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.
Therefore it is the task of the Defense to show in the following paragraphs why from the point of view of Professor Schroeder as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe these experiments had to be considered necessary, and just what reasons motivated him to give his approval for the execution of the experiments in a concentration camp.
The first question therefore is - why and from what considerations were there experiments order at all? It must be stated in advance here, that as far as the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate Professor Schroeder was concerned, he did not have to deal with part of the problem in this case in examining the question whether one or the other method for making sea water drinkable was more suitable; the problem for him existed in its entirety and it could not be divided. It was: The rescue of ship-wrecked persons from dying from the lack of water and finding the best method as a protection against this danger. This problem had already been handled by various interested agencies for quite some time, and various individual questions for the solution of this problem had arisen. No method for making sea water drinkable had been found and it was not clear what procedure should be advocated.
In the course of the year 1943 almost simultaneously two methods for making seawater drinkable were offered. One of them, so called Wofatit, had been developed by Dr. Schaefer in collaboration with I.G. Farben. Another, the Berkatit method, represented the invention of Stabsingenieur Berka.
It would be quite clearly recognized that Schaefer's Wofatit represented the ideal solution, because this method removed all the salt from the sea water and changed it into drinking water, while the Berka method let the salt remain in the seawater and only improved the taste of the sea water through the addition of various sugar and vitamin drugs. We agree with the Prosecution and the expert Professor Dr. Ivy when they state that a chemist in the course of one afternoon could have decided by means of a short experiment whether Wofatit or Berkattit was better.
The participating agencies of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Professor Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng realized that quite clearly. From the chemical point of view this problem could also have been solved in a simple manner.
The difficulty which existed for Professor Schroeder with regard to this problem, however, was within another field; this was the shortage of raw materials prevailing at the time, when had been brought about in Germany by the war. This circumstance made it possible for the Technical Office of the Luftwaffe to oppose the introduction of the Wofatit and to consider the Berkatit method, because the raw materials for the latter method could be procured without any difficulty and production could be started right away, since the production facilities for the appropriate amounts were already in existence. It was different as far as Wofatit was concerned. Considerable amounts of silver were required for its production, which could not be set aside for the production of Wofatit without damaging other production branches which also needed this metal. The Technical Office of the Luftwaffe therefore had already decided in favor of the introduction of Berkatit on 1 July 1944. Professor Schroeder, in his capacity as Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, however, could not have assumed the responsibility for having the units which were entrusted to his professional medical care equipped with the Berkamethod, because the danger existed that ship-wrecked aviators, deceived by the improvement in the taste of seawater would drink it in larger amounts and thus increase the danger of their dying of thirst. The question also had to be clarified, whether the ship-wrecked crew of an airplane completely adrift at sea should go without any food or water whatsoever or whether they should consume a certain amount of seawater rather than no water at all. This last question could only be clarified by carrying out an experiment on a human being. An experiment on animals would not suffice in this respect, because the distribution of water in the body of animals differs from that a human being.
By proving its medical objections the Medical Inspectorate would also have been able to make its point-of-view heard by the Technical Office, if the medical expert, Proffessor Dr. Eppinger, one of the best-known internists not only of Germany, but of entire Europe, had not sided with the Technical Office. Professor Eppinger in the conference of the Technical Office of 25 May 1944 expressly voiced the opinion, that the Berka-method was suitable, because the human kidney during a certain period of time could concentrate salt up to 3% and because the vitamins which had been added to the Berka-method would be suitable for speeding up the excretion of the salt from the human organism. This opinion was also shared in the same conference by the pharmacologist Professor Heubner, who is still one of the leading specialists in the field today.
Professor Schroeder would not have been able to turn down both methods. He then would have been reproached with the fact, that he had not done everything within his power in order to make the position of ship-wrecked German soldiers more bearable and to save them from dying because of the lack of water. It therefore becomes evident, that these considerations on the part of Schroeder give us proof of his high feeling of responsibility; in no way at all was it easy for him to give his approval for the execution of such experiments.
The further development also shows clearly that Schroeder, in spite of the fact that he was extremely busy with official matters devoted the greatest care and conscientiousness to this matter. He did not just decide to select Dachau as the place where the experiments were to be carried out. Originally he did not even harbor such a thought, but he intended to have the experiments carried out in a troo-experiment in institutes which were owned by the Luftwaffe. He was primarily considering the Luftwaffe-Hospital at Brunswick for this purpose. On 1 July 1944 he turned to the Chief Medical Officer of this hospital, who was competent in the matter, who, however, disapproved of it.
This becomes evident from the certificate by Dr. Harriehausen, who was a Generalartz at the time. Now Prof. Schroeder began to consider the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, where he intended to use the young officer candidates in this academy as experimental subjects. An inquiry which he addressed there was also unsuccessful. The reason why his requests were turned down in each case was, that just at this particular time the OKW had issued a strict order to the effect, that all convalescents were to be returned immediately from the hospitals to their units, and that the officer candidates of the academy were to be given a combat assignment. For the same reason, the suggestion of Professor Beiglboeck, to carry out the experiments at the Field Hospital Tarvis also remained unsuccessful.
The further possibility, perhaps to use German civilians for the experiments was completely out of question, because at this time it was not possible to find young men in the age groups necessary in this case within the German civilian population, because all of them either had been conscripted for military service or for Labor service. Professor Schroeder, therefore, had no choice but to follow the suggestion to consider the Dachau concentration Camp for his experimental station.
Prof. Schroeder was in no way informed about conditions in a concentration camp. He thought the circumstances in such a camp were no different from those prevailing in a military camp and only the names Dachau and Oranienburg were known to him as concentration camps. In this connection, it may be pointed out that the SS surrounded events in the concentration camps with an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. Schroeder never listened to foreign radio stations, in the circles of his medical officers, such events were never discussed, and I may point out here that an express opponent of National Socialism, one less than the former Prussian Minister of the Interior, Severing, testified as a witness in the IMT trial that he had no knowledge of the events in the concentration camps and he had different sources of information at his disposal than had Prof.
Schroeder. If Professor Schroeder had any idea of what happened in concentration camps while he was away from Germany then in view of his idelogy as a faithful Christian he would have refused such contact with concentration camps as results from ordering these experiments. The decisive point in Schroeder's favor is that the experiments were not to be carried out under supervision and command of the SS Camp Leadership but, completely separate, under the special leadership of a Lufwaffe Medical Officer and recognized specialist. As a further consideration, Prof Schroeder had to take into account that only then could a useful result be achieved in these experiments, if they could be carried out without interruption or hindrance. Because of the then prevalent almost daily air raids over the entire area of Germany, no guarantee for an uninterrupted execution of these experiments could be given in any spot in Germany, however, it was known that air raids on concentration camps did not take place. Moreover, the charge can not be brought against Prof. Schroeder that he chose a concentration camp because he then had available defenseless tools who, perfect, had to subject themselves to the experiments.
The very opposite is ture. It was clear to Professor Schroeder that he could carry out these experiments only with voluntary experimental subjects if he wanted to be successful, for the director of the experiments depended on the willing cooperation of the experimental subjects, for in no other way could usable clinical data be achieved. Every involuntary experimental person would have had the power to drop out from the experiment prematurely by feigning indisposition or pain, and, in this way, would have caused the director of the experiment to terminate it prematurely.
For the further evaluation of Professor Schroeder's conduct especially his conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz must be considered. Professor Schroeder expressed the opinion to Grawitz that he could only work with healthy and voluntary experimental persons whose age corresponded to that of the pilots under his command, and he made the further condition that the experimental persons should have the same physiological and racial requisites as the members of the German Wehrmacht in question. In direct examination Professor Schroeder testified, under oath, that in this connection he talked to Grawitz about dishonorably discharged former members of the German Wehrmacht who, he knew, had been transferred to concentration camps because of the seriousness of their offenses.
Professor Schroeder could not assume, nor was any report on the part of Grawitz or the SS leadership made to him, that the SS leadership did not accept this suggestion and that instead of former members of the German Wehrmacht, Gypsies had been decided upon for experimental purposes. Professor Schroeder, from his point of view, could rely on Grawitz to make arrangements according to his suggestions; he had no reason to expect that the SS would decide upon experimental persons, against his well founded wish, who, racially and physiologically did not have the prerequisites demanded by Professor Schroeder.
Because of the extremely heavy official duties caused by the imminent collapse of German military resistance for Professor Schroeder in his capacity as Chief Medical Officer, this affair was only a small segment of his official duties and it must be admitted that he could not concern himself further with this affair.
A further consideration which Professor Schroeder had to make was whether such experiments were dangerous and possibly damaging to the health of the experimental subjects. Professor Schroeder had thoroughly studied this question and contemplated all possible aspects of the problem. Professor Schroeder also knew that seawater is used by doctors for drinking cures and that the criteria of harmfulness is seen in the doses. If this question was given medical supervision then there would be no danger to health. Therefore, the prosecution's charge that he failed to take into account sufficiently the possible hazards is not justified.
Nothing shows the high degree of responsibility which characterized Professor Schroeder more than the instructions which the Medical Inspector issued to the man carrying out the experiments.
Professor Schroeder was convinced that the experiments held no danger to the experimental subjects and he expressed this opinion to Reichsarzt SS Grawitz. Such danger was excluded particularly if and when the quantity of seawater to be taken in was regulated in accordance with the best medical experiences, and when it was definitely ordered that the experiments should be stopped at a certain time; and, furthermore, if the selection of the man in charge of the experiments guaranteed, on the basis of professional and ethical standards, that the experiments would be carried out in a humane manner taking into account all medical and clinical considerations.
Therefore, it is fully justified if Professor Schroeder claims that he, from his position as a physician and a leading medical officer, considered all possible situations and attempted to avert all possible sources of dangers as far a s humanly possible. His direction to the man in charge to discontinue the experiments as soon as the experimental subject refused to take in further water and if threatening damages to the body were recognizable, must be mentioned in Schroeder's favor.
The person carrying out the experiments were furnished all necessary assistants and a number of special co-workers from medical circles as well as all machinery to carry out his work in an orderly fashion.
The contention that both the planning and preparation of the experiments by Schroeder can stand any examination, that planning was with full moral responsibility and with a true feeling of duty and humanity was reaffirmed, too, before this Tribunal by Professor Dr. Volhard, as well as the American expert, Professor Ivy. It is simply unthinkable that instructions to one conducting experiments could be more correct from a medical point of view than those which Professor Schroeder worked out.
By this plea and the evidence, all charges against Professor Schroeder in the seawater complex are refuted. Above all, it has been proved that it was not his intention to carry out experiments on non-voluntary experimental subjects. I need not dwell on the contents of his letter to the Reicharzt SS of 7 June 1944 which the prosecution has used to try to prove that Professor Schroeder considered the experiments with voluntary subjects terminated and said he now had the intention to use non-voluntary subjects; that is to say, prisoners from concentration camps. The defense's observation that this paragraph of the letter to Grawitz can be interpreted in many ways must be used to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt. Professor Schroeder was convinced of the harmless character of the experiments. He decided to carry out experiments in a concentration camp only after all other means were exhausted and only submitting to the pressure of the military and economic situation prevailing in Germany at that time. While planning the experiments, he proved to be a careful physician who examined all possibilities thoroughly.
Your Honors, this is the manner and attitude which Professor Schroeder showed in the seawater complex. If the course of the experiments was not such as Professor Schroeder had anticipated, he can, under no circumstances, be charged with the responsibility for it. It is certain, however, that none of the experimental subjects suffered any damage to their health from the experiments, and that they all, after only short periods of time, recovered their full strenght.
Your Honors, if one surveys the conduct of Professor Schroeder during the entire period from 1940 until the end of the war one will not be able to find one single piece of evidence to show that Professor Schroeder at any time or in any manner violated the duties which the calling of a physician and medical ethics prescribed for him. In no instance did he act in a manner which could not stand the examination by a court. One may well claim that he never disregarded the maxim of Hippocrates "primum nil nocere", but preserved it as a guiding principle of his actions as a doctor and officer of the medical services of the German Luftwaffe.
The prosecution has filed to prove that Schroeder ever ordered such an experiment during the period of time covered by the charges of the prosecution, or that he participated or had knowledge of any such experiment. It has not even been proved that it was possible or necessary for him to gain knowledge of such experiments. Professor Schroeder has clearly explained why he could not gain such knowledge. For the whole period of time from 1942 to the end of 1943 the responsibility must rest on Professor Hippke, but not on Professor Schroeder.
Your Honors, from innumerable letters which I received from colleagues of Dr. Schroeder, men who enjoy the highest reputation in medical circles and who are to be regarded the leading men of German medical science even today, one thing becomes evident again and again: none of them can believe that Professor Schroeder, for whom they still preserve respect and affection, could ever have committed a dishonorable act or could have violated the high duties of his profession.
All of them have expressed the hope that the innocence of Professor Schroeder will be demonstrated and be reaffirmed by the judgment of this High Tribunal. I, as defense counsel, have failed to gain any other impression of the personality and character of Professor Schroeder during the long time of our collaboration.
Let me conclude my plea for Professor Schroeder with the application that you may be pleased to pronounce an acquittal of Professor Schroeder under all charges levelled against him.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, the Tribunal allowed an extra fifteen minutes for your address. I would ask counsel to endeavor to confine their arguments to the hour which has been allocated. The Tribunal realizes that this is not always easy. At the same time, the arguments must be concluded by Friday evening. I realize that some of the defendants need more time than others. If any of the defendants do not need their full hour, that time can be devoted to the benefit of other defendants.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 16 July 1947)