I now come to Count J of the Indictment, Typhus. According to the Indictment, the experiments from about December 1941 to February 1945 in Buchenwald and Natzweiler were carried out for the benefit of the German Armed Forces.
1. The charge against Karl Brandt regarding Buchenwald is based on the contention that he found out about the experiments, which had already been concluded in February 1942, afterwards, at a meeting of the Military Medical Academy in Hohenlychen in 1944 through a lecture by Dr. Ding and the simultaneous protest of Professor Rose.
In answer to this, evidence will be introduced to the effect that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not present during the previously mentioned lecture of the Hygiene division and that he was not informed about the happenings by examination of the co-defendant Rose and of the defendant himself.
2. The charge against Karl Brandt regarding the experiments in Natzweiler is based on the fact that a carbon copy of the research assignment from the office of the co-defendant Professor Schroeder was sent to the Office for medical Science and Research of the Defendant Brandt.
In answer to this I shall introduce evidence to the effect that from the written research assignment one could not determine where and under what kind of conditions the experiments more to be carried out, by examination of the co-defendants Professor Schroeder, Professor Rostock, Professor Rose and by the examination of the defendant himself.
We are now left with the Experiments with Polygal, Phlogmone experiments, experiments for the preparation of biological warfare, experiments with N-gas.
The prosecution touched upon these experiments during its presentation; they are, however, not contained in the indictment; therefore no position has to be taken with reference to them since they are not a subject of the Indictment.
If the Tribunal should admit the addition of now charges, I apply to reserve right to submit applications for evidence in regard to these counts.
I now come to Count 9 of the Indictment, to the question of Euthanasia.
The charge of the Prosecution is to the effect that (1) between November 1939 and April 1945, in the course of a so-called "euthanasia program", hundreds of thousands of human beings, including foreigners, were killed, and that (2) in connection with this "euthanasia program" collaborating physicians were sent to the extermination camps in the occupied Eastern territories in order to support the mass extermination of Jews there.
The charges in detail under the so-called "euthanasia program" are that the following were killed: a) sick ones, such as insane, incurable sick and deformed children; than concentration camp inmates and foreign workers, firstly for political and racial reasons, and then for inability to work.
The charge against Karl Brandt is based on, firstly, the Euthanasia Decree of 1 September 1939; secondly, participation in the organization for the execution of the "euthanasia program."
Against the authorization for euthanasia, evidence will be presented to show (1) that the Defendant Karl Brandt did not participate in the preliminary discussions, which stretched over years, between Hitler and administrative agencies concerning the introduction of the euthanasia law, by examination or affidavit of the witness Lammers, of the co-defendants Blome, Brack, and of the defendant himself; further, that the authorization, in spite of the secrecy observed, was considered by all state agencies concerned to be a legally binding law, by examination or affidavit, of the witness Dr. Lammers, Brack, Schwarz, Schulze, Engel and by the examination of the defendant himself; (3) that the contents of the law referred only to German citizens whose life, after a critical examination of the state of health from the medical and the human point of view, was judged to be nothing but pain, by examination of the defendant himself and of the co-defendant Brack. Further, that war wounded and those injured at work, whose injury was the cause of their ill health, were to be eliminated from consideration for euthanasia, by examination or affidavit of the witnesses Schaub, Engel, of the co-defendant Brack and of the defendant himself. That the Defendant Karl Brandt represented exclusively these points of view, by examination of the witnesses Oeynhauser or Pohlmann or Schwerin-Krosigk and by submission of an affidavit of Woermann (He is the present leader of the Mental Institution at Bethel), and an affidavit by Schmundt.
6. That cases of euthanasia proposed in the fall of 1941 on the basis of the medically established case history and under the Euthanasia Decree were forbidden by direct order of hitler, by examination of the witnesses Heide, Ehlich, Engel and the co-defendant Brack and the defendant himself; finally, that the Defendant Karl Brandt, when, after the prohibition of euthanasia, he heard that it was allegedly performed in 1944 to 1945 in institutions in Saxony and in Pomerania, reported this fact immediately to Beuhler, Hitler and Martin Bormann in order to have it stopped. I shall show that by examination of the witnesses Klepfer and Schaub.
To support the charge of being guilty of euthanasia by virtue of participation in organization, the Prosecution has submitted an affidavit of the co-defendant Brack, which is the Document NO 426. Proof of the incorrectness or this affidavit, which was not subject to cross-examination will be given by examination of the co-defendant Brack himself; further by a presentation of the new charts concerned in the execution of the euthanasia program. I shall show that by the examination of the co-defendant Brak, and the witnesses, or the submission of affidavits of these witnesses. Proof will further be given that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no organizational part at any time in the execution of euthanasia, by examination of the co-defendant Brack and the witnesses Morgen, Erlich, Schwarz; and, further, that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no part in the procedure of having sick persons judged by experts, by examination of the witness Heide and of the co-defendant Brack.
I shall bring proof that the negotiations with Professor Rose concerning transfer of a mental institution to him had no connection with the execution of euthanasia; by examination of the co-defendant Rose and of the defendant himself. Finally, I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt did not have to assume the execution or supervision of euthanasia in his official capacity as Hitler's escort physician by examination or affidavits of the witnesses Schaub, Engel.
III. Against the charge of extermination under the guise of euthanasia, evidence will be presented (1) that this measure took place only after euthanasia was forbidden in the fall of 1941, without the participation or knowledge of the Defendant Karl Brandt, by examination of the Defendant Karl Brandt himself.
I shall bring proof that the euthanasia performed in the concentration camps under the code name of 14 F 13 indicates a measure undertaken by the Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), and that the code name 14 F 13as a sign of the filing system of that office. I shall show that by examination and affidavit of the witness Morgen; (2) that the measures of the Labor Offices, ordering a transfer of invalid workers to mental institutions, had no connection with the agency of the Defendant Karl Brandt, by examination of the witness Seldte and of the defendant himself. I shall further bring proof (3) that "Action Brandt", mentioned in the affidavit of the witness Schmidt, which was not submitted, is a classification which represented a certain priority a) in the economic production of medical supplies b) in the repair and construction program for medical buildings. (This included also the special hospital installations of the "Action Brandt", which were built by Karl Brandt from 1941 on in the districts under special danger of air raids.) I shall bring that proof by examination of the witnesses Schieber, Hoerlein, Rostock, Handloser, Grabe, Schroeder; information given by the directors of the hospitals and special installations will be presented. I shall further bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt had no connection with an order to starve the sick persons in the mental institutions and never demanded that the rations for these institutions should be reduced, proof; examination of the witness Backe.
As far as the charge is based on the affidavit of the witness Sprauer, NO 818, the defense objects to the use of this affidavit until it is possible to cross examine; I reserve the right to make later applications in this connection.
Evidence will be presented on the judging of the illnesses (and deformities) as well as their course and life expectancy - as far as they were affected by the Euthanasia Authorization of 1 September 1939, by the examination of the expert Professor Geuhlce. Professor Siegmund will probably not be able to appear before March, so I should have to confine myself to Professor Geuhle.
A written opinion on euthanasia will be presented from the point of view of medical history by Professor Diepken; from the point of view of forensic medicine by Professor Meuller-Hoss.
Concerning legal, moral and medical conceptions of the permissibility of euthanasia I shall submit a number of excerpts from international literature, with comments of doctors, theologists, and jurists.
The question of the dispatching of doctors for participation in the extermination of Jews in the camps in the East has been discussed under Count I, sterilization.
I now come to the last Count of the Indictment, Membership in the Organization of the SS. Evidence will be presented, on this count, that (1) the Defendant Karl Brandt was only a pro forma member of the SS. I shall show that by examination or affidavit of the co-defendant Blome, and further, that the Defendant Karl Brandt exercised no activity in the General SS or the Waffen SS, by examination or affidavit of the witnesses Berger, Eppenau, and of the co-defendant Genzken.
I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was not Himmler's medical advisor, and that the SS was forbidden to contact him in medical matters, by examination of the do-defendant Gebhardt and Genzken.
I shall further bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was shunned by the extremists in the Party and that he was opposed, by Himmler, Goebbels, and Bormann, and which opposition finally resulted in his being condemned to death, by examination or affidavit of the witness Speer and the examination of the defendant himself. Further, I shall bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt was asked for assistance by important victims of political persecution, who considered him a politically objective and critical man, and that he promoted their interests, by submission of affidavits of Gerstenmeier, Meyer-Boeckhoff, Buerger-Prinz, Schacht, et al. I shall finally bring proof that the Defendant Karl Brandt, in his external conduct, was not an extremist, by submission of statements and persons removed from National Socialism.
And this is the end of my statement.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purpose of the Record, the Secretary General will file certificate from the physician of Defendant Oberheuser, showing her absence from the court today on account of sickness.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser): Mr. President, Your Honors, the Defendant Handloser stands before you as the last highest-ranking medical officer of the German Wehrmacht.
The problem of this case is that he, who has not committed any individual offense of those which are the subject of the indictment, who has not issued any general decree or any specific order pertaining to the experiments under indictment here, is considered guilty by the Prosecution because offices which were subordinate to him in organizational or military respect, or medical officers who were members of such subordinate offices, were allegedly in some sort of connection with inadmissible experiments.
The fact that the Prosecution has not submitted a single document bearing the signature of Handloser, neither an order, nor a decree, nor a letter which was written by him or addressed to him, should, in view of the extensive field of duties of this defendant, suggest the supposition that there is no perceivably incriminating material against him.
The defendant will not try to minimize the importance of his high and responsible position; but the indictment obliges us to explain the framework of his position in such detail that the Tribunal can determine whether the crimes which were committed are in the field of that responsibility for which the Defendant Handloser has to answer according to law and justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me a minute, Counsel, we are short one English translation. Excuse me, Doctor, you may go ahead.
Responsibility corresponds to the field of duties. Therefore, it is first of all necessary to clear up this field of duties, that is, the competence, the functions, and the duties of the defendant in his official positions. It must be examined whether the sphere in which the crimes alleged by the Prosecution were committed belonged to the field of duties of the defendant, whether he had the right to give orders or jurisdiction over the persons or offices primarily accused, and finally, whether in fact there was the possibility of preventing these crimes by virtue of knowledge of them.
Only if this can be answered in the affirmative does responsibility exist. This responsibility exists primarily toward the superior office, that is, that office from which the responsibility is derived. Moreover, a responsibility exists toward the law, the written law as well as the unwritten law of humanity.
The term responsibility, consequently has a dual character: 1), political or military responsibility; and 2), legal responsibility. Political and military responsibility need not be discussed before this Tribunal.
Legal responsibility presumes guilt. Therefore we must examine whether the facts forming the basis of the indictment actually took place because the Defendant Handloser was guilty of not having performed the duties incumbent upon him by virtue of his functions.
The Prosecution charges the Defendant Handloser first, with having planned willfully and knowingly, together with the other defendants, war crimes and crimes against humanity, (fact cf conspiracy); then it accuses him of having committed individual war crimes based on his special responsibility.
B) Count I): CONSPIRACY The Prosecution has stated that the case here on trial is one of the simplest and clearest cases for the facts of "conspiracy". I believe that the case of the Prosecution did not prove a "conspiracy", that is, a willful and knowing planning and collaboration of the persons sitting here in the dock as well as of the offices represented by these persons.
The Prosecution has submitted to the Tribunal a chart showing all offices which dealt with medical matters in Germany. Then it has alleged connections between these agencies, which doubtlessly did exist; but, from the fact that these connections were of a general and organizational nature, as must be the case in every other country between similar agencies under the jurisdiction of one central authority, it has drawn the conclusion that these connections must also have existed in those fields which form the sub ject of the indictment.
To me it seems to be essential to realize that the sphere of medical matters includes numerous fields which have not been mentioned at all by the Prosecution and whose field of activity has not been objected to by a single word. Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn for the present trial; that the activities of the German physicians and of the competent offices in these fields corresponded with the acknowledged rules of medical science.
Indictment and evidence have made quite particular facts the subject of a charge; namely: 1), Euthanasia and sterilization; with participation in which Professor Handloser was not charged, and 2); Experiments and investigations in various fields of research mainly on human beings in concentration camps. The relations between the defendants or the offices represented by them in fields which have nothing to do with the incriminating facts, cannot be considered as proof of conspiracy in those fields which are the subject of the indictment.
On the other hand; the indictment can be considered to be well founded in respect to this point with reference to the legal concept of complicity; only if - a) it is established that one or several defendants are connected causally and guiltily with the proved particular facts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and b), if this proved committing of crimes can be derived from a willful and knowing plan.
In regard to the question of conspiracy; which the Prosecution has dealt with as an independent count of the indictment, I refer in the legal respect to the statements of my colleague, Dr. Servatius, and to the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, (transcript pages: 1646/6, 16499, 16501, 16502/3, 16533, 16534/5), a copy of which I submit as Exhibit HA 1). In respect to the facts; the Chief Prosecutor (page 115 of the record) and later on, during the session of 2 January 1947, Mr. McHaney, (page 989 of the record) called the meetings of the "Consulting Specialists" a "typical conference of conspirators." In order to prove to the Tribunal the error of this assumption, I have filed an application for evidence: to produce the printed reports on the meetings of the "Consulting Specialists" in the period between 1940 and 1944.
On the basis of yesterday's decision of the Tribunal, I shall, in order to supplement the excerpts from the printed reports of the meetings which have been submitted by the Prosecution, also submit extracts. It is of decisive importance for this count of the indictment, that the Tribunal know the purpose, the significance, and the contents of these meetings as thoroughly as possible. For this purpose I submit as basic Exhibit HA-2 an affidavit of the Defendant Handloser concerning: "Necessity and purpose of the meetings of the 'Consulting Specialists'." I have also, meanwhile, named as witnesses for the legal character of these meetings: a), Professor Dr. Wirth, and b), Professor Dr. Killian.
C. The Official Position of the Defendant Handloser.
In order to explain the competencies, functions, and duties of the Defendant Handloser, the following evidence is offered:
1) Extract from Army Regulation 21, Number 17-Army Physician (Exhibit HA-28).
2) Extract from Army Regulation, 21, Number 5-11-Medical Inspector of the Army. (Exhibit HA-28a).
which show the duties of the defendant as army physician and as Army medical Inspector.
3) Affidavit of the Defendant Handloser concerning: "Sphere of Work and Method of Work of the Administration of the Medical Services of the Army and the Wehrmacht" (Exhibit HA-29) In order to shorten the examination of the defendant on the witness stand, and, on the other hand, to orient the Tribunal thoroughly on the sphere of activities of the Defendant, it seems expedient to submit a detailed statement of his functions.
I shall read the affidavit only in part, in agreement with the Prosecution, and shall submit the affidavit officially for the notice of the Tribunal. In this phase of my case I shall also refer to the documents submitted by the Prosecution, dealing with the Fuehrer Decrees of 28 July 1942 (Document NO-080), 5 September 1943 (Document NO-081), and 7 August 1944 (Document NO-227), as well as to the official instructions for the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
The following witnesses are to testify to the functions of the Defendant Handloser as well as to the official relations of Handloser's offices to the Medical Services of the Wehrmacht Branches and to the Waffen-SS:
A) the former chief of staff of Army Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt SCHMIDT-BRUECKEN,
B) the former chief of staff of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt W. WUERFLER,
C) the former Generalarzt in the Army Medical Inspectorate HARTLEBEN. In this connection I shall also submit affidavits of the co-defendants GENZKEN and MRUGOWSKY as Exhibits No. 16 and 17, for the connections between the defendant and the Waffen SS.
The Institution of the "Consulting Physicians".
The following documents are presented and witness named regarding the official position and the importance of the "Consulting Physicians" within the Medical Services:
1. The basis for the presentation of evidence will be the affidavit of the defendant Handloser.
"The Institution of the 'Consulting Physicians', which I offer as Exhibit HA 18.
2. The copies of the Nos. 222, 226 to 234 of the Instructions for War Medicine, offered as Exhibit HA-19, contain the instructions relating to the group of "Consulting Physicians".
3. The aforementioned Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken, Dr. Wuerfler, and Dr. Hartleber will testify as witnesses with regard to the actual functions of the "Consulting Physicians".
4. The former Generalarzt and Consulting Internist of the Amy Medical Inspectorate, Generalarzt Prof Dr. GUTZEIT, will also testify as witness on this subject.
5. Finally, I shall refer to the affidavit, Exhibit 6, not 20, of the former Generalarzt Dr. PENNER.
The Amy Medical Inspector; the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Research.
The defendant has enumerated in Document HA-29 the institutes subordinated to him in his capacity as Army Medical Inspector. The prosecution has not submitted that within any one of these institutes tests and experiments were conducted such as are the subject of the indictment.
It has merely been asserted that medical officers who served in or directed these institutes were allegedly in contact with offices which conducted such experiments.
Evidence is offered that this assumption of the prosecution is based on an error and also that the defendant Handloser in any case had no knowledge of any connections which these medical officers had with persons or institutions concerned with such experiments.
Documents of the prosecution regarding reports or a knowledge thereof have not been presented.
The following are named as witnesses for the correctness of the claim of the defendant Handloser:
a) the former Oberstabsarzt and commanding officer of the Army Mountain Medical School St. Johann, Dr. SCHAEFFER.
b) the former Oberstabsarzt and head of the research group in the Mountain Physiological Institute of the Army Mountain Medical School St. Johann, Dr. CREMER.
c) the former Oberstabsarzt and head of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow, Prof. Dr. EYER.
d) the former Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. LANG, in the Military Medical Academy, Berlin.
e) Dr. Bernhard SCHMIDT, former hygienist in the Army Medical Inspectorate.
Also the above-mentioned witnesses Schmidt-Bruecken, Wuerfler, and Hartleben.
It is evident from the Exhibits HA-16 and HA-17 that the defendant Handloser had nothing to do with the research carried on by the Waffen SS.
The prosecutor, in reading Document No. 227 (page 152 of the record), overlooked the official note to I 2a and II, 2 contained in Document Book 1, page 19, which reads:
"The Wehrmacht in this sense includes the Army, Navy, and Luftwaffe, the units of the Waffen SS attached to the Wehrmacht, and the organizations and groups employed within the framework of the Wehrmacht."
A relation to the institute for "Military Scientific Research" of the Waffen SS in the "Ahnenerbe" did not exist.
In this connection I offer an affidavit by the co-defendant SIEVERS as Exhibit 15, not 21. Handloser was neither a member of, nor in any other function connected with the "Ahnenerbe" and its organizations. The prosecution has not submitted evidence of this or of any official connection.
Neither were there personal or official relations between the defendant Handloser and the "Reich Research Council" or the later "Military Research Association" (Wehrforschungsgemeinschaft).
The list of the members of the board and heads of special branches, submitted by the prosecution, reveals that Handloser was not represented in these organizations. Circular Letter No. 5 of the planning board of the Reich Research Council, dated 7 September 1944, regarding the creation of a "Military Research Association" shows - see distribution list - that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was not even notified.
It is evident from the affidavit of the defendant SCHROEDER, offered as Exhibit HA-22, as well as from the affidavit of the defendant BECKERFREYSUNG (Exhibit H-23) that the defendant Handloser as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service had no competence whatsoever as regards the research of the "Aviation Medicine Research Institute", and the research assignments issued by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.
IV. The so-called Typhus Conference (Ding Diary Document No.-265.
In the extensive case of the Prosecution there is only one single assertion which affects the Defendant Handloser directly personally and brings him into relation with the unwarranted experiments of human beings. This is the alleged conference on 29 December 1941, which, as is stated by the Chief Prosecutor, allegedly laid the basis for the criminal typhus experiments on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald. It is the first entry in the so-called Ding Diary (Document No. 265).
It reads:
"Conference between Army Medical Inspector Generaloberstabt, Professor Dr. Handloser, Reich Health Leader, State Secretary, SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti, President Professor Reiter of the Health Office, President Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch institute (Reich Institute for the Combatting of Infectious Diseases), and SS-Standartenfuehrer, Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, Berlin."
"It is determined that it is necessary to examine the tolerance and effectiveness of typhus vaccines from chicken vitelline sacs. Since animal experiments do not allow for sufficient evaluation, experiments will have to be conducted on human beings."
The Defendant Handloser emphatically denies having taken part in such a conference. He asks me to emphasize that at the end of 1941, there were several conferences regarding the typhus epidemic in the East and the consequent threat to Germany.
He will testify on this subject personally under oath when called to the witness stand. He denies, however, that at that time at a conference in which he took part, a decision was reached, to conduct typhus experiments on human beings, and also that such a conference reveals a relation to research experiments of the SS in this field.
The Defendant Mrugowsky certifies in an affidavit (Exhibit HA-24) That the entry in the Ding-Diary of 29 December 1941 was forged or based on an error.
Furthermore, it is proved by an affidavit of Prof. Dr. Reiter (Exhibit HA-25) who is said to have taken part in this conference, that the entry of Dr. Ding is not correct. The witness Dr. Kogon was not questioned by the Prosecution on the alleged conference and the entry to that effect by Dr. Ding.
The Prosecution, therefore, in this point of decisive importance for the Defendant Handloser, relies upon the entry in the diary of a deceased person who did not take part personally in this alleged conference. The Prosecution subsequently, submitted, it is true, the Dietzsch affidavit Document No. 1314. This affidavit states:
"After the conclusion of the experiments, Dr. Ding drew up a record in May 1942, in which he put down in writing the results of the experiment I read these entries at about the same time and found among the files as Sheet No. 1, entries on a conference of physicians which was held in Berlin.....
At the meeting in November 1941, in which Professors Handloser, Schreiber, Gildemeister, Mrugowsky, Rose, and Dr. Ding took part, it was resolved to conduct vaccine experiments on human beings, after experiments with animals had failed to yield clear results."
Capo Dietzsch known to the Tribunal from the presentation of the Prosecution and from depositions made by witnesses, testifies on the alleged conference not from his own knowledge; for at that time - 29 December 1941 - he was not yet in the section of Dr. Ding, as he testifies himself. He relies, on the contrary, on the entry in the Ding diary. If, therefore, this testimony does not have an additional probative power, in comparison with the Ding entry, for the Prosecution case, it has considerable probative power in the defense of the Defendant Handloser, because it destroys completely the probative value of the first page of the Ding diary which has been submitted.
The defense counsel of the co-defendant Mrugowsky, my colleague Dr. Flemming, challenged the admissibility of the Ding diary as an exhibit. Although the Tribunal did not consider the objection justified concerning the entire document, nevertheless on basis of the testimony of Dr. Kogon and of the Dietzsch affidavit it must be considered as proved that the first page of the Ding diary, which is the important point in the Handloser case cannot be recognized as an exhibit.
1. Dr. Kogon testified that Dr. Ding dictated the entries in the diary for the first half of the year of 1942 all at one time. Dietzsch confirms this testimony and declares that this dictation took place about in May 1942.
2. When it was pointed out in cross-examination that the title of the diary, "Department for Typhus and Virus Research" which became possible only at the end of January 1943, cannot be explained, Dr. Kogon suggested the explanation that Dr. Ding had the first page of the diary re-written later on.
Dr. Kogan Meant that Dr. Ding had only the "heading" of the diary rewritten.
The Dietzsch affidavit shows that not only the "heading" but the entire first page was changed in its contents; for the date of the conference in the submitted text of the so-called Ding Diary is 29 December 1941, whereas Dietzsch speaks of a conference in November 1941. Furthermore, the participants in this conference are listed differently. Dietzsch mentions Schreiber, Rose and Ding as participants, who are not listed as participants in the submitted Ding diary.
For the purpose of refutation of the statements made in the Balachowsky affidavit, I quote; (Document No. 484, No. 4):
"In the Central Committee of this Department we see the following personalities:
Dr. Handloser, Inspector General of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht, Dr. Conti, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Dr. Poppendick, SS-Gruppenfuehrer, Dr. Genzken, SS-Gruppenfuehrer, I shall submit the affidavits of Mrugowsky (Exhibit HA-24) Genzken (Exhibit HA-26) and Poppendick, (Exhibit HA-25).According to these affidavits there was no committee or "central committee" in the Section for Typhus and Virus Research.
D. Count II, 6A of the Indictment: High-Altitude Experiments.
The Prosecution has charged the Defendant Handloser under this count, as well as under the counts which are still to be discussed, with "Special responsibility for and participation in these crimes."
In the documents submitted in the Prosecution case neither the name of Handloser nor any of his offices is mentioned. The experiments concern the Luftwaffe specifically. Since, according to the Prosecution, they lasted from March 1942 until about August 1942, and according to the Romberg affidavit (Document NO-476) they lasted approximately until the end of May, 1942.
Handloser as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service can not have had any connection with these experiments; much less can he have participated in them, since the office of Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was only created on 28 July, 1942 (Document NO-080) and, according to the Prosecution itself, the experiments must already have been concluded at that time.
The Prosecution has now attempted to prove a connection between the Army Medical Inspectorate and these experiments by quoting a remark contained in Document 1581b-PS, which reads as follows:
"Has the letter with the Cramer-Klett report arrived?"
Following this the Prosecutor stated (page 233 of the record): The meaning of this remark is not quite clear. It is true that we find the name of Cramer mentioned in the freezing experiments, and, as I recall, we shall see that Cramer was an army doctor attached to the Institute in St. Johann. You will remember that this institute was under the authority of Dr. Handloser in his capacity as Army Medical Inspector", and quotation.
The Tribunal will certainly not have failed to observe that the Prosecution made no attempt to prove that the "Cramer-Klett" mentioned in Document 1581 b-PS is identical with the "Dr. Cramer" mentioned in connection with the cold experiments. The great difference in the names proves the incorrectness of this argument of the prosecution.
It therefore ensues from the arguments and from the documents submitted by the Prosecution that the Defendant Handloser and the Army Medical Inspectorate are in no way connected with the high-altitude experiments.
Count II 6 B of the Indictment: Freezing Experiments.
The documents submitted by the prosecution on this subject do not mention the name of the Defendant Handloser or any of the offices under his supervision as having ordered or participated in the experiments conducted in the concentration camp of Dachau.
In this connection the Prosecution has only stated that medical officer of the Army (From the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann) participated in the Luftwaffe meeting on "Winter Hardship and Distress at Sea" of 26 and 27 October, 1942, during which Prof.
Holzloehner held a lecture on freezing experiments (Document NO-401). The Prosecution has further more stated that Oberstabsarzt Dr. Cremer, of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann, is said to have discussed collaboration with Dr. Rascher after the Meeting in Nurnberg. (Documents NO-319, 1579-PS and NO-431) No letter or other document from Dr. Cremer or his office was presented, nor was any proof presented, that Dr. Cremer spoke with Dr. Rascher on official orders and that there was collaboration with the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann. But that would be necessary before one could conclusively claim participation of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann, which was under the jurisdiction of the Defendant Handloser.
As the final report on the freezing experiments at Dachau was presented to the Reichsfuehrer-SS on 16 October 1942, (Document 1613-PS), the experiments were concluded before the participants in the Nurnberg conference could have heard about them.
Therefore, the Prosecution has presented no proof either of Handloser's "special responsibility" or of his participation or the participation of the Army Mountain Medical School at St. Johann.
Therefore, the charge against the Defendant Handloser on this count is not proved.
By way of precaution, the witnesses already named, Dr. Cremer and Dr. Wuerfler, are called to testify: That there was absolutely not participation of medical officers of the Army Mountain Medical School at St Johann in the experiments which form the basis of the charge, and furthermore:
That even later on no collaboration was officially agreed upon or took place, finally:
That reports were never made to the defendant Handloser on unwarranted experiments at Dachau or about proposed collaboration with Dachau.
The Prosecutor has referred (page 148 of the record) to the Army Mountain Medical School of the OKH at St. Johann in connection with the freezing experiments.