it is a question of Professor Handloser's credibility, which may be deduced from an estimation of his whole personality.
There you have a clear picture of the man before you. At the interrogations which preceded this trial and in the witness box he has represented his activity as Army Medical Inspector and Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service with complete frankness. His statements have not been quashed by the evidence produced by the prosecution but coincide in every point with the evidence produced by the defense.
I think I may say that the credibility of Professor Handloser is beyond all doubt. If he ever pursued a wrong road in his life -- and who among us has not erred at some time -- he did not hesitate, as an honest man, to perceive and confess the error of his ways. He would not have behaved otherwise in this trial either, if he were conscious of guilt.
In the consciousness of having done his duty as Army Medical Inspector and as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, to his nation, to the wounded and sick soldiers of all nations, to the prisoners of war, and to the populations of the occupied territories to the best of his ability, in the firm confidence that this High Tribunal will apply the principles of justice that are conductive to international conciliation, he awaits your decision with the calm which can only come from a clear conscience.
THE PRESIDENT: I would inquire of the Secretary if the translation of the argument of counsel for defendant Rostock has been received in the court room and delivered to the interpreters?
Counsel, I am informed that the translation of your argument as counsel for defendant Rostock has not yet been received.
DR. PRIBILLA (Defense Counsel for defendant Rostock): Mr. President my closing brief has not yet been translated by the Translation Branch, but, through the kindness of the court interpreters, the short excerpt from it that I intend to read here has been translated and the interpreters have one copy of that translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand from the interpreters that the translation of the argument which counsel for defendant Rostock will make is available to them?
INTERPRETER: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear from counsel for the defendant Rostock.
DR. PRIBILLA: Mr. President, Your Honors:
The great English historian and sociologist Thomas Carlyle once said: "Your life, and were you the humblest of human beings, is not a wild dream but a lofty fact." I do not want to speak to you in this court room without first recalling this saying and thereby seeing before my eyes the picture of the great number of our fellow human beings whose life has really become a wild dream. The fact, on which this trial is based, that defenseless human beings were used by doctors of my country for experiments and in part died after suffering tortures, cannot be denied. I myself would doubt the clarity of my judgment as a German jurist if I did not come to the realization that general human rights such as the fundamental standards anchored in all civilized nations have been violated thereby. Medical science should bring help and healing to suffering humanity. I am proud to state that it was German doctors who, in the last century, saved millions of human beings from the most serious and fatal diseases by their research. Let me remind you only of names like Robert Koch, Emil von Behring, Paul Ehrlich, Theodor Billroth, and August Bier, or medicines such as Germanin, atabrine, Salvasan, diphteria serum, tetanus serum, and many others. If it were possible to achieve such decisive results in any other way, this would only confirm the actual truth, that no one, no matter how highly placed and no matter how important his aims, has the right to lower other human beings to the level of guinea pigs by force. How could a man venture to dispose in that way of the life and health of his fellow men, be they ever so humble? It seems to me that this involves a fundamental contradiction to the duty of the doctor, a violation of the dignity of the individual, and a presumption which cannot remain without horrible results.
There maybe doubtful cases, there maybe borderline cases, but the solution of these questions can be based on only one principle, which is that all creatures in human form have an equal right to life and health. This I consider the decisive point, and I was deeply disturbed to learn in the course of this trial that in other countries, too, points of view have obviously arisen among the medical profession in the last few decades which seem to be erreconcilable with the principle just stated. If this is so, then no distinction must be made as to whether conditions in Germany or in the Philippines or elsewhere are at issue. It may be justified in the case of new medicines to test them on sick persons in the hope of healing them, but no one can persuade me that it can be permissible to infect human beings against their will with dangerous diseases. As defense counsel I can take no other stand. In all such cases the facts must be investigated and the limits of law and right must be made clear to those who violate them. Should a thorough investigation disclose that insufficient clear legislation bears part of the responsibility, should it be discovered that the general attitude of medical research workers even in other parts of the world has become all too broad on this point, then these facts would have to have some weight in lessening the guilt of offenses which have been committed. For future cases, however, it seems to me that clarity is urgently needed.
In view of the suffering and the victims with which we have become acquainted in the course of all these trials, summary justice might have been the expression of indignant human feeling. In the general moral and material chaos of the postwar period, who would have asked whether one life more or less had been extinguished? But that would only have lengthened the chain of injustice and made impossible the process or moral convalescence which we hope for. You, Your Honors, have with rare poise and patience investigated both the facts which form the basis of the indictment and the complicated question of what direct or indirect responsibility these defendants have for the criminal experiments.