The witness, Dr. Schaeffer and Dr. Cremer will testify that there was no connection between the freezing experiments at St. Johann, which are not mentioned in the Indictment, and the experiments under Indictment here.
Count I b C of the Indictment: Malaria Experiments Document Book 4 of the Prosecution which refers to this subject, contains no document that mentions the defendant Handloser, which is signed by him or addressed to him, nor have the witnesses who have testified on this matter said anything that could incriminate the defendant Handloser.
For want of any concrete incriminating assertion of the Prosecution against the Defendant Handloser, and the offices subordinated to him, it is impossible for me to offer evidence in his defense.
By way of Precaution: I present as Exhibit HA 3) an affidavit of professor Dr. Rodenwaldt, formerly "Consulting Hygienist" of the Army Medical Inspectorate, as proof of the fact that within the Army Medical Inspectorate experiments in this field on human beings were never ordered or conducted. The witness, Dr. Wuerfler will testify that reports about such happenings were not received.
Count II b D of the Indictment: Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments:
According to the Indictment, Lost (mustard) gas experiments were conducted on human beings during the period from 1939 to 1945 in Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler and other concentration camps, on behalf of the German Wehrmacht.
The documents presented by the Prosecution show the following:
1. There is no document showing an order to or participation of the Wehrmacht in experiments in concentration camps or on prisoners.
2. Prof. HIRT'S report about, and I quote: "Lost experiments conducted on behalf of the Wehrmacht" is not the report sent by HIRT in 1940 to his Generalarzt, but rather a report to the "Ahnenerbe" about the report which he had previously submitted. This is shown by the third paragraph from the end of the report in question.
3. From this report it can be seen that HIRT conducted the experiments, which were carried out on orders of his Generalarzt during an assignment back home - evidently during the first half of 1940 - only on animals, furthermore, on two cadets of the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. These experiments can not be the subject of this indictment.
4. When HIRT specifies on page 3 of his report, I quote: "These experiments could not be carried over to human beings, as the beginning of the offensive in France called me back to my unit," end of quote; this proves that in his report to his superior Generalarzt he could not report on experiments on human beings with the exception of the two cadets - on the other hand, the question remains open, whether the experiments planned but not carried out by HIRT were to be conducted on volunteers, which the two cadets doubtless were. Consequently this document lacks any probative force for the case under consideration, all the more as the defendant Handloser had been Army Medical Inspector only since January 1941, so that HIRT's report could not have been submitted to him in that capacity. The lost-experiments, dealt with in the document which has been submitted, have no connection with the Wehrmacht. The documents speak for themselves.
The Document NO-372, submitted by the Prosecution, (affidavit of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt) contains the following sentence, I quote;
"Apart from Karl Brandt and the other above mentioned persons, Handloser and Rostock must also have known of these experiments."
end of quote. With regard to this affidavit, it must be said on principle testimony of witnesses, and affidavits should relate only fact based on personal knowledge.
The expression of an assumption, or a supposition without giving concrete facts on which the assumption, or supposition is based is inadmissible. The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt insofar as it is quoted does not relate such concrete facts, however.
I submit in evidence Document HA-4, an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, in which he declares:
"I cannot submit any actual documentary proof of this assumption."
Exhibit HA-4.
"In general it must be said for this case and also for later cases that the words of the Indictment, "on behalf of the Wehrmacht", in themselves; that is, without concrete casual facts cannot prove the existence of punishable relation to the Defendant Handloser and his offices.
"During the war all medical investigations serve the "Wehrmacht, but in the same way they serve the wounded and sick soldiers who fell into German hands as prisoners of war, and furthermore they served the treatment of the inhabitants of the occupied territories. The standards for the medical care given prisoners of war were regulated by the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime and the Agreement on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 13-15, "Health Care in the Camps' (appendix to the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime) and the 'Geneva Convention' for Improvement of the Lot of the Wounded and Sick of the Armies in the Field, which is known to the tribunal. This was also attached to the Regulation on Medical Services in War as a supplement; it was binding on all medical officers. I add a copy of the pertinent provision of the Regulation on Medical Services in Wartime as Exhibit HA-5 and HA-5-a.
"The affidavit of Dr. Penner, Exhibit HA-6, shows that the Defendant Handloser issued directives for the medical treatment of the population in the occupied territories.
"Finally, a certified statement of the Swiss Colonel Dr. von Erlach on the care which the Defendant Handloser gave prisoners of war is also submitted as Exhibit HA-7" And I add that this morning I received a statement from the Swiss Colonel Dr. von Brunner to the same effect.
"Sulfonamide Experiments: Disregarding tho affidavit of Dr. Fischer, the documents submitted on this count do not contain any evidence that the Defendant Handloser or his offices participated in the experiments conducted by the Defendants Professor Dr. Gebhardt, Dr. Fischer, and Dr. Oberheuser in the concentration camp Ravensbruck.
"The Defendant Dr. Fischer has testified in his affidavit of 21 October 1946 (Document No. NO-472), and I quote:
'When the sulfonamide experiments began, Professor Gebhardt, my military and medical superior, told me that these experiments were conducted order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht and of the Chief of the State Medical Office...'
"On this point I submit the affidavits of Dr. Fischer and of Professor Dr. Gebhardt as Exhibits HA-8 and HA-9, which show the following:
"a) Dr. Fischer states and I quote:
'It is not correct when this affidavit says that Professor Gebhardt had told me that the experiments had to be conducted by order of the Chief of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht. I did not make such a statement.'
"b) Professor Dr. Gebhardt states:
'It is incorrect that I over told Dr. Fischer that these experiments were conducted by order of the Medical Office of the Wehrmacht.'
"Dr. Fischer and Professor Gebhardt will also testify on the witness stand that the statement in Dr. Fischer's affidavit is incorrect, according to which the Defendant Handloser was present at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Hohenlychen mental hospital; furthermore the statement of Dr. Fischer in his affidavit of 21 November 1945, that Dr. Stumpfegger was from the 'High Command of the Army', will be changed to read that he was a member of the staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
"An affidavit of Professor Dr. Frey, submitted as Exhibit HA-10 will confirm that the Defendant Handloser never ordered sulfonamide experiments which would have conflicted with medically acknowledged principles.
Concerning this count of the indictment, the prosecution has referred to the meeting of 'Consulting Specialists' of the Wehrmacht in May 1943, at which Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer spoke on their sulfonamide experiments.
"The Defendant Handloser was present during this lecture. He cannot recollect the exact text of the lecture of Professor Dr. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer. He will testify an the witness stand as to whether an uninitiated person could have realized from the statements made that the experiments on human beings conducted by Professor Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer had been based on inadmissible experimental methods. Affidavits will be submitted by other auditors which answer this question in the negative. The affidavits which have been requested on the basis of written information have not yet been received.
"In judging from the point of view of criminal law, it must be considered that the experiments had been concluded when the lecture was held.
"Count II 6 F of the Indictment: Experiments concerning Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation: Everything said about Count II 6 E applies to this count, with the remark that the experiments in question had been concluded, according to the Dr. Oberheuser affidavit (Document No. NO-487) early in 1943." But I must add that a report on this subject was not made in May, 1943 at the meeting of consulting physicians.
"Seawater Experiments: Document NO-442 (affidavit of Rudolf Brandt), Document NO-449 (Schroeder affidavit), then document NO474 (Schaefer affidavit) and Document NO-177 (record of meeting of 19 and 20 May 1944), and finally, Document NO-185 (Professor Schroeder's letter to Himmler of 7 June 1944) show that these were special experiments of the Luftwaffe and the Navy.
"No documents or other evidence has been submitted which proves a relation of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to these experiments. The Prosecution has submitted only an affidavit of the defendant Schroeder (Document NO-449), which says that the Defendant Handloser know about the Medical research work conducted by the Luftwaffe.
"This statement, which was given without any concrete reason for the assertion, has been corrected in an affidavit of the defendant Schroeder of 2 January 1947, Document HA-22. This states:
"1. If the Luftwaffe gave research assignments in fields of aviation medicine, it did not need the permission of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service.'
"2. 'It is true that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and the Army Medical Inspector did not participate in the discussions on the seawater experiments, nor were they informed of the details of the execution of these experiments.'
"In this connection I also refer to the Becker-Freyseng affidavit, HA-23. This voids the Prosecutions' assertion of the Defendant Handloser's special responsibility for and participation in these experiments.
"Experiments with Epidemic Jaundice: The name Handloser and the offices of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and Army Medical Inspector are mentioned in none of the submitted documents, disregarding the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (Document NO371). The defendant Rudolf Brandt has stated in an affidavit of 21 December 1943, Exhibit HA-11, and I quote:
'When I said in this affidavit, Handloser must have been informed of it, that is a supposition. I cannot give any facts which show or suggest knowledge of Professor Handloser.'
"In order to prove a responsibility of the Defendant Handloser in his capacity of Army Medical Inspector, the Prosecution has referred to a Stabsarzt Dohmen and has stated (record, page 777), that the latter was a member of the Army Medical Inspectorate while Handloser was Army Medical Inspector.
"As a proof that this statement is not correct, the affidavit of Professor Dr. Gutzeit is submitted as Exhibit HA-12; this affidavit also corrects the other statements connected with the activity of Dr. Dohmen. Dr. Dohmen was a member of the Military Medical Academy, Training Group C, the commanding officer of which was Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber. This group was under the command of the commanding officer of the Military Medical Academy, which was an independent institute and, along with many other medical units, medical agencies and institutes, was subordinated to the Army Medical Inspectorate. The statement that Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber (Document NO-299) was subordinate to Handloser, which was also put forward at the meeting of 19 December 1946, is untrue as far as it suggests his immediate subordination to or membership in Handloser's agency as the Army Medical Inspector. Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber was, at that time, attached to the Military Medical Academy and was, therefore, subordinated to the Commanding Officer of the Academy.
"Generalarzt Dr. Schreiber was also Plenipotentiary of the Reich Research Council for Epidemic Control, to which Handloser did not belong. For this reason Haagen asked Schreiber in a letter dated 12 June 1944 (Document NO-299) whether hepatitis research would in future be financed by the Reich Research Council or whether he ought to apply to the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe for further funds.
"It was Schreiber, too, who was asked for the temporary assignment of Dr. Dohmen (Document NO-299) and who arranged with the Commanding Officer of the Military Academy for Dohmen's assignment (Documents NO-300 and NO-124). The Army Medical Inspectorate and Handloser were not responsible for this assignment, so that Handloser did not learn of these events.
"There can, therefore, be no question of any direct participation of the Defendant Handloser, nor was Dohmen a medical officer, for whoso actions Handloser would have been responsible according to the Indictment 13.
"Typhus Experiments: The assertion of the Prosecution that by taking part in the conference cf 29 December 1941, the Defendant Handloser caused the typhus experiments to be performed on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald, has already been discussed.
"In this connection, the Prosecution has assumed the existence of a connection between the institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow and the Army Medical Inspectorate, and referred in this connection to a visit of the head of the Cracow Institute Professor Eyer, and the hygienist of the Army Medical Inspectorate, the fact that there was no connection with the the typhus experiments on human beings in the concentration camp Buchenwald, and that the witnesses had no knowledge of the experiments charged here.
"The witnesses will also testify that no reports were submitted to the Defendant Handloser which either prove his connection with the concentration camp Buchenwald or, in particular, his knowledge of the experiments on human beings carried out in this camp.
"This applies to typhus experiments as well as to yellow fever experiments.
"The witnesses Schmidt-Bruecken and Wuerfler will confirm this.
"The Defendant, Handloser, has also named Professor Dr. Lang, former head of the Military Medical Academy, as a witness that the blood serum preserves mentioned in the Ding diary were not sent for testing in the concentration camp Buchenwald. With regard to the lice shipments for the purpose of infection of human beings with typhus mentioned in the Ding diary, Professor Eyer will confirm as a witness, the affidavit given by the Defendant, Hoven, which is offered as Exhibit HA-13, according to which these lice shipments did not emanate from the Cracow OKH Institute but from Dr. HASS in Lwow, and had nothing to do with the Army Medical Inspector or the Chief of the Wehrmacht Services.
"The Defendant, Dr. Mrugowsky, will also as a witness testify to this.
"The typhus experiments of Professor Haagen in Natzweiler have no connection with the Defendant, Handloser, or any of his offices, as is evident from the documents submitted by the Prosecution. The interrogation of the witness, Eyer, did not prove that reports from Prof. Haagen reached the Defendant, Handloser.
"The Prosecution later submitted another affidavit by Rudolf Brandt of 14 November 1946. Herein the Defendant, Rudolf Brandt, testifies:" I quote: "SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Karl Brandt, Generaloberstabsarzt Dr. Siegfried Handloser and other surely knew of Haagen's experiments on human experimental subjects.
"In this connection an affidavit by Rudolf Brandt of 9 January 1947 is submitted as Exhibit HA-14 in which he deposes:" and I quote: "This paragraph in my affidavit is not a factual deposition. I cannot give any concrete fact on which this opinion is based. I assumed on the basis of the explanation of the interrogator that it had been so."
"Polygal experiments.
"The Prosecution mentioned the Defendant, Handloser, on 22 January 1947 Record, page 1021) in dealing with the Polygal experiments.
"In Document Book 11 offered in this connection, neither the Defendant, Handloser, nor any of his offices is mentioned. The Prosecutor in presenting the Ahnenerbe diary (Document 3546-PS) remarked with regard to tho entry of 26 May:" I quote: "This research institute was under the Defendant, Handloser, a fact so which we have referred earlier in the course of this trial."
"This assertion is not correct. In Cracow there was the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH, which was under the Defendant, Handloser. The Prosecution itself calls the institute in question "Institute for German Eastern Research". I offer an affidavit by the Defendant, Sievers, as Exhibit HA-15 from which the incorrectness of the assertion of the Prosecutor is evident.
"The Prosecution in the course of its case offered documents as evidence of preparation for bacterial warfare. It can be seen from the documents that the medical collaborator, Prof. Dr. Kliewe, a member of the "lightning red" working community, dealt only with protective measures against possible damage in case of bacteria warfare. His work and his reports referred to this matter. Prof. Kliewe was subordinated for this task to the Army Weapons Office. Evidence. The witness, Prof. Kliewe, who has been named by the Defendant, Blome.
"In a trial in which the defendant is not charged with directly perpetrating, participating in or ordering a crime, it will be essential to understand correctly not only his sphere of office but also the actual management and the extent of his duties and, furthermore, his personality. Only thus will it be possible to decide whether credence should be given to his statement that he had no knowledge of the facts which the Prosecution alleges to be criminal as far as they touched his sphere of office.
"As evidence on this point, I refer to the affidavits by Generalarzt Dr. Penner and the Swiss Colonel, Dr. von Erlach.
"I shall further offer affidavits by Prof. Dr. Kurt Veit. (Exhibit HA-30) Dr. Stengele (Exhibit HA-31), the Prior of the Benedictins Abbey Maria Laach, Theodor Boglep (HA-32), Dr. W. Drexler (HA-33).
"I have requested but not received an affidavit from Colonel Dr. Brunner and the Prelate, Dr. Kreutz, the head of the Catholic organizations. The affidavit of Brigadier General Dr. Bircher has not yet arrived.
"Finally I offer a memorandum from the former Reich Student leader, Dr. Scheel, which shows the attitude of the Defendant, Handloser, toward the political influences of the Party on the young medical officers being trained at the universities. (Exhibit HA-34) "These documents will make it clear that in accordance with the personality and the actions of the Defendant, Handloser, one may believe that he had no knowledge of criminal experiments and would not have tolerated any if they had come to his knowledge within the scope of his responsibility.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:45 o'clock this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 29 January 1947) BY THE PRESIDENT:
The Secretary General will note for the record that the Defendant's, Karl Brandt, Counsel, Dr. Servatius, has been excused from attendance at this afternoon's session. Dr. Servatius, Counsel for the Defendant Brandt, has made his opening statement this morning.
Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. HANS PRIBILIA (Defense Counsel for Defendant Paul Rostock):
Mr. President, Members of the Court: In submitting evidence in defense of Professor Paul Rostock, counsel can start from the fact that Prof. Rostock himself performed no criminal experiments on human beings. Nor has anything been presented by the Prosecution from which it might be inferred that he either ordered or suggested such experiments. In order to give a true picture of the activity which Prof. Rostock really exercised during the war, the defense will begin their submission of evidence by giving a brief description of Rostock's professional activity in various branches of medicine. This is necessary in order to make it clear along what lines Rostock used by far the better part of his energy and interest in the years from 1939 to 1945. Such a description will reveal that his activity as head of the surgical university clinic of Berlin, Ziegelstrasse, his activity as an advisory surgeon of an Army, his work as the sole editor of the Central Journal for Surgery or Zentralblatt Fuer Chirurgie with which he combined since 1942 the duties as Dean of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Berlin, engaged his time and energy to such an extent that his activity on behalf of Carl Brandt's office, which was added to his other work not until the last year of the war, could of necessity not exceed a limited scale. As far as can be recognized at this stage, the Prosecution does not present any charge against the Professor of Surgery of Berlin University, except for the latter short period, and only in respect to this subsidiary activity. For the whole duration of the war, up to the end of 1943, he is merely reproached, together with 350 other advisory army doctors, to have been present at a meeting where among many others Gebhardt and Fisher gave also lectures.
The question as to how far this can legally constitute a charge on those present at these lectures will be dealt with in detail when counsel submit evidence on behalf of the defendant Handloser, and counsel for Rostock will also refer to this subject in their defense so far as it is necessary.
Furthermore, a detailed description will be given of what the scientific and research section with the Commissioner General for Health, which originate in the Winter, 1943, to 1944 under Rostock, did in practice do and what it did not do, Counsel will endeavor to show that although the attempt was made by Rostock's office during those last chaotic years of war to gather some information on the work done in the various research institutes, the information made thereupon available to his office was such that it did not enable Rostock's office to be aware of the fact that objectionable experiments on human subjects were performed in German Research Institutes.
Now that Prosecution evidence has established the fact that various research orders involving experiments on human subjects were actually given by a very different organization namely the Reich Research Council, it is obvious that the associations of the defendant Rostock with the Reich Research Council, which are alleged by the Prosecution, must be the subject of detailed evidence. Counsel for Rostock attach decisive importance to the clearing up of this point, and their argument is that the Reich Research Council was under the direction of its president, whose instructions were carried out by the secretaries and the heads of the different branches, and that the defendant Rostock was not a member in any of these latter organs of the Reich Research Council.
The so-called governing body or Praesidialrat, in which Rostock was not received as a member until the last year of the war, and only as Brandt's deputy, had, as will be proved, neither knowledge of, nor influence on, such research orders. It was a purely representative institution which did not exercise any real functions.
The possibilities for Rostock's counsel to submit evidence are comparativery limited. To their regret, counsel are not in a position to submit the files of the division headed by Rostock in order to give the Tribunal a comprehensive idea of the work which was actually performed in this division. The complete files of his division were taken by Rostock to Bad Liebensein. Rostock was interrogated after his capture in May or June, 1945, by the 7th Army Interrogation Center at Augsburg Barenkeller, and in the course of his interrogation, he also indicated the precise location of the files of his office. Subsequently some American officers came to Bad Liebenstein and took these files along with them. The part of these papers which is most important as evidence for the defense, was the correspondence with the various German research institutes, as well as what was called the Research Card Index, summarizing all the information communicated to Rostock's office by other agencies. Rostock has request that this Research card index be submitted as evidence, and the Tribunal has approved this request. But unfortunately, counsel for his defense are not yet in a position to say whether they will actually receive these files for inspection, and whether they will thus be able to submit extracts as evidence in defense of their client.
It may perhaps be noted in this connection that in this trial the Prosecution have presented their documentary evidence in a manner which can only be called exemplary. Particularly those among the defense counsels who had to work their way through mountains of documents in the first Nurnberg Trial have highly appreciated that the document books were submitted in a well ordered and timely fashion. This encourages them to hope that it has not escaped the attention of the Tribunal that up to this date the Prosecution has not presented one single document as evidence against the defendants which bears the signature of Rostock or is addressed to him.
In connection with this question of evidence, I think it my duty as a defense counsel to ask the Tribunal to give its attention to the fundamental question of how evidence in defense of the accused should be made available to their counsel. The Military Tribunal Number One is the first American tribunal of supreme rank before which a number of further trials of great importance are to be opened in this defeated country. But while in your own country, prosecution and defense are very largely given equal possibilities to gather and submit documents, circumstances are different in this case as a consequence of Germany's unconditional surrender. Never before in history has a modern state been so completely and so absolutely in the hands of the victors. Thus all existing archives and files of German offices and agencies are in the possession of the Allies. These documents have been collected in large document centers, where they are currently studied and analyzed. They are available to the prosecution in their search for documentary evidence against the defendants. Contrary to German law, American law provides that the prosecution only present evidence against the defendant. It would only be just and fair if by a decision of principle made by the Military Tribunal Number One counsel for the defense would be given access to these documents to a larger extent than has been possible until now. It appears that it is not sufficient for counsel to be authorized to receive a certain document which is already known, but, on the contrary, the search for documents in defense of the accused should be rendered possible by giving counsel access to the whole of the papers and files available in each particular case. If it should be considered undesirable to give German counsel this freedom, American lawyers might be attached to the German defense counsels and given the right to search for defense documents in the document centers on behalf of the defense counsels. I believe that Rostock's case is one of these where Tribunal would very quickly reach a just appreciation of his position if the comparatively small, strictly limited and complete files of his small office covering the latter's activities of hardly eighteen months, could be submitted as evidence.
Under these circumstances, the documentary evidence to be submitted by Rostock's counsel would be limited to a few documents. Counsel will present two charts indicating the time relation of the human experiments, which are the subject of the indictment, to the general duties of the defendant Rostock. These charts will show that by far the greater part of the experiments were performed long before Rostock's short subsidiary activity with the scientific and research office, so that for this reason alone, there can be no question of his having had any knowledge or responsibility. Furthermore, a few affidavits of members of his office will be presented. The other evidence submit by the defense counsel will be direct and oral. Counsel will be in by questioning the defendant Prof. Rostock in the witness stand. Among Rostock's assistants in his office, the most important witness whose hearing has been authorized, Herr Christensen, has been located and will be taken to Nurnberg. He has exact knowledge of the whole activity of Rostock within the science and research office, as well as of the correspondence with other agencies and he is, furthermore, the man who summarized the information on the research work in the research card index, which was mentioned a moment ago. Another witness, whose hearing was authorized by the Tribunal, is Head Nurse Margarethe Baldow. Here whereabouts are also known, and her transfer to Nurnberg has been ordered. From 1936 to 1945, she acted as head nurse in Rostock's clinic. She has knowledge of his activities during practically every single day of these years, and she is, in particular, in a position to give the Tribunal a picture of how much of Rostock's work during the last 18 months of the war, which alone are of interest to the Tribunal, was taken up by his duties in his clinic, and how little time he was able to devote to Brandt's office. The last defense witness for Paul Rostock authorized by the Tribunal, Rudolf Mentzel is the principal secretary or Hauptgeschaeftsfuehrer of the Reich Research Council. He is one of those who are best in a position to explain the complicated group of questions connected with the Reich Research Council and its competence and acting assistants, and he will be able to confirm in particular that Rostock never took an active part in business connected with the Reich Council.
The cross examination of the witness Eyer has established that the information given in Document NO 883, Exhibit 314, which seemed to constitute a charge against Rostock, was essentially due to a mistake. One or two affidavits from co-defendants will make it clear that their own references to Rostock's name in some records of their interrogations were not made out of their own knowledge, but rather from mere assumptions.
This would bring the submission of defense evidence on behalf of the defendant Rostock to a conclusion unless additional questions are raised in the further course of the proceedings.
DR. MARX: (For the defendant Schroder.)
DR. MARX: Mr. President, and the Tribunal, the Prosecution regards Professor Dr. Schroeder as being also involved, together with the rest of the defendants, in a common criminal plan which during the period from September 1939 to April 1945 had as its aim the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, you have given us the German Document, it is not the English translation.
(The Secretary General gave the Tribunal the English Document.)
I suggest that the defense counsel start his argument again We now have the English translation.
The prosecution regards Professor Dr. Schroeder as being also involved, together the rest of the defendants in a common criminal plan which during the period from September 1939 to April 1945 had as its aim the commission of war crimes and crime against humanity.
Within the framework of this criminal plan, the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder is also said to have had knowledge of cruel and tormenting experiments on living human beings or at leat to have tolerated them and not to have undertaken anything stop them, and in one case even to have ordered them himself. Furthermore, he is charged with special responsibility in view of high position in the medical service of the Luftwaffe.
It is a general principle of the international criminal law and seems to be of decisive significance especially judicially examined in this trial, whether a defendant, like Professor Dr. Schroeder in this case, appears to be at all capable, according to his character and his entire personality, of participating in a criminal plan with an indefinite number of other men and of declaring himself from the very beginning to be in agreement with the undertaking of a number of criminal actions not yet known to him.
With what type of personality arr we dealing in the person of the defendant and former Generaloberstabstarzt of the Luftwaffe, Professor Dr. Schroeder.
All the strivings of this man were devoted to quiet, serious life work and professional work, moved by Christian spirit. His conception of his profession as a physician was always to help, to serve, and to cure the sick. His active cooperation in a leading position in the erection and outfitting of hospitals and field hospitals was in accordance with this conception; in doing so, he rendered his services without discrimination, to Catholics as well as to Protestants, as will be proved by the defense by submission of relevant confirmations and by witnesses.
Therefore, Professor Dr. Schroeder could not bring himself to join the Party or one of its subsidiary organizations; he rejected everything that limited personal liberty, and he never made any secret of his rejection of the brutal methods of the Party an the Nazi government, so that his friends frequently had serious fears for his freedom, yes, even for his live.
The defendant was furthermore of such a character that he was ready to sacrifice even his official position and his office for his conviction.
The defense will prove by means of witnesses that at the time when he took the official position as Chief Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe, in the beginning of 1944, he stated quite openly to members of his family as well as to his subordinated that he would immediately resign from his office at any time, if he should be required to do anything which he could not reconcile with his conscience.
It is obvious that a man with such aims and of such qualities of character would never be willing to lend his hand to a criminal project.