Why did the Prosecuting authorities maintain the accusation against Dr. Blome in spite of all this? Apparently this was solely on account of an affidavit by the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt. In his affidavit of 24 October 1945 (Doc. Book 9, p. 17, Doc. No. 441, Exh. 205) Rudolf Brandt completely suppresses the letters which cause the complete rescinding of the plan for murder. He is silent about these letters although it can be proved that they passed through his hands, were initialed and handed down to lower offices by him.
During his examination by the defense, Rudolf Brandt was reproached for his untruthfulness (see German minutes of the examination of 24 March 1947 p. 5020/22, App. 29). He was unable to offer an explanation for it, failed to answer and was at a loss to endure the reproach of untruthfulness, of deliberate untruthfulness. Altogether, Rudolf Brandt has made an amazing number of affidavits; he has supplied without scruples the Public Prosecuting authorities with about every affidavit desired for the incrimination of codefendants, and he made likewise, with equal readiness, affidavits for these co-defendants which directly contradicted his former assertions. What he confirms under oath today, he denies under oath tomorrow and vice-versa! However, it must be stated that the affidavit which Rudolf Brandt made against Dr. Blome dated 24 October 1946 was the climax of his mendacity. After the experiences in this trial, and after having become acquainted, as we have, with a man like Rudolf Brandt, it would be ridiculous to even consider attaching any weight of the affidavit of a man as we have got to know in Rudolf Brandt. His affidavit of 24 Novem ber 1946 has been entirely refuted by documents introduced by the Prosecuting authorities.
It is unnecessary, therefore to examine to what extent Rudolf Brandt's untruthfulness can be traced to his state of mental health.
During the session of 9 Dec. 1946 (German examination records p. 107 of 9 Dec. 1946) the Prosecuting authorities announced: "We shall produce evidence to show that the program was executed towards the end of 1942 and at the beginning of 1943, and that on the strength of proposals by Blome and Greiser, many Poles were exterminated without pity, and that others were transported to remote camps where there were no medical facilities whatever and where thousands died."
This evidence has not been produced so far by the Prosecuting authorities, although the defense, during the session of 17 March 1947 (German examination records P. 4621) referred in particular to this lack of evidence. The assertions of a Rudolf Brandt in this respect cannot be evaluated as "evidence", even if it had not been completely retracted and even if it had not already been completely refuted by additional documents submitted by the Prosecution. If the Prosecuting authorities had succeeded in producing the witness Perwitschky, who had already been proposed in 1946, and who had been approved by the Tribunal, then his testimony would have produced additional clear proof that Blome actually prevented the proposed mass murder.
We know the later fate of these Poles who suffered from incurable open tuberculosis from the affidavit of Dr. Gundermann, the highest medical officer of the Warthe Gau (i.e. the territory in which the tubercular Poles were to be liquidated). The fight against tuberculosis was a legal task of the Public Health Office which were subordinated in the Warthe Gau to the witness Dr. Gundermann. As a result of difficulties caused by the war, it was not possible to accommodate during the war, either in restricted institutions or in a segregated area those suffering from tuberculosis; these two possibilities, which had been examined in a letter dated 18 November 1942 from Blome to Freiser were therefore out of the question, for the time being.
Therefore the tubercular Poles were provided for according to the same legal regulations which applied to tubercular Germans in the old Reich. Legal regulations notwithstanding, a separate Tuberculosis Welfare Office with Polish physicians and nurses was established in the various Health Offices of the Warthe Gau. (See Doc. Book Blome Doc. No. 1, pp. 4-5, App. 30). Therefore the contention by the Prosecution" that the accommodation of sick Poles in restricted institutions resulted in the comparatively rapid death of the sick or, that the transportation of the sick into a reserved area meant that, "they were left to their fate, provided with few physicians and with few or no nursing personnel", is devoid of application. (Examination record of 19 December 1946, p. 789-799.)
It should be observed, however, that these proposals by Blome did not originate from him, but had already been discussed during the meeting of the German Tuberculosis Society in 1937, and went back to proposals which had already been worked out years before by English research workers tuberculosis on instructions from the International Tuberculosis Commission, and which had been generally approved. (c.f. Report of the meeting in Doc. Book Blome, Supplement I, Doc. 14, p. 24, App. 31). Therefore even if the existence of these proposals had been known, it cannot be said that they contradicted in any way the laws of humanity. According to widespread views held by the responsible circles, such measures are necessary if tuberculosis, of which millions die yearly, is to be fought effectively, and if the healthy portion of the population is to be protected effectively against the dangers of infection through incurable, tubercular patients. In this case, the protection of the healthy population against infection appears more important than consideration for the unrestricted liberty of incurable patients (c.f. pertaining examination records of 17 March 1947 pp.
4611/4615/ 4618 to 4619).
In concluding this count of the indictment I should like to emphasize two facts in characterizing Blome's altitude towards Crimes against Humanity, which have been clearly proven by the evidence: a) In 1941 Blome prevented the realization of Dr. Conti's plan, whereby the Polish intelligentsia was to be sterilized and thereby biologically exterminated (compare Affidavit Dr. Boehm in Document Book Blome, page 13/14, Doc. No. 4, Exh. 7, App. 33 and Affidavit by Dr. Blome on 17 March 1947 German interrogation record page 4624-25, App. 34) and
b) Blome prevented the murder of Poles in the year 1942, that is at a time when Germany was still at the height of its Military Power and could not yet know such a defeat as Stalingrad. In the cross-examination the prosecutor attempted to present the suggestion to Blome that he would have agreed to the liquidation of the Poles, if a guarantee of absolute secrecy could have been assured. Blome, it was assumed had only "feared the effects of the propaganda". (German interrogation record, page 4853/56.)
Justice and truth demand that it be confirmed in the verdict that the only motive for Blome's actions were purely humanitarian and medically ethical reasons. It is therefore just to protect the defendant Blome against later unjustified reproaches. Blome's letter to Greiser of 18 November 1942 was a "Masterpiece", but not in the sense as presented by the Prosecution, that is, not (as has been said) a "devilish masterpiece of insidious desire for murder", but rather a well thought out intervention against a devilish murder plan, the successful prevention of which will remain a historical credit to Blome.
DR. SAUTER: So far the quotations in connection with tuberculosis. The merit of Dr. Blome which I have just spoken about cannot be denied by the closing brief of the Prosecution in which they use the term nonsense, the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, and therefore the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt can have no probative value to this issue. During the proceedings Prosecution has charged the defendant Blome with participating in biological warfare. To this question I have taken position on page 32 to 43 and I have explained that on the German side of this there were some preparations for biological warfare which had to be made in order to prevent any attacks on the part of the enemy in this way. These were only preparations of a defensive nature. They were never aggressive acts. It cannot be denied - it is a fact - that no acts were committed - no human experiments were carried through in this field. And, therefore, punishable acts on the part of the defendant Blome in this sphere of biological warfare do not aim. All statements maintaining this are wrong and of no relevance. As to the case of Blome, during the whole proceedings it could not be clarified what this mentioned assumption of the IMT was based on. The Prosecution of the present trial has tried for months to find some of the documents of the IMT documents which would have been able to support this assumption, and wanted therefore support the charge against Dr. Blome. In spite of searching for months and months no such document to support these assumptions could be found. Therefore, it cannot be proved today which experiments in biological warfare were made on prisoners of war and to what extent, by whose such experiments should have been carried out. In this trial Blome heard of these for the first time from the Prosecution and testified to this and the opposite has not been proved. If these statements of Blome's had not been correct then the Prosecution would certainly have shown him the documents containing the facts of these experiments and where his own participation was alleged to have been proved. Nothing like this happened. Blome had no part in these experiments, obviously - whether they happened or whether they did not happen. And, in this connection I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the evidence of the witness Schreiber of the IMT which was read here as evidence.
Schreiber who was informed about all these matters also certified that it never came to any action.
Your Honors, the last experiments which the defendant Blome is charged with are the Doryl and Polygal experiments. On page 36 to 41 I dealt with these questions explicitly and I draw the attention of the Court to the fact that with Doryl which is a poisonous drug no human experiments were made, and furthermore that the harmless and not dangerous treatment with Polygal cannot be described as experiment in connection with these proceedings and experiments of this kind were carried out only with volunteer subjects.
Your Honors, in concluding my brief I want to read the general issue as from page 44 of my brief, statements which I want to lay weight upon. I have written here:
Every Nurnberg trial is accompanied by strong prejudices against the defendants: The fact alone that they are called "principle war criminals" produces a certain prejudice in everyone, since one regards these people in the dock from the beginning as those most responsible for the unspeakable misery which the Hitler regime has brought over the whole world and specially over our Germany. This trial, the end of which is now approaching, has moreover repeatedly been called in the press the Nurnberg "trial of the SS-Doctors" and thus the whole embitterment we fell against the SS system is directed against these defendants even if they never belonged to the SS and never wanted to have any dealings with it, as was in fact the case with Dr. Blome, Dr. Ruff and several other defendants. To make the measure full, the most abominable crimes which are to be dealt with in this trial were committed in concentration camps; when speaking of this trial, one, therefore, automatically thinks of the numerous atrocities committed in the concentration camps. All the misery which this devilish institution brought upon the inmates arises before one's eyes; one sees the millions of poor people who were slaughtered there, one shudders at the thought of inumerable victims who starved to death there or were worked to death and the indignation one feels about all this is automatically directed against each defendant who in such circumstances occupies the dock as a principle war criminal.
However, such a view would, in many respects, be unjust and could never lead to a verdict which could be justified before our conscience and before history. Certainly every German approves and welcomes it that crimes, committed during the past 12 years are punished with all severity. We feel no compassion for people whose hands are stained with the blood of the innocent and who, therefore, deserve the rope. Especially to-day when our people are suffering from the terrible consequences of millionfold murder we say: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Whoever committed murder shall lose his own life, he has forfeited it.
But this sentimental point of view entails certain dangers because it makes us forget too easily that in American Law also a defendant is regarded as innocent while the prosecution have not proved the guilt of this defendant beyond doubt. Only recently the verdict of the American Military Tribunal in the Milch case contained the sentence: "If the established facts can be reconciled with the guilt as well as with the innocence of the defendant, then his guilt cannot be regarded as proven". The same verdict of the American Military Tribunal II solemnly declared that the American flag in this court room guarantees just proceedings to all defendants and passes sentences only if the proof of their guilt is properly established; otherwise he must be acquitted.
If you only apply these principles to Blome then you will reach the conclusion that he, who never belonged to the SS and had nothing to do with concentration camps, in no way participated in criminal experiments or similar punishable acts, and should, therefore, be acquitted.
Furthermore I have another matter at heart, especially in my capacity as defense counsel for this defendant: Blome was Deputy Reich Physician Leader, he will, therefore, to a degree, easily be regarded as the representative of the German medical profession during Hitler regime.
Now, there is great danger that the entire German medical profession will be identified with its former leader Dr. Conti and with the crimes he was charged with during this trial; the German medical profession fears that those crimes which, in fact, were committed by individual doctors who may have rightly be charged, are to be taken as typical of the entire medical profession. Indeed, during the last months we could hear in the Press and on the radio that the entire medical profession was here in the prisoner's dock; unfortunately, by thus generalizing, the matter was presented as though the entire medical profession was corrupted and that the majority of German physicians had committed such kind of crimes or at least approved them, as stated here in the indictment at the trial. This conception would be wrong and unjust. The German medical profession numbered about 80,000 members and if we add the Wehrmacht physicians and the official physicians, one arrives at possibly 100,000 physicians. Now let us compare with this total number the small number of physicians and researchers here in the dock. There are altogether 20 men. Of what importance is such an insignificant number to the judgment of the entire profession? When out of 5,000 German physicians one single person committed a crime, it is impossible to draw a conclusion from these few exceptions regarding the behaviour and moral of the whole rank. And even if we suppose that perhaps another few hundred physicians and researchers had taken part in the experiment on human beings and in the "Euthanasia Action", not here in the dock, the number of guilty persons in comparison with the total number of the entire profession is still too small to consider the entire profession as criminal, and morally inferior because some individuals committed a wrong.
There is yet another point of view. It stands to reason that not all experiments on human beings can be excused and justified, not even during a time of total warfare nor in the case of a dictatorship regime and no decent person would ever think of excusing the way and manner in which the Hitler-State carried out the "Euthanasia-Program." However, it is an incontestible fact that large scale experiments on human beings cannot altogether be avoided and are, in fact, carried out throughout the whole world, and that there are different view points about the problem euthanasia to a limited extent also in the circles of conscientious physicians at least then when this is done on a proper legal basis and when, in addition, full precautions are taken to prevent abuses.
It must not be overlooked that the deterioration claimed in connection with this trial are connected exclusively with the problem of experiments on human beings and with euthanasia, but that no accusations are made against the professional practice of the German physicians in any other respects, especially there are no accusations referring to the relationship between the sick patient and the physician whom he had chosen as a helper and confidant, to restore his health. This confidence between the attending physician and his patient remained completely untouched by this trial.
Your Honors, we Germans have our own opinion about our physicians, we know their conscientiousness and willingness to render help; we have been able to observe and appreciate especially during the war their readiness to sacrifice themselves; we know that the good qualities that made the German physicians and researchers a model in former decades, were not lost during Hitler's time and it would be a pity if the abuses which have been revealed and proved by this trial should serve to undermine the confidence of the German people in their physicians and expose them to the contempt of all civilized nations.
Individual researchers, who through ambition or a passion for research did not value a human being's life more than that of a rabbit should not be considered representatives of the German physicians profession, nor should those physicians of the concentration camps, who for lack of a conscience or for some other wicked reason made fatal injections on prisoners or tortured them to death be regarded as representative of the German medical profession. No: representative of a model German physician also during Hitler's time is the non-political, practicing physician, who, even if he did perhaps formally belong to the Party, strongly opposed from the bottom of his heart all kinds of violence and intolerance, who is closely bound to his nation and its needs, the practicing physician who had cared for his patients in the most devoted manner day after day and night after night during the time of total war and fearful bombardments, which is especially hard for a physician, or who as military physician served at the front far from home, from his practice, from his family, fairly sharing all the hardships, dangers and privations of his soldiers.
And the surgeon who, as director of his clinic, operated and cured and helped from morning till night wherever he could help without having time to breathe, let alone to take part in political activity, he also is representative of the model German physician also during Hitler's time.
I do not know what verdict you will arrive at respecting one or the other of these defendants; but as defense counsel for the former deputy Reichsaerztefuehrer I beg you to make it clear by your verdict that in judging the defendant if you must condemn him you do not condemn and defaming the entire German medical profession but that the abuses which were committed, were individual acts such as, perhaps, happened in all professions during Hitler's time without necessitating a condemnation of the entire profession. These were individual acts arising perhaps partly from personal criminal tendencies of individual fanatics, partly from being connected with the excesses of a total war in a dictatorship of unscrupulous violence.
If beside the 23 defendants, Your Honors, there is a 24th sitting in the dock, invisible to our eye, it is not the German medical profession as was said in the German press, but the SS spirit of Himmler and of a dozen other murderers of millions of people. This spirit might have led a fanatic to forget his professional ethics and to commit crimes. But the entire medical profession remained sound and counscious of their duty.
May your verdict, Your Honors, not completely rob the German people of their confidence in their physicians, but restore it to them and I have no doubt that after the present crisis has been overcome and in more normal circumstances the German medical profession will prove to their people that in its entirety it never forgot nor will ever forget the professional ethical commandments of the Hippocratic oath.
So much for my plea in writing, Your Honors.
In order to come back to the case Blome, no guilt of the defendant has been proved, but only that he tried to help wherever he heard, help was needed and that he did so with success, although often endangered, and that he saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who, by Himmler Hitler and Greiser, had already been condemned to death, and I would, therefore, like you gentlemen of the Tribunal, to acquit the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the representative of the office of the Secretary General what translations of the arguments of counsel are on her desk, available to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is informed that the translation of the argument in behalf of defendant Rudolf Brand is available, but I do not see his counsel present in court.
DR. MERKEL (Defense counsel for defendant Genzken): Mr. President, as far as I know, the translation of my speech is in the hands of the translators.
INTERPRETER: We have it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am aware of the fact that the translators have it.
Counsel for defendant Genzken may proceed.
Before opening the argument, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Genzken may proceed with his arguments.
DR. MERKEL (Counsel for the defendant Genzken):
Mr. President, Your Honors:
The defendant Dr. Genzken - the first and only director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS - is the fifth man in the dock. If the order in which the defendants sit in the dock is supposed to express, purely superficially, their importance and the degree of their responsibility, this, in any case, is not justified as far as the defendant Dr. Genzken is concerned. This is not to say that the extent of his work, his missions, and his responsibility as medical director of the Waffen SS is in any way being minimized. But the field in which he worked and his responsibility lay in a completely different sphere and was entirely separated from the experiments which are under discussion and judgment in this trial.
As in the case of the first four and most of the other defendants, Dr. Genzken is not charged with the actual, active conduct of the experiments on concentration camp inmates; he is under indictment merely because among those who conducted the experiments there were persons who were allegedly under his command or because he is said to have had knowledge of the experiments at the time they were carried out and thus tolerated and aided them, if only tacitly, or at least not to have prevented them.
In this connection it must definitely be stated right away that the purely formal subordinate relationship never constitutes a punishable fact as such. In addition there must be either exact knowledge of the punishable acts of the subordinate in question, or the superior must have ordered the subordinate to take these actions. Only then and only in this single concrete case can there be any question of a punishable act, and then it is not the subordinate relationship which is the essential and decisive factor - it is the giving of the order to take the action or knowing of it and not preventing it.
It is not necessary to explain that any one who in any way induces another person to commit a punishable act is liable to punishment as an instigator. It is also a generally recognized legal principle that participation in a crime can also consist of omission when action is not taken despite existing legal obligations to do so. But also it obviously assumes that the accomplice has exact knowledge of the criminal act of the actual perpetrator and that he wants to bring this act about if it were his own.
Whether these assumptions are present in the case of the defendant Dr. Genzken, who did not personally conduct the two experiments (sulphonimide and spotted fever) with which the Prosecution charges him, will be determined when the evidence is considered.
As far as the person of the defendant, his position, and his activity as director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS are concerned, the Tribunal can find these in the appendix to the plea.
The character of tire defendant, as it has been described by the witnesses, and as it has emerged from his examination before this Tribunal, is illuminated by an especially note worthy statement of one of these witnesses. He calls Dr. Genzken the "Father of the Waffen-SS physicians". It is just this impression which points to his fatherly concern for his soldiers. The medical care was his most important principle and the guiding star for his every action.
Count I charges all defendants with having participated in a so-called conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
On the basis of the decision of the High Tribunal, announced on 14 July, count 1 of the Indictment is to be eliminated, therefore I need not dwell on this charge.
Whatever may be said in regard to conspiracy as a form of participation, I may draw the Tribunals attention to the closing brief of the defense.
According to Count 11, No. 6 K and J, the defendant Dr. Genzken is charged with special responsibility for the sulphonimide and spotted fever experiments and with participation in these.
In this matter I would like to begin by stating that during the almost three months in which the Prosecution presented its case the name of Dr. Genzken was mentioned only rarely. Document No. NO-1657, Prosecution Exhibit 484, which was submitted by the Prosecution during the cross-examination of Sievers, was, to be sure, directed to Dr. Genzken to be handed to Professor Mrugowsky in his capacity as consultant in hygien in the Ministry of the Interior, but it has nothing to do with the experiments on human beings; it concerns itself, as its conten proves beyond a doubt, solely with counteracting a typhus, epidemic in the concentration camp Neuengamme, which was located in the territory of the State of Hamburg. Even though the Prosecution submitted more than five hundred documents, the Prosecution was unable to produce a single document, a single letter, a single order or directive, which bears the signature or counter-signature of the defendant, or which was addressed to him in reference to the experiments. This fact proves better than many words the non- participation of the defendant in the experiments with which he is charged, especially when one considers the completeness of the documentary proof submitted by the Prosecution.
Considering the entire case of Dr. Benzken objectively one cannot escape the impression that Dr. Genzken is in the dock only because in addition to the Director of the Medical Corps of the Wehrmacht -- Professor Dr. Handloser and the Director of the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe -- Professor Dr. Schroeder -- they wanted to produce, for the sake of completeness, the Director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS in the person of the defendant Dr. Genzken.
To be sure, Dr. Genzken held the title of a medical director of a "Medical Corps", like the medical director of the army components. His jurisdiction was, however, considerably more restricted when compared to the so-called medical directors and the medical inspector. According to Himmler's express orders, Dr. Genzken was not allowed to call himself a "medical inspector".
As Director of the Medical Corps of the Waffen-SS he was an army medical officer and he was directed solely to build up the entire medical service for troops of the Waffen-SS and to supervise it responsibly. In contrast to the medical inspectors offices of the three components of the armed forces, the Medical Office of the Waffen-SS was never concerned with scientific research and plans, these were exclusively earned on by the Reichsarzt SS, Dr. Grawitz, and his agencies, Grawitz had express written orders from Himmler to that effect.
After the Prosecution has withdrawn the charge against Dr. Genzken arising out of Cont II No. 6 K of the indictment -- experiments with poisons -- and No. 6 L -- experiments with phosphorus incendiary bombs-further explanations concerning these two counts are unnecessary.
Thus, according to the indictment and the oral statement of the Prosecution, the remaining charges against Dr. Genzken contain only the sulphonimide experiments in the concentration camp Ravensbruck -- and the typhus experiments in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
In its closing brief the Prosecution has in addition charged Dr. Genzken with Dr, Rascher's altitude and freezing experiments, and the sterilization experiments of Dr, Clauberg. I must protest against the fact that now, after the submission of evidence by the Prosecution and Defense has been concluded, new special charges are brought up against the defendants. According to the indictment only the defendants listed in it specifically are charged with special responsibility for the experiments relating to them. The Defense presented the entire evidence under the assumption that tho defendants would have to answer only for those experiments for which they have been charged with responsibility.
Dr. Genzken is not charged with any special responsibility for the high altitude or tho freezing or the sterelization experiments. He can therefore not afterwards be charged with these experiments.
It seems as if the Prosecution is not convinced of the fool-proof quality of its evidence against Dr. Genzken and therefore attempts at the last moment to produce further incriminating material against him.
Regarding the sulpahnimide experiments, the following:
Although the prosecution's presentation of these sulphanimide experiments took almost three days, Genzken's name was only mentioned twice.
Whether these two references can be construed an incrimination the High Tribunal can gather from my exhaustive exposition in the supplement to my final plea.
I shall here present merely a brief compendium of what is explained there in detail.
It is true that Dr. Genzken found out about the sulphanimide experiments in Ravensbrueck shortly after Gebhardt and Fischer read their papers. His participation in them at this time, was no longer possible since the experiments had long previously been concluded. Culpable participation, however, either as instigator or as accessory in the way obviously intended by the indictment, is only conceptually possible if the participant is active at a time when the culpable act is not yet completed. Participation after the act is, at least for these experiments, out of the question.
Dr. Genzken was not present when Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer read their papers in May 1943 in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin; nor did he know anything of the delivery of cultures, etc. He did not himself order the experiments to be undertaken, nor was he over present at the discussions between Gebhardt and Himmler. He never visited the concentration camp Ravenbrueck or the clinical station there.
He was never informed by Professor Gebhardt and only long after he experiments were over did he find, out about them, but here also only as a third person, and no more than the public at larger The prosecution could produce no letter or other document bearing on the Ravensbrueck sulphanomide experiments which was signed or counter-signed by Dr. Genzken, or addressed to him, or in which he was even mentioned.
Since any criminal responsibility of Dr. Genzken for these experiments must therefore be denied, I ask that the defendant Dr. Karl Genzken be acquitted on Count II, No. 6E.
What the indictment calls the "murderous" typhus experiments in Buchenwald have been portrayed by the prosecution as one of the most serious charges in the whole trial. In order to avoid unnecessary and tiresome repetition, I as counsel for the defendant Genzken, shall refrain from entering into the question of the necessity, admissibility, or inadmissibility of these typhus experiments. Counsel for the co-defendant Professor Mrugowsky will dilate on this matter.
Under this count also Dr. Genzken is not charged with actively carrying out any typhus experiments, but is charged only because Ding was his subordinate and because he is alleged to be incriminated by an entry in the so-called Ding Diary. For me, as Genzken's counsel, therefore, the only important questions are: Did Dr. Genzken participate in any way in the typhus experiments, and did he have any supervisory duties in these experiments; or, at the time when the experiments were still being conducted and it might have been possible to interrupt them, did he have full knowledge of them, and, if so, was he in a position to have them stopped?
As the extensive evidence assembled in the closing brief shows experiments were decided on and ordered by Himmler or Grawitz without Grawitz's in any way participating. Then Himmler, on Grawitz's suggestion, commissioned Dr. Ding in Buchenwald to carry them out; this commission was not communicated to the defendants Genzken or Professor Mrugowsky.
Mrugowsky, who had repudiated the typhus experiments, was merely the Hygienic Consultant for the Reich physicians. This activity of his had, from the point of view of his duties as supervisor, nothing to do with his official position as Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS or as Hygienic Office Chief in the Medical Service of the Waffen-SS. Dr. Genzken himself issued no orders or directives that typhus research experiments were to be undertaken in Buchenwald or elsewhere. Since Genzken issued no such orders to the Director of the Research Department, and since this order went directly from Himmler or Grawitz to this Director, namely Dr. Ding, Ding could to this extent never be Genzken's subordinate, but was the immediate subordinate of the person from whom he had received his research assignment, that is to this extent he was immediately subordinate to Grawitz.