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.
You have immersed yourselves in the extremely complicated network of competency of a totalitarian state at war, with its big struggles for power and its antagonisms. The only purpose of this effort can be that the judgment which you pas may be as just as possible. If the expert Professor Leibbrandt was right with his assertion that the medical profession in all countries in the world has relaxed its vigilance against abuses during the past decades, then this can be changed only by a judgment which really corresponds to the highest demands of our profession, which weighs everything and cleanly separates the guilty from the innocent.
Only with such a judgment will it be possible to help humanity to progress a bit after such terrible reverses. Only then can this judgment become a law and a guide for future generations of doctors throughout the world. Never before has there been such a trial, in which leading doctors of a gread country were under such serious indictment, and so a just judgment of the High Tribunal will establish the limits and borders of modern medical science. Perhaps in the near future doctors throughout the world will mention it in the same breath with the oath of Hippocrates, which has been mentioned so often here.
If we now, with the knowledge we have gained from the presentation of evidence, turn to the particular case of the defendant whom I represent, Professor Paul Rostock, I believe that the extreme thoroughness of the trial has in this case brought clarity which will permit you, Your Honors, to reach an absolutely clear verdict. I believe that a picture of this excellent man and doctor has been impressed upon you by his personal examination and by the testimony of the witnesses. First I shall bring out the facts which even the Prosecution does not deny. Who is Professor Paul Rostock? Was he a doctor in the SS or even a member of this organization? It has been proved that he was not. Did he carry out experiments on human beings in concentration camps? He never even set foot in a concentration camp. Did Rostock himself perform experiments on involuntary experimental subjects? No one alleges that he did.
Are there documents which show that he ordered or even suggested such an experiment? After the end of the presentation of evidence, we see that there is no such document. Moreover, the Prosecution has not submitted any document addressed to Rostock or signed by him which might indicate any other participation in such an experiment or even his knowledge thereof? Now, what did Rostock actually do during the war. He was the busy head of the big Surgical University Clinic in Berlin and also the dean of the medical faculty of the University of Berlin. Everyone agrees that he was an outstanding doctor and scientist. This is attested by his numerous scientific textbooks and other publications and the honors which he obtained for his ability, without any influence of politics or war. The picture which his associates have drawn from their close acquaintance with him and which represents him as a tireless helper of his patients, as a doctor who did not leave the clinic day or night during the worst air raids, so that he could help his patients and the newly admitted victims of the raids - this picture remains uncontradicted. How did this man come to be in the dock, and what remained of the Prosecution's supposed reasons for suspicion after the presentation of evidence? To sum up, there are three wider fields within which the Prosecution wants to connect the Defendant Rostock with the criminal experiments. First, during the war Rostock was a medical officer in the Germany army reserve and held the position of an adviser in the surgical field to the Inspector of the Army Medical Service. In this capacity Rostock heard the lecture of the codefendant Gebhardt at a meeting of Consulting Physicians in 1943, together with over 100 other doctors. He heard a report about experiments which had long been completed, and, together with over 100 other prominent participants, he heard from the mouth of such a highplaced man as Prof. Gebhardt that the legal aspect had previously been thoroughly clarified and did not have to be discussed. Rostock had no suspicion, any more than the other doctors present that there was any question of criminal actions.
In a later part of this statement, when dealing with the evidence, I shall explain exactly that nothing has been shown to prove a participation of Rostock in Gebhardt's experiments. It will be shown that he had no legal obligation to intervene, since his military and medical superiors were personally present at the same lecture.
Rostock continued to work as chief of his clinic, and it must be emphasized that this work became day by day more difficult, as the air raids on Berlin increased in 1943-44. Then, at the end of 1943, at the request of Karl Brandt, he attempts to establish a Department for Science and Research for the office of the Commissioner General for Medicine and Health. This opens the second field of indictment. At that time, it is true, the experiments under discussion here had for the most part already been ordered, begun, and carried out under various authorities. The Prosecution thinks, however, that the newly created office of Rostock now must have obtained knowledge of all these experiments, which were secret and which were carefully concealed from the public, What Rostock's motives were for the creation of the Department for Science and Research, he himself has convincingly explained in his examination. This uncontradicted testimony of his is of special importance in judging whether in view of the aims which he had chosen for his office, it had at all been possible for him to learn details of the research then going on. This was not within the sphere of duties of his office, nor was it possible from the point of view of personnel or time. Of special importance hero are his statements about the background of the Department for Science and Research. The occasion for its establish ment was defense against attacks on Germany's scientific research and doctrine by narrow-minded politicians. The resulting tasks were primarily in the direction of maintaining and expanding the facilities for research and teaching, without interfering in their details. Rostock's office began its practical activity only in February 1944. Anyone who knows conditions in Germany at that time can confirm what the evidence has clearly shown: that the attempt to coordinate and regulate science and research which was undertaken in the last chaotic year of war bogged down shortly after it began.
The third field which the Prosecution has brought up also deals with a secondary office which Rostock undertook in this last war year, 1944. Karl Brandt formally appointed Rostock his deputy in the Fraesidialrat (governing council) of the Reich Researah Council. The picture given by the evidence must again be examined to determine whether Rostock, from this subsidiary office, gained knowledge of criminal experiments and thus at least became an accomplice of some experiments to be judged here. No document or witness was presented to prove that Rostock took any direct part in experiments through the office of the Reich Research Council, any more than in the other fields of indictment.
The Prosecution connects Rostock with the other defendants quite generally because of his position on the German health service. Here again, in the light of the evidence, we must examine whether there actually was any such connection.
1. The individual experiments with which Rostock is connected by the Prosecution.
1. Malaria Experiments.
I shall refer to them in the closing brief.
2. Lost Experiments (page 10 of the original At the beginning Rudolf Brandt had stated in his affidavit (No 372) that Rostock had had knowledge of these experiments.
This statement he retracted in his affidavit Exh. Rostock Nr. 8, as well as in his numerous answers during his cross-examination. The research assignments to Prof.
Hirt originate with the Reich Research Council. It should be noted that they were issued before October 1943, at a time, therefore when Rostock had not yet been appointed deputy for the members of the Fraesidialrat (governing council) of the Reich Research Council Karl Brandt.
(page 11 of the original How far Rostock's knowledge - based on the assignment register of which he was in charge - of Hirt's rearch assignment went has been clarified in detail; namely, merely the fact that Hirt was working on the Lost problem but not the way in which he did it.
During the crossexamination by Mr. McHaney document No 692, Pros. Exh. 457 was shown to Rostock. It contains a list, compiled by Rostock's staff on 14 Sept 1944, in which of 650 items 45 research assignments are marked as regarded essential for the war effort under the then prevailing war conditions. This Document also contains, among the assignments going to Strassburg, the assignment to Haagen, Bickenbach and Hirt. Before as well as after submission of this document Rostock testified to the same effect namely, that he had received knowledge of these assignments according to the list but that he did not know that they were in any way connected with human experiments. This was also proved by the statement by Karlstetter as well as through the affidavits by Hegemann and Zettel.
(page 12 of the original)
That Rostock neither knew nor had to know the details of these experiments becomes equally evident from the fact that the whole field of combatting Chemical Warfare Agents was not within the sphere of activities of the Office for Science and Research of which Rostock was the chief but came under the direct competence of the General Commissarat himself. This was clearly stated during the examination of Karl Brandt, when Brandt stated that his collaborators in this particular field were officials of the Speer Ministry, the Armament Testing Office (Waffenpruefungsant), and those gentlemen responsible for air raid precautions, and that Rostock and his office were not informed about these matters. This was furthermore proved by the affidavit by Mielenz, also by testimonies of the witnesses Christensen and Karlstetter who stated that there was no correspondence about matters of Chemical Warfare Agents.
This was again explicity certified by Dr. Christensen when - during the cross-examination by Hr. Hardy he was asked about a possible correspondence with Prof. Hirt.
This is also valid as regards to the documents NO 1852 which were shown to Rostock during the cross-examination by Mr. HcHaney. Here it is a matter of reports about Phosgene experiments which are addressed to Karl Brandt. Those reports are not addressed to Rostock as he stated in his testimony during the cross-examination, merely the fact that Rostock's office was situated next door to that of Brandt does not prove - as the prosecution implies - that he should have read all letters addressed to Brandt, even if he was not competent in the subject the letters dealt with. Every impartial judge must admit that this conclusion seems a little far fetched.
As, in spite of this the prosecution, during the corss-examination, have submitted these documents about questions of Chemical Warfare Agents to the defendants Rostock, it has to be stated that simply none of these documents contains an ever so tiny allusion to Rostock and his Office for Science and Research. None of the documents could change the impression, which Rostock made and which is: that he testified honestly and correctly before the Tribunal.
I shall come back to the Lost experiments in my closing brief.
From these statements it becomes evident that Rostock had nothing to do with the Lost experiments on human beings, under discussion, and that he did not even know anything about them.
3. Sulfonamid Experiments The prosecution did not contend that Rostock collaborated in these experiments.
On the other hand, Mr. McHaney said on 21 February, 1947, that he, Rostock, "knew, or was supposed to know about them." If by this is meant that Rostock was informed about these experiments together with more than 100 other prominent doctors, including his then military and medical chiefs, through a lecture by Gebhardt and Fischer, at the third congress of consulting physicians from 24 to 26 May 1943, which has been dealt with in detail here, then this must be admitted. But no punishable act can be seen in this alone.
If, on the other hand, the prosecution believes that Rostock knew about this lecture and the experiments carried out by Grawitz or Gebhardt which were the bases of his lecture beforehand, they are mistaken. The error is based on a statement by Gebhardt who during a pre trial-examination said that the lecture including reference material had been submitted to the medical authority who was in charge of preparations for the congress. Gebhardt had then assumed that this was Rostock, as he was the chairman of the special professional section surgery.
But evidence has proved that it was an executive staff consisting of medical officers of the Army Medical Inspectorate headed by the Chief Medical Officer (Generalarzt Schreiber) who was in charge of these preparations.
Rostock was not a member of this committee. Therefore the previous information went to Schreiber and not to Rostock as was certified by Gebhard in his examination. It is therefore proved that Rostock found out about these experiments for the first time on 24 May 1943 through this lecture of Gebhardt and Fischer; the experiments had been concluded when the lecture was delivered, otherwise the result could not have been reported about.
Through testimonies by Rostock, Handloser, Gebhardt and Fischer it has been unanimously clarified that Gebhardt as an introduction to Fischer's lecture said that these experiments had been carried out on persons who had been sentenced to death according to orders and who then had been pardoned.
There was no reason, neither for Rostock nor for the rest of the audience to doubt the truth of these introductory statements. Also, it was not within his competence to investigate details as to nationality, sex or legal reason and justification of sentence. It could be assumed that the persons sentenced to death had voluntarily applied to be used for experiments in order to evade death punishment, as has been stated by Rostock when he was asked about his impressions of Gebhardt's introductory remarks. All testimonies here prove unanimously that no information had ever been received to the effect that Polish women had been the experimental subjects.
Evidence has proved that Mr. McHaney's statements during the prosecution's case to the effect that the participants of the congress had" not only received information as to what was happening" but that they "had knowledge of what went on in the concentration camps" and that they knew the reports even before the time they were read are incorrect. Listening to a lecture is by no means identical with the participation in experiments which are the subject of the lecture.
There would also have to be some act of participation. This could perhaps consist of omission, if the listeners had a legal duty to act. Disregarding the fact that Rostock had no reason to doubt the accuracy of Gebhardt's statements, what could Rostock have done at the moment of Gebhardt's lecture by way of protest against the experiments, which wore already completed? His immediate and supreme military and medical superiors were personally present at the lecture, and for that reason no reports to them were necessary.
The Prosecution itself, through Mr. Hardy, on 3 April 1947 acknowledged that it was necessary for experiments on human beings to be carried out. They said that in themselves they were not criminal. The indictment had been served not because of the human experiments themselves, but because of the criminal manner of execution of the experiments.
The necessary conclusion from this is that the knowledge of experiments on human beings alone is not punishable. As far as the Sulfonamide experiments are concerned, Rostock merely learned a little about the experiments that had been finished. He did not learn, however, that they had been carried out in a criminal manner, for example on non-volunteers. For he had to assume that the persons condemned to death had voluntarily accepted the chance for pardon, which was offered them. The Prosecution expert, Professor Ivy, expressly stated that one can hold the view that persons condemned to death can volunteer for medical experiments. In their final plea on 14 July, the prosecution stated through Mr. McHaney, that the views of Mr. Ivy were not only the views of an individual, but the views of the United States. Thus there is no charge against Rostock, according to the evidence, in the sulfonamide matter. Individual details will come up in my closing briefs.
5. Experiments for making sea-water drinkable.
These experiments were carried out at a time when Rostock was the Chief of the Office for Science and Research with the General Commissioner for Medical and Health.
As shown on the Chart Exh.... Prosecution might have seen an incrimination of Rostock in the fact that Schroeder stated in his Affidavit NO 449 that Rostock had knowledge about research being carried out by the Luftwaffe. The evidence has proved, however, that Rostock or his office did not participate in the preliminary conferences to these experiments, because the list of participants and the minutes of these conferences were presented as document No 177. Schroeder in his affidavit, Exh Rostock 10, affirmed that Rostock in no way instigated or ordered these seawater experiments.
The research assignments distributed by the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe in 1944 were reported to Rostock's office, and it might be concluded from this fact that Rostock therefore got knowledge of the experiments.
Becker-Freyseng in his cross-examination through Mr. Hardy had started that the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe certainly did not send any report on the seawater experiments to Rostock and that he was quite sure that Rostock had not been present at the final conference in the anti aircraft shelter in the Berlin Zoo, when Beiglboeck made his report on the development and the result of the experiments. Again I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to this in my closing brief.
All this evidence proves beyond any doubt that Rostock neither sug gested nor ordered the seawater experiments, that he did not actively participate in them nor gave any advice and that he did not even know anything about them.
6. Experiments on epidemic jaundice.
A similar request for the execution of such experiments was put before the Tribunal in the form of a letter by Grawitz of 1 June 1943. At that time Rostock's office for Science and Research with the General Commissioner for Medical and Health Service did not yet exist. Rostock himself stated that he did not get any knowledge of that letter at that time.