THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will be seated.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you may proceed with your argument.
DR. MARX: (Defense Counsel for defendant Schroeder) Your Honors, I now begin the plea for the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder.
Today we are at the end of this trail against German physicians which has been conducted for many months with greatest care and with the aid of every conceivable piece of evidence introduced by prosecution and defense.
It is now the task of the defense to show whether the serious charges which were leveled not only against the indicted physicians of this trial, but also against the entire German medical profession can be weakened or restricted to a certain degree.
In his opening speech of 9 December 1946, the chief Prosecutor General Taylor declared:
"...The paralyzing poison of Nazi superstition spread insidiously through the entire medical profession and in the same manner in which it destroyed character and morals, it blunted the reason....."
It can be said that such charges cannot be applied to the entire German medical profession. The majority of the German medical profession. The majority of the German medical profession knows itself innocent of the charge of degenerating medical morals, and there can be no question of a departure from medical ethics with these representatives of the German medical profession. They have rather, always retained their high ideals and concepts of the duties of the medical profession. The German medical profession in their majority did not know anything of the events which took place in concentration camps during the war and, when the learned of them, they turned away with disgust and indignation from actions which could have no further connection with the medical profession and which they themselves considered criminal.
Can the charges and accusations of the prosecution be applied to my client, Prof. Dr. Schroeder? Can it be asserted that the "paralyzing poison of Nazi superstition" crept into the system of this man and this his character and his morals were destroyed by it, if on the other hand it can be said that Prof. Schroeder had nothing to do in the least with National Socialism, that he was never a member of the Party and that he rejected completely its aims.
Would it be possible to bring such a man in connection with criminal aims, a man to whom all subordinate medical officers looked with high esteem, for whose noble care the German Nursing profession always has been grateful, to whom learned men outside of the Wehrmacht showed considerable respect and maintained their faith and consideration even at this moment, when he being under the most serious charges has to fight for his honor, liberty and life?
The Defense hopes to prove that Prof. Schroeder is not guilty and that his shield of honor as a physician and an officer remains unblemished.
The Prosecution speaks in the first place of a criminal planning and conspiracy for the execution of war crimes in which even leading men of the medical service of the German Wehrmacht and, amounts them the defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder, allegedly participated.
If one speaks at all of a criminal conspiracy, and if my client Prof. Schroeder in particular can be accused of participation in such a conspiracy, there ought to exist certain facts justifying the suspicion of his participation in criminal plans.
The Prosecution was not in a position to present even one single document showing Schroeder's personality in connection with such plans. For a conspiracy there must be a group of men acting on the basis of a common understanding, having common ideas, being in connection with one another and driving at a common aim. They are usually directed by a central office.
The Prosecution seems to believe that a connection existed between Prof. Schroeder in his capacity as chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service and his subordinate officers for such a common plan. Because the assertion of the Prosecution that seven more defendants who were members of the Luftwaffe and subordinate to Schroeder cannot be understood otherwise.
It was pointed out however that the relations between Schroeder and the seven other defendants of the Luftwaffe were merely of an official nature, and were the same as between Prof. Schroeder and the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, his co-defendant, Prof. Handloser.
A look at the defendants dock will further convince you that no connections existed and can have existed between Prof. Schroeder and the majority of the other co-defendants. Three groups of defendants are to be distinguished: 1. The group of the Wehrmacht and Luftwafffe medical officers, 2. the group of the SS doctors, 3. a group that does not consist of physicians, but of higher administrative officials of SS and Party. It is not necessary to mention that in view of Schroeder's political and ideological attitude there can be no connection between him and the other two groups.
Prof. Schroeder's personality as well as the picture of his life and character will in the following briefly be described.
The numerous affidavits voluntarily put at the disposal of the Defense, and all the documents concerning Schroeder's life and professional work, clearly prove that Prof. Schroeder always put the highest demands to his own professional work, to the medical Ethics, that he had the highest concept of the service and the stand of the officer and, that he was deeply concerned with the welfare of the suffering mankind.
Prof. Schroeder in a really exemplary manner endeavored to organize the care for the wounded and the sick in the best possible way. He had not only the evidence and the statements, although they also mention much of it, but all the numberous field hospitals built under Schroeder's decisive influence give proof of his efforts to utilize the newest technical and medical discoveries for the benefit of his sick and wounded. The hospitals of Brunswic, Hamburg, Westerland, Wismar, Greifswald, Hall, Frankfurt, Nuernberg, to mention only a few of the large number, speak a more vivid language than simple words.
Professor Schroeder was also vice-president of the German Hospital System.
This is not the place to give a detailed picture of Schroeder a s personality and physician, it will be done elsewhere. I only want to deal with one point being of a decisive importance for the judgment Prof. Schroeder's life and work, and that is the description of Schroeder as a soldier.
Your Honors: A man in his sentiments, ideas and acts, in his relationships to other men and to his work depends not only on his character and his innate qualities, but he depends very much on his attitude and his surroundings.
What were Prof. Schroeder's surroundings? A glance at his life history will show. He was a soldier from his 19th year until the collapse in 1945. For 35 years without interruption he belonged to the Wehrmacht. Before world war I he entered the army with the intention to be come a medical officer. He remained in the 100,000 men army, joined the new Wehrmacht, and in 1935 joined the Luftwaffe. His entire professional life was dedicated to the service of his people and country, and he never decided himself for any political party. His adjutant, Dr. Augustinick very justly said here before this Tribunal of his old chief: "Prof. Schroeder was an unpolitical man."
He was a soldier, the model of the old conscientious medical officer. The entire country, not a people divided into groups of parties and interests, was the meaning of life for the soldier, Schroeder He kept far from political activities. The witness Dr. Hielscher, when examined before this Tribunal characterized the ignorance of the German officer with regard to his political surroundings, recognizing and appreciating at the same time his professional achievements He was right. The education and military orders made the old officer a stranger in these matters. He accustomed to obey the orders of the government leaders. He was not entitled to criticize them. In his honesty of conviction, in the sincerity of his thinking, and in his firm belief in the government he objected to it.
Then came the year 1933; the government was taken over by the National Socialists, the reorganization of the Wehrmacht was begun and welcomed by the old officer, because now the possibility was given to rebuild the Wehrmacht for the protection of the country. The new duties filled time and thoughts completely. There was no time left for personal matters, and even less for politics or party.
If the officer of the old school however, had at first welcomed the reconstitution of the order, he very soon was deeply disillusioned, when he had to recognize that the party continuously became more radical and that those elements were striving for the leadership, that from his point of view he could not respect. If in view of his education and his ideological attitude he disagreed with the way of thinking and the aims of the party, his dislike still increased when he noticed that there was an influx of elements into the positions of officers of the Wehrmacht, who were, as men and soldiers not suitable for the profession of an officer.
I have now described with a few strokes the position which faced an officer of the old school during the last few years, and Prof. Schroeder found himself in the same position.
One is here confronted with a simple question which appears quite natural: Why didn't that old soldier draw the simple conclusion from this development, which contradicted this basic attitude, and why didn't he leave, so that those men who desired to give an entirely new character to the German armed forces could do so freely? Would it not have been the simplest, clearest and, for an old officer cleanest solution of an inner conflict to leave the service?
The answer to that question for him could have been only a "no", for it would have meant his leaving the field without a battle and to surrender it to an inner enemy. The old soldier, the old officer, sensed the unsound character of the development, but he hoped yet to be able to give a turn to matters and to bring about a healthier course of things.
Therefore, he did not withdraw from the fields he tried by quiet purposeful work, by strict performance of his duty, as had been his life for decades, to be an example and a model, to be joined by a constantly growing group of like-minded people -- so he hoped, so he worked, quietly. Prof Schroeder held to these thoughts and this attitude even after he had risen to the highest positions in the medical circles of the Wahrmacht. He refused to join the Party, even when membership in the Party was open, and can say with pride that he has only his own achievements to be thanked for his promotion in the medical service. Undisturbed by any outside influences, Schroeder went his way and was a model of loyalty and fulfillment of duty to the medical officers under him. Such a man could never have given his assistance to a criminal plot.
As a specially clear proof of criminal plans the prosecution cites the annual meetings of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht, the purpose of which, according to the prosecution, was to announce and to evaluate the results of criminal experiments. In answer to that I can say: The minutes of these meetings show very clearly that this assumption of the prosecution cannot be correct. These meetings show very clearly that this assumption of the prosecution cannot be correct. These meetings were no different from similar meetings of representatives of medical science in other countries for the purpose of exchanging new medical knowledge gained in the meantime in all fields.
The same applied to the meetings of the consultant physicians where the experience gathered meanwhile, so important for the medical care of the Army was to be exchanged and made accessible to a larger circle of people.
This can be seen from the composition of the consultant physicians. They were the leading men of German medical science, university teachers and chiefs of recognized hospitals or scientific institutes, including scientists of well established repute who today, once more, are the teachers and leaders at German universities, hospitals and medical institutes. It is impossible to charge such men with criminal intent.
Thus, the prosecution has failed to supply any proof for the existence of a criminal group, criminal intent or conspiracy. Even less has it supplied any substantial indication for the fact that the defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder had been part of a conspiracy, or from his character been capable of having been involved.
It is unthinkable to connect a man of his professional concepts and sense of honor with conspiratorial aims of a criminal nature, such as is charged by the prosecution. Conspiracies to commit crimes grow on a different soil from the one I have endeavoured to describe.
Otherwise it would not have been possible for men of science who today again hold leading positions with German hospitals and universities and whose name are of repute throughout the world of science, for well known clergymen in high positions to have taken his part openly and without reserve without his or my solicitation. The picture they drew was that of a helpful and war-hearted doctor, a medical officer inspired by exemplary concepts of honor and profession, and of a man filled with love of humanity and respect for the dignity of the individual. Prof. Dr. Schroeder's life has been an exemplary one, free of all prejudices of race and class.
Prof. Dr. Meyer of the University of Teheran has drawn a partic ularly fitting picture of my client.
He emphasized that when he, Meyer, was a racially persecuted man and was in need of help, Prof. Schroeder gave him vigorous support in those troublesome days and remained a loyal friend.
Thus the accusation raised by the prosecution against German medical science and particularly the assertion that through the contamination of the unholy Nazi spirit a general lowering of medical ethics and the sense of responsibility expected from a doctor could be noted, can certainly not apply to Prof. Dr. Schroeder. Never did he abandon the fundamental principle of his work as a doctor; to help and to heel and to avoid anything that would lead to permanent injury.
In detail, Prof. Dr. Schroeder has been indicted for participation in, or knowledge of the following human experiments in the concentration camp: high altitude experiments; freezing experiments; sulfonamide experiments; yellow fever experiments; typhus experiments; experiments concerning hepatitis epidemica and sea-water experiments.
Before going into the relevant details here, I wish to make the following basic remarks:
Your Honors, a clear distinction must be made between the periods when Prof. Schroeder was not yet chief of the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe and the time when the held that office. We are concerned here with the period from the beginning of 1940 to the end of 1943. During that period Prof. Dr. Schroeder was the leading Medical Officer of Airfleet 2, and as such continually on service outside of Germany. It was only from 1 January 1944 onwards that he held the position of Chief of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.
This shows clearly that Prof. Dr. Schroeder can not be held responsible for all experiments in concentration camps which were carried out prior to 1st Jan. 1944. His sphere of duties was confined to the medical care of the Airfleet units under him and he was without any official points of contact with the Medical Inspectorate unless the latter was competent for his position as an Airfleet doctor.
To give a picture of Prof. Schroeder's duties at that time, I draw attention to the fact that the personnel strength of Airfleet 2 amounted to 200,000 to 300,000 men.
When dealing with Prof. Schroeder's responsibility for the high altitude experiments in Dachau, the prosecution had a overlooked the fact that at the time in question, Prof. Schroeder was Airfleet doctor and maintained that during that time he was, after Prof. Dr. Hippke the Medical Chief, the second highest Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe. From that circumstance, the prosecution draws the inference that Prof. Schroeder, as the second highest Medical Officer, was the obvious deputy for Hippke and therefore had to know about the most important events concerning the Medical Inspectorate.
The defendant Prof. Schroeder has in his defense proven beyond doubt that he was not the most senior Medical Officer after Hippke and therefore not Hippke's deputy. As Generalarzt and Generalstabsarzt he simply had the rank next to that of the Medical chief as did the other five Airfleet doctors. Above him in rank were two Generalstabsaerzte, namely Generalstabsarzt Dr. Neumueller and Dr. Blaul. The former had his office in Berlin and was in fact Hippke's deputy if and when necessary.
Prof. Dr. Schroeder has also refuted the further assumption of the prosecution that his relations with Prof. Dr. Hippke had been particularly close, for which reason Hippke had informed him about the highaltitude experiments. In particular the witness, Dr. Augustinick, Schroeder's personal adjutant, during his service as an Airfleet doctor, has confirmed that relations between Hippke and Schroeder were extremely tense and unpleasant and that they confined themselves to discussing only the necessary things on the occasion of their highly infrequent official meetings.
Thus the assertion of the prosecution that by virtue of his official position, Prof.
Schroeder had to be informed of the high-altitude experiments, is without foundation.
Let me add here that the high-altitude experiments in Dachau were of no interest to Airfleet 2 because the units of that Airfleet was unable at the time to fly at the altitudes which formed the basis of the experiments.
For the same reason Prof. Dr. Schroeder can not be charged with responsibility for the freezing experiments in concentration camp Dachau because at that time he was serving far from Berlin, with his Airfleet in Southern Italy, Sicily and Africa.
His agency was not represented at the conference on "Sea- and Water-Distress" in October 1942 in Nuernberg. He therefore did not receive a direct report about Prof. Holzloehner's lecture.
The conclusion reached by the prosecution from the fact that the pamphlet "Sea- and Winter Distress" which was sent to Prof. Schroeder's agency in 1943 that it showed in Holzloehner's lecture contained therein of what nature the experiments carried out were, has also been clearly refuted by Dr. Schroeder. He could rely here not only on the sworn testimony by witness Augustinick, but also on his own statements. Prof. Schroeder understood Holzloehner's report to the effect that these were experiments made by Prof. Holzloehner with German pilots rescued from the sea at the rescue station Vissand which he had established. The term "Rescued from the water" justified him particularly in his assumption. To Schroeder, as an Airfleet doctor, the important thing was the final result of the experiments, that is the speedy re-warming of pilots who had crashed into the sea and were still alive. This meant a change of the old methods of a slow rewarming and helped to avoid death by heart failure, what is known as "Rescue-Collapse". The new discovery here was that the temperature of people rescued from the water sinks by about four degrees, which formerly had in many cases led to death. It is obvious that Prof.
Schroeder at that time was kept extremely busy as a Leading Physician with the duties of the African Theater, that he did not have the time to bother about the details of the report and that he was interested only in final result.
The sulfonamide experiments also took place during the period of time when Prof. Schroeder was serving in Italy as an Airfleet doctor. The sole incriminating point produced by the prosecution, in regard to these experiments, was participation at the meeting of Consulting Physicians in 1943 when sulfonamide experiments in the concentration camp Ravensbrueck were discussed. In actual fact, Prof. Dr. Schroeder was not present at that meeting. We had here a mistake on the part of co-defendant Dr. Fischer who has since corrected his mistake on direct examination. At that time Prof. Schroeder was permanently at his agency in Italy as was confirmed by the witness Dr. Augustinick, he was indispensable there and had his hands full.
Nor did any representative of his agency take part in the 1943 meeting. The consultant surgeon of Airfleet 2, Prof. Buerkley de la Camp, had been earmarked for attendance at the meeting it is true, but had been prevented from participating for the same reasons as Prof. Schroeder himself. As consultant surgeon he had to remain at the elbow of the Airfleet doctor.
Prof. Schroeder furthermore has been brought into connection with yellow fever, hepatitis epidemica and typhus experiments.
The same applies to these experiments as well. Schroeder is unable to recognize any responsibility for these experiments insofar as they took place in the period of time prior to January 1st, 1944. It would therefore appear unnecessary to deal with these events during that period of time but the following remarks ought to be made.
Prof. Schroeder never received a communication about yellow-fever experiments during the period of time in question. He was not in formed or consulted by the Medical Inspectorate about them, nor did he order such experiments, nor has he taken part in them in any way.
Prof. Schroeder merely knew that a yellow fever vaccine was to be manufactured. The prosecution does not assert that experiments were carried out on human beings with yellow fever vaccines. They were undoubtedly not carried out, all that happened was that the vaccine was manufactured. The Airfleet doctor had nothing to do with its manufacture which was up to the agencies and research-workers at home. The Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe had, in 1942/43, ordered Prof. Haagen, in Strassburg, to manufacture yellow-fever vaccine, but this assignment was cancelled after the end of the Africa campaign.
Professor Schroeder had nothing at all to do with this assignment which confined itself to the production of vaccines in the laboratory. This was within the competence of the Medical Inspectorate from which Professor Schroeder moreover was rather far removed in space.
Further, the Prosecution accuses Professor Schroeder of having participated in Haagen's experiments with epidemic jaundice. The statements of the Prosecution do not indicate what the nature of this participation should have been. Here also it must be pointed out -- even if we suppose that Haagen received an order from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe-- that Professor Schroeder personally is not incriminated thereby because this order was the sole responsibility of the then Chief of the Medical Services.
In order to give a clear outline I may be permitted to point out that though Professor Haagen was Oberstabsarzt in Reserve of the Luftwaffe and Consulting Hygienist of the Air Force Reich he still kept his civilian employment as a director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassburg and in this capacity he was not subjected to the channel of command of the Medical Inspectorate. Haagen, in his capacity as Director of the Hygiene Institute and well known virus research worker, knew how to obtain research assignments, or to be more correct, research subsidies in order to cover the expenses connected with his researches.
According to Professor Schroeder's knowledge Haagen never received a research assignment on hepatitis epidemica, neither during Professor Hippke's term of office, nor when Schroeder was Chief of the Medical Services. He did however receive such a research assignment from the Reich Research Counsel, but this was exclusively in in his capacity as Director of the Hygiene Institute Strassburg.
This research assignment was designated, as Top Secret and was to be dealt with accordingly. A connection with the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe didn't exist at all for Professor Schroeder: Haagen was only responsible to his civilian supervisory agency.
Since it was, as aforesaid, a Top Secret, Haagen was not even allowed to report this research assignment to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, since secrecy was made a strenous duty according to Fuehrer Decree No. 1. He only could, and was allowed, to report to such agencies who had some connection with the discharge of his task. This was, in the first place, the agency who issued the assignment, viz. the Reich Research Council.
From the fact, that within the framework of Professor Haagen projected work for the Reich Research Council he contacted various research workers in Germany whose work on epidemic jaundice was recognized and that the one or the other of these people was a Consulting Physician of the Luftwaffe. One cannot draw the conclusion that thus he had collaborated with the Medical Inspectorate. What counted for Haagen exclusively was the scientific qualification of the physicians and research workers consulted and he selected them regardless of which branch of the Armed Forces they may have belonged to.
Moreover, epidemic jaundice experiments on humans were never under Haagen brought under under way. The witness Edith Schmidt has testified to this fact under oath before this Tribunal.
Professor Schroeder, therefore, is also not incriminated as regards the problem of Hepatitis Epidemica, first, because he took no part in the issue of an assignment, second, because the Medical Inspectorate never issued a research assignment to Haagen, because Haagen had his research assignments from the Reich Research Council in his capacity as Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Strassbourg, and finally, because experiments on humans were never conducted.
At the most, they may have been planned.
Furthermore, professor Schroeder is charged with participation in the Haagen typhus experiments in the Natzweiler Concentration Camp. Here again the Prosecution relies on assertions without being able to prove this serious charge.
Against this, the defense must state:
Professor Schroeder denies all responsibility for any assignments for the carrying out of experiments in the field of typhus for his person, since on the basis of his position at the time he had nothing to do with any such experiments and his official duties were limited to his work as Air Force Physician 2.
Only after he took over his position as Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe did he learn that in 1942 the then Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe had issued an assignment to Professor Haagen in Strasbourg to produce typhus vaccine on a large scale. No experiments on human beings in any form were included. Professor Schroeder obtained knowledge of this production assignment, which was outside of his own period of office as Medical Chief in 1942, when Haagen applied for an extension of this production assignment and for the grant of further research subsidies in 1944. The testimony of Professor Haagen proves that he, Professor Haagen, did not conduct any experiments on humans with this vaccine.
Professor Schroeder, therefore, is only concerned with the activities which were connected with Professor Haagen after 1 January 1944.
Here the Prosecution relies on a letter of Professor Haagen to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe in which the outbreak of a typhus epidemic in Natzweiler in mentioned. But from this one cannot incriminate Professor Schroeder, and still less from the letter which answered Professor Haagens letter just mentioned on behalf of the Medical Inspectorate.
In the first place it must be pointed out that this letter doesn't hear Schroeder's signature, but was signed by his Chief of Staff, Kuhnt. At that time Professor Schroeder was on an official trip. Further, the contents of this letter show that the Chief of Staff, Kahnt, didn't even know what the place named Natzweiler meant otherwise it couldn't be explained that a high medical officer in Dr. Kahnt's rank would have assumed to ask such a question. If Kahnt had known that Natzweiler was a concentration camp, he would not have been permitted to ask such a question since no report about the happenings inside a concentration camp was permitted because this was the sole competence of the SS and the SS had ordered severest secrecy. Further it appears from the contents of the letter that Haagen certainly could not have conducted any criminal experiments on concentration camp inmates because otherwise he would not have made a report to the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate whose ideas of his duties were known to him and the secrecy imposed on him would have been reason enough not to say anything about the matter.
Moreover, Professor Schroeder was not in Berlin at the critical time but on an official trip, a fact which has been affirmed by witnesses.
Professor Haagen as a witness testified before this Tribunal that he never experimented on humans with typhus virus, but that he was concerned with combatting a serious and wide spread typhus epidemic in the Natzweiler Camp which broke out in February 1944 and was brought in from the East by some inmates....About the spread of the epidemic the witness Grandjean testified that he alone with a nurse looked after 1200 typhus patients when he was an inmate nurse. The camp physician had requested the help of the Hygiene Institute Strassbourg to fight the epidemic.
Haagen came with all the means at his disposal.
Professor Haagen denied, under oath, that he experimented on human beings. The evidence of the witness Edith Schmidt is not reliable, since she obtained some knowledge by furtively looking into the records of Professor Haagen's assistant, Miss Crodel. The witness has no expert knowledge; therefore it is altogether possible that she has made a mistake. Also the personal veracity of the witness must be doubted very much since she was a morphine addict. Her evidence is refuted by the rather credible testimony of the witness Wyworski, who unlike the witness Schmidt, knew all of Professor Haggen's activities from her own observation and work; she was sure of herself when she declared that there were no experiments conducted on humans and that the whole work of Professor Haagen in Natzweiler was the fight against the typhus epidemics.
It has not even been proved that Professor Haagen conducted experiments on humans with a criminal intent, let alone that Professor Schroeder is responsible for the activities of Haagen. The Prosecution has attempted to say that Haagen does not tell the truth or was committing a perjury but this testimony is confirmed by the testimony of the witness Wywiorski and Grandjean. Too I ask why Professor Le Grue was not brought to the witness stand. He was here, he would have been able to confirm Professor Haagen's scientific testimony fully. When Professor Schroeder visited in Strassbourg to inspect the laboratories of Professor Haagen, he did not hear the least from Haagen about experiments on human beings; there was only talk of animal experiments and he only looked at the animals and cages which had been prepared by Haagen. This is affirmed by the sworn testimony of the witness Augustinick who was present during the whole time when Schroeder was with Professor Haagen.
Also, the Prosecution regards it as incriminating that the codefendant Professor Rose was his subordinate in his capacity as General Physician of the Luftwaffe and Consulting Hygeinist. Rose, too, is brought into connection with criminal experiments by the Prosecution. A responsibility of Professor Schroeder for experiments which are laid to the door of Professor Rose for the period before the 1 January 1944, cannot be recognized. Even during the time when Professor Schroeder was Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe he had no connection whatever with the activities of Professor Rose in Buchenwald and these activities of Professor Rose had nothing to do with the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. In this respect Professor Rose acted in his capacity as Vice-President of the Robert Koch-Institute and it behoves us to point out that this was an institute entirely separate and independent from the Medical Inspectorate. This emanates particularly from the fact that Professor Rose first visited Buchenwald in 1942 accompanied by Professor Gildemeister who was President of the Robert Koch Institute at that time. This visit didn't take place either in Professor Rose's capacity as Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe nor in his capacity as Consultant Hygienist of the Luftwaffe, but in connection with his position at the Robert Koch Institute.
The same hold good of the Prosecutions pointer to the Copenhagen vaccine. In this direction I may be permitted to refer to the fact, that Professor Rose applied for leave with the Luftwaffe in order to go to Copenhagen to obtain some vaccine and made this journey only in his capacity as Vice-President of the Robert Koch Institute and Consequently all proof is lacking and no connection whatsoever can be constituted between Professor Schroeder and the activity of Professor Rose which was completely independent and separated from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and which was carried out by order of the Reich Research Council and the Robert Koch Institute.
And when Professor Schroeder is held responsible for Rose's letter to the defendant Mrugowsky this does not incriminate Professor Schroeder because this letter to Mrugowsky was written at the beginning of December 1943 at a time when Professor Schroeder had not yet taken over the office of Medical Chief and was in the office of the Medical Inspectorate. Professor Schroeder did not order any experiments to be carried out on human beings, nor did he have knowledge of them or did he have to have knowledge of them. No basis is given for his participation in them. For this period of time we do not even have any conclusive circumstantial evidence, so that it can be said that any guilt on the part of Professor Schroeder has not been established. Therefore, the request is justified to acquit Professor Schroeder from these counts in the Indictment.
I am now coming to the count of the Indictment "Participation of the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder in the sea water experiments which were carried out in the Dachau concentration camp."
In the case of these experiments Professor Schroeder's participation has been established, and he has accepted the responsibility as far as the preparation and the planning of these experiments are concerned. Professor Schroeder has mainly been accused by the Prosecution for having permitted these experiments to be carried out in a concentration camp. The Prosecution in its case against Professor Schroeder further stated that these experiments were not necessary at all and it drew the conclusion that the experiments had only been ordered in order to torture people and in order to subject them to unnecessary cruelties; it also stated that it was clear that in no case had the experimental subjects been volunteers.