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)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 16 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has available an English translation of the argument on behalf of Defendant Blome, so the Tribunal will now listen to Dr. Sauter on behalf of defendant Blome. The Tribunal hopes that the hour allocated will be sufficient.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, Honorable Judges of the Tribunal: The result of the evidence for the case of Defendant Blome, was given for translation on the 24th of June and the translation has been submitted to the Tribunal. In a supplement to this document on 2nd July I have made a synthesis of the important parts and which I have quoted and otherwise made use of. In another supplement on 30 June 1947, which has not yet been submitted to you by the translators. I have considered those documents which the prosecution have only submitted after the case of Blome had been concluded, and they would therefore not have been contained in my original document. And furthermore, your Honor, in a document 12 July, as the defense counsel, I have expressed myself as to the attitude of the prosecution. I am referring to all these matters, now and I should like you to regard them as having been submitted.
My considerations of the case Blome I have based on a quotation of American Historian Professor Arnold Nash. In the summer of 1946 Arnold Nash, the American Historian, came to Germany to spend his vacation here; on his arrival in Bremen he was assailed by the journalists with the question, why had he chosen Germany of all countries as the place of his vacation after the ending of the Second World War, Germany, a wilderness of ruins, the country of the concentration camp infamies where every step and every look recalled the memory of million fold murder of innocent Jews, and Russian prisoners of war, of Polish underground soldiers and displaced workers from East Europe. The American historian Arnold Nash answered in one single sentence: "Every scholar has two homelands, his own and Germany."
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem clear that you will not be able to use all of this argument which has been placed before the Tribunal in the space allocated to you. You are prepared ---
DR. SAUTER: I shall be able to manage with one hour, your Honor. In may statement on pages two and five I have explained how the whole milieu has, more and more created prejudices, prejudices against the individual defendant in this case, Prejudices, in fact which worked, as it were against the whole of the German Medical Profession and even the whole of the German people. I have therefore pointed out the ********* exemplary attitude of Professor Nash.
I quote from my plea on page four. I read: "During the 5-1/2 years of war, the world has learned only ugly things about Germany and the prejudice thus created, has increased considerably through the revelations made during the 2 years since the end of the war. Atrocity after atrocity, innumerable infamies, mass murder and slavery of unrivailed cruetly have been proved and will remain for ever a stain on the German name. But it is the Nurnberg trials, particular, which, in their thoroughness and objectivity, have shown the basis of this regime and those responsible for it represented only an amazingly small Clique which banded around Hitler and formed, with them, a pledged community composed of criminal elements which did not shrink from destroying the entire German people if they could thus retain power and their lives This we have heard here in the court room with particularly startling clearness from the former defendant Albert Speer.
But it is just through the Nuernberg trials that the whole world knows if it only cares to listen, that the German people in its overwhelming majority wanted nothing to do with this tyranny, had inwardly nothing in common with it, and was not even allowed to learn of its worst outrages, and that the German people who stood outside that criminal clique, longed more and more as the months passed for the day when the world outside would deliver it from this clique. You, as judges, have 23 defendants to judge here, and your verdict will depend in the first place on whether you can include these 23 defendants in that criminal clique or not; whether you regard as proven or not that these defendants, by virtue of their position in the Third Reich, were able to recognize the criminal excesses of the regime in their full extent; whether they consented to these excesses; whether perhaps they even took part in them, or whether and how far these defendants were also deluded in the same way as 99% of the German people, and were just as powerless against it as our entire nation.
I have only to investigate here the results of the evidence as far as it concerns the two defendants. Dr. Blome and Dr. Ruff; with complete objectivity and from unbiased observation I definitely believe that I must conclude that in any case these two defendants did not belong to that criminal clique which had formed itself like a brazen ring around Hitler and Himmler, around Kaltenbrunner and Heydrich and the other millionfold murderers.
So far to the quotation from my plea. I shall proceed without quoting. Under point 2 of my document, pages 5 to 14 I explain my attitude to the charge that during the Hitler time the standard of the medical profession completely deteriorated. I have also taken position against making Dr. Blome responsible for this. I have shown conclusively that Dr. Blome has the merit and the right to claim the merit, that he has done everything in the power of a human being to proceed in his work and the work of the medical profession, and that he has taken every care that all of the medical profession should exemplify tolerance and true love.
Imminent scientists, high ranking scientists of international fame, have certified this as far as Dr. Blome is concerned. For instance, Prof. von Bergmann, Prof. Martius, Prof. Stoeckel, Dr. Straskosch and others, the affidavits of whom have been submitted to the Tribunal. At this moment, I do not want to deal with this problem, because it is quite obvious that all of these statements of the Prosecution do not deal with a criminal guilt, but with a strictly moral offense or political responsibility, which is not identical with a penal guilt and which does not come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Under Point 111, on pages 14 to 43, I come to the actual experimental facts of the case in which Blome is charged with complete responsibility by the prosecution on pages 14 to 18. I have examined whether Dr. Blome had taken part in any way in the Lost gas experiments of Dr. Rascher at Dachau. I have explained that these two assignments of the Reich Council for Research had not been given by Dr. Blome, but that Dr. Sauerbruch was the originator thereof and that the notation in the card index of the council is only a mistake of the staff. Blome had nothing to do with such experiments and they were not within his competency. He was not interested in them and it can be seen that it was absolutely possible, shall we say, that he had nothing to do with such experiments, which were exclusively within the competence of Dr. Sauerbruch. It is also doubtful whether from the very beginning these concerned human experiments at all, or whether they were not perhaps experiments with animals.
Malaria and sulfonamide experiments did also not concern Dr. Blome, as I have said on pages 18 to 20 of my plea.
The unimportant fact that a man like Rudolf Brandt, in his various affidavits, has assumed that Blome was the deputy of Conti and as such must have been informed about these experiments does not determine anything. This is an assumption on the part of Rudolf Brandt which can not be maintained.
It is especially surprising to me that the prosecution also charged Dr. Blome with euthanasia, especially as they must have considered for some time whether the charge against Blome should not be dropped. Referring to the euthanasia question, the prosecution deals with the chart which was submitted by the defendant Brack, or which at least was supposed to be made according to facts purported by him, but which is obviously wrong as the defendant Brack himself said, as a witness. Blome never took part in this program, he never supported it, but on the contrary, when he heard about this action he tried to clarify the matter and oppose it although this again was not in his competency and he had of course no right to do anything against it. Thus I come to on pages 21 and 24 where I have pointed out that Blome was one of the few people within the party who, in his book, which came out in 1941, took position openly against the euthanasia program of the German government.
In this book which is quoted on page 15 of the prosecution's closing brief he has expressly stated that one could only defend the euthanasia program if there was some legal justification which would create a legal right if therefore would make it part of their legal program. Furthermore Blome stated that euthanasia should only be applied if people, incurably sick people, asked the doctors to be relieved of their suffering. In the book by Professor Blome, the quotation is verbally: "We ask ourselves whether in the case of lives of inferior people the Doctor could not take legal steps to end a life before its time had come.
We think of those very ill people who can not be cured, who can only expect physical and psychological suffering until their deaths and who ask the Doctor to be relieved from their terrible suffering." So far the quotation in Blome's book. I can only say, if these demands by the defendant Blome had been fulfilled, if a legal basis had been presented and if one had just tried to fulfill the wishes of incurably diseased people, possibly nobody would have thought to charge the defendants before this Tribunal with participation in the euthanasia program.
Your Honors, the prosecution charges the defendant Blome with the proposed murder of tubercular Poles. This charge seems to me almost tragic. Because of the importance of this program, I shall read my statements, as from page 24 of the document which is in front of you. Here I take position as to this charge by the Prosecution and refer you to page 24, No. 5:
Probably the most severe accusation against Dr. Blome seemed to be the allegation that he had proposed the murder of 25 - 30 000 tubercular Poles and had taken part in carrying out this plan.
The evidence clearly shows, however, that this accusation is quite unfounded. I maintain on the contrary.
a) it is not true that Dr. Blome approved or supported this murderous plan and
b) it is also untrue that this plan was ever carried out. It is true, though, that it was just Dr. Blome who has prevented this develish plan. It was Dr. Blome who, by his clever intervention has saved the life of the 25,000 - 30,000 tubercular Poles who were to be "liquidated".
The documents in document book no. 9 show that this plan first existed at Gauleiter Greiser and Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler. Blome was then detached to this matter because it was known that he had for many years made the fight against tuberculosis the aim of his life and because he built his cancer institute in the same Gau in which Gauleiter Greiser governed.
Blome then stated his attitude clearly in the well-known letter of 18 November 1942 (Document Book 9, page 10, Document No. 250, Exhibit 203); in regard to this plan. He discussed the three possibilities which existed and explained the pros and cons of each of these three possibilities in detail. These three possibilities are either "Liquidation", i.e., the murder of these Poles suffering from incurable tuberculosis, or their internment in isolated institutions, or lastly their settlement in a reservation. In his letter of the 18 November 1942 (appendix 25) he definitely rejected the first possibility and advocated the latter possibility.
In this Blome was completely successful.
Greiser was so much impressed by Blome's arguments that he no longer dared to carry out the liquidation of the Poles which had been decided upon. In fact, he submitted Dr. Blome's memorandum to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler so that he should obtain a decision from Hitler himself. This, already, was a remarkable success of Blome's because Himmler had already ordered the liquidation of the Poles. Blome's arguments made such an impression even on the bloodhound Himmler, that contrary to Greiser's expectations he cautiously put the matter before Hitler again and obtained his definite ruling. It should be remembered that this in itself would not have been necessary any more because not only had Conti agreed to the murder, but from Greiser's cover note of 21 November 1942 it is obvious that Hitler also had given his approval to the extermination of the Poles already before.
Thereupon, after a subsequent examination of the matter, Hitler withdrew the extermination order and thus Himmler had no alternative but to do the same. This is clearly proved by Himmler's letter of 3 December 1942 (Doc. Book 9, Document 251, Exh. 204, App. 26). The extermination of the Poles did not take place; this is due to Blome.
Although these facts are incontestably proved by the documents presented, the prosecution nevertheless upheld the charge against Blome. This evidently was due to the peculiar wording of Blome's letter to Greiser of 18 November 1942. The prosecution in their speech of 19 December 1946 described this letter as a "develish masterpiece of murderous interest". In considering this case the prevailing conditions should be born in mind. Dr. Blome knew that the tuberculous Poles were lost, that their murder had been decided upon unless it was possible on some grounds to change Hitler's mind at the last moment. The statement of the witness Dr. Gundermann (Doc. Book Blome Doc. No. 1, Page 1 - 5, App. 28) proved that Blome, at that time, as is confirmed by Blome's own testimony (German examination record of 17 March 1947, page 4607, Aoo. 27) strove for days for a successful wording of his letter; he repeatedly drafted the letter, then rejected the wording again and finally introduced arguments in the letter which he hoped to be successful; from the very beginning he was aware, of course, that his intervention was bound to fail and have no success if he described Hitler's planned extermination of the Poles as a crime and downright murder and had solemnly protested against it. In this way Blome would have achieved nothing for the Poles, but had to expect to be brought before a court himself and sentenced for sabotaging an order of the Fuehrer, or to disappear in a concentration camp without any legal sentence.
With such a primitive method as entering a solemn protest by calling on the laws of humanity of justice nothing would have been achieved with Hitler, especially when he had already made up his mind and had decided on a certain matter and had already given the necessary execution orders; in such an event Hitler was usually inaccessible and would not listen to any counter proposals. Dr. Blome knew this, of course, just as well as, for instance, the Gauleiter of Niederdonau (Lower Danube) who in connection with a similar problem (sterilization) in his letter of 24 August 1942 (Doc. Book 6, Page 16, Document 039, Exh. 153) pointed out the importance of "enemy propaganda" as he considered this most likely to be successful. Dr. Blome therefore looked for such reasons which would perhaps have a decisive influence on Hitler and these were either the Church or the other nations. It is understandable that Hitler, in view of the tense situation at that time, amidst the second world war, did not want to break completely with the church and he also had to regard the opinion of the foreign countries so as not to antagonize all neutral states. Dr. Blome speculated on these two points; in his letter of 18 November 1942 he emphasized in a skilful manner and with all his determination these two points of view and with those two references he achieved full success.
It may now be realized why Blome in the early part of his letter tried to give Hitler the impression that he (Blome) fully agreed with the plan as such for the extermination of the Poles and why he even pretended that everything was already prepared for the execution of this plan. Hitler had, so to speak, only to press the button and 25,000 to 30,000 Poles would be done away with. This was merely a trick which Blome used in order to ensure a favorable consideration of his proposals 2 and 3 (internment or reservation). If Dr. Blome had written that he declined to approve such an order of the Fuehrer, that, as a consequence, no preparations for its execution had been made, and that he would rather resign than become a party to a mass murder, then Hitler would have had his customary fit, Blome would have been finished as far as he was concerned, he would, of course, have entirely disregarded the protest of such a "saboteur", and in the interests of so-called "reasons of State" the Fuehrer's orders would of course, have been strictly carried out.
To prevent this, Dr. Blome had to pretend for the time being, that he was ready to acknowledge the Fuehrer's orders as a matter of course and, where possible, to participate personally in their execution, if Hitler, as Head of the State, so desired. However, when weighing the pros and cons, Dr. Blome was able to bring to the foreground points of view against the plan of extermination and which, conceivably, might greatly impress Hitler.
Blome's letter of 18 November 1942 can only be explained thus, and was intended in this way (c.f. with this, affidavit Gundermann of 18 Dec. 1946, Doc. book Blome, Doc. No. 1, App. 28). Dr. Blome, on the strength of this letter can not then be convicted. For it is certain that Hitler thereupon dropped his plan and completely rescinded his orders for the murder.
This success, which could hardly have been anticipated because of Hitler's obstinacy and vainglory completely justifies the defendant Blome. It proves that Blome's conception was the right one and that his manipulations saved the lives of the Poles.
Another matter helped Blome considerably, which must not be overlooked here: shortly before, Hitler had cancelled the continuation of the Euthanasia Program. Apparently he did this under the influence of numerous protests which had been made by the two Christian Churches and, reaction abroad also played a considerable part in this because mass destruction of the insane had been taken up repeatedly by the foreign press with particular stress on reproaching the Nazi regime. Dr. Blome made use of these points of view which had proved effective in the case of the Euthanasia Program, and they also produced telling effects in the case of the tubercular Poles.