As a further essential aspect showing that Professor Dr. Schroeder must have been informed about the criminal experiments on human beings which are the subject of this trial, the prosecution cites his alleged position as second highest medical officer in the Luftwaffe and deduces from this circumstance, moreover, a special responsibility of this defendant.
The defense will, on the other hand, prove that Schroeder we by no means the second highest medical officer in the Luftwaffe; this will eliminate the further possible supposition that he was therefore the deputy of the Chief Medical Officer. Had the latter been true, a necessary consequence would have been that in case the Chief Medical Officer was unavailable, he would have had to be informed about the latter's current duties.
The Senior Medical Officer of the Luftwaffe was next in line after the Chief Medical Officer at the time, was a Generalstabsarzt resident in Berlin, whom Chief Medical Officer Dr. Hippke also always appointed as his deputy.
In the period from 1 February 1940 until 31 December 1943, Professor Dr. Schroeder himself, as Air Fleet Physician 2, did not have any close contact with the central office in Berlin.
If it appears already from the above description of the philosophy of life and of profession of the defendant that is impossible that he should have declared himself to be in agreement with criminal projects or that he should have joined a group of men with criminal aims, then the contemplation of the composition of the defendants' dock shows further that there is no homogeneity of the defendants among themselves.
There exist, rather, between the defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder and a large number of co-defendants the most pronounced ideological contrasts as well as insurmountable contrasts in the conception of the medical profession and of the ethical obligations of the physician. The defendant Prof. Dr. Schroeder would never have agreed to lend his hand to any kind of experiments on living human beings, whose course he was unable to direct and where it would have been impossible for him to eliminate from the outset injuries to the health of the experimental subjects or even danger to their lives by by appropriate instructions.
In addition to this, Schroeder was personally closely acquainted with only very few of the defendants, who, like him, were medical officers of the Army or the Luftwaffe. Some of the other physicians he was more or less acquainted with in a purely professional way; the majority of the defendants, however, he knew only by name, not even personally or through official contacts.
It is clear that under those circumstances one cannot speak of any kind of common activity or of action according to a common aim.
Furthermore, the prosecution concludes from the fact that during the time in question about four so-called "Consultation Meetings" took place, in which representatives of the highest medical offices of the Wehrmacht, of the Reich Physicians' Leaders office, as well as all Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht participated, that these gatherings formed a part of the criminal planning, which then took effect in the experiments on human beings in the concentration camps.
In regard to this point, the defense will prove that the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder participated in only one of these meetings in 1944 at Hohenlychen, and that at this meeting he was interested merely in his specialty.
Now, as to the details in regard to the question of experiments on human beings, there is the following to be said:
1) The defense will prove that, with the exception of the experiments to make sea water potable, Schroeder did not know about or participate in any of the experiments listed in the indictment.
2) That, on the contrary, he heard for the first time of the crimes which are being charged only after the end of the war, about October-November 1945 as a prisoner of war in England, through press and radio.
3) That in the period from 1 February 1940 until 31 December 1943 he was continuously employed as leading medical officer of Air Fleet 2 and physically far distant from the central office in Berlin, without any close contact with the Medical Inspectorate.
The prosecution furthermore charges Professor Dr. Schroeder with special responsibility for experiments conducted in the framework or research assignments.
1) Concerning the effect of the sulfonamides Professor Dr. Gebhardt and his assistants Dr. Fischer and Dr. Hertha Oberheuser conducted experiments on this matter.
Outside of the unproven assertion that as second highest officer in the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe Prof. Dr. Schroeder must have known about the experiments, the prosecution does not submit any evidence whatsoever insupport of its contention. The prosecution can only refer to an affidavit by the co-defendant Fischer, which, however, since it is based on an error on this point, will be rectified The defense will demonstrate that Professor Dr. Schroeder did not know anything about these experiments.
He heard about them for the first time through the indictment which was served upon him.
2) Concerning the question of Yellow Fever, Typhus, and Hepatitis.
The executing physician in the three last-named assignments was Professor Dr. Haagen in Strasbourg.
First of all, the prosecution submits that, as Oberstabsarzt of the Reserve of the Luftwaffe and as Consulting Hygienist of Air Fleet Center or The Reich, Fleet Center, Prof. Dr. Haagen was officially subordinated to the Medical Inspectorate.
The defense will likewise prove that the Medical Inspectorate had nothing to do with the activity of Haagen here in question. The Consulting Specialist insofar as they were directors of well-known clinics and scientific institutes, retained, in addition to their activity in the Wehrmacht, the direction of their civilian institutions, since generally they were indispensable there.
It was the duty of the medical offices in charge, together with the Consulting Physicians, to find a solution of this double position which was satisfactory for both spheres of duty.
In doing so, one thing had been established on principle, the Consulting Physician bore the full responsibility toward the civilian supervising agency for his activity in the civilian sector. This activity was in no way subordinate to the supervisory duty of his superior military medical offices.
1) It is apparent already from the documents submitted by the prosecution that Prof. Haagen was given two quite distinct types of orders, because of his previously demonstrated double position. Haagen was Oberstabsarzt in the Reserve Corps of the Luftwaffe, but on the other hand his main position was as ordinary Professor for Hygiene and Director of the Hygiene Institute of the Reich University Strasbourg. Haagen used, this latter position, without the chief medical officer's knowledge -which aid not violate his duties -- to obtain research assignments independently of the Luftwaffe and in addition to the orders already given by tne Luftwaffe, assignments in the same fields, but with entirely different aims.
2) As early as 1941 and 1942 Haagen had received "Research Assignments"from the Luftwaffe, which, however, are more properly described as "Assignments for the production of vaccines", for the production of influenza, yellow fever, and typhus vaccines; according to the status of the production at the time and the consumption of money, he asked for additional means and for extension of the time limit of the assignment. The experiments required for this were exclusively experiments with animals and pure laboratory work; they did not call for experiments on human beings, in any case. The vaccines could be used for protection against yellow fever or typhus without danger to the health and life of human beings after having; been tested in the laboratory on animals. These assignments given out by the Luftwaffe were, in accordance with their contents, given out openly; they did not need the protection of secrecy.
In contrast to this were the research assignments which Haagen received from the Reich Research Council in connection with the Institute for Military Scientific Research in his capacity as director of the Strasbourg Hygiene Institute.
These orders were not open; they were sent as "Top Secret" under the protection of strictest secrecy.
1) In the framework of these assignments under the protection of secrecy, Haagen undoubtedly undertook experiments in concentration camps.
The defense will prove that the defendant Professor Dr. Schroeder did not have any knowledge of these experiments, This is evident from the following
a) All of the requests for prisoners and the entire correspondence on this matter marked "Top Secret" went either directly to the Institute for Military Scientific Research and to the Reich Research Council or via Professor Hirt of Strasbourg, who had been included in the work and who, as confidential agent of the Ahnenerbe Society and agent of the co-defendant Sievers, was located in Strasbourg, to the Main Adminstrat-ive Office of the SS in Berlin.
b) Due to the secrecy imposed on this work, Haagen was obliged to maintain absolute secrecy about this work toward all persons who had nothing to do with that work. Thus, of course, there was no reason to inform the Chief Medical Officer, since the production assignments of the Luftwaffe had no connection with these research assignments to Haagen.
c) The defense will prove, by means of excerpts from the correspondence of Haagen, that this correspondence was carried on by him in his capacity as Director of the Hygiene Institute and not as Consulting Hygienist of the Luftwaffe.
d) The ignorance of the office of the Chief Medical Officer regarding Haagen's experiments on human brings is evident from the inquiry addressed to Haagen by the Chief of Staff of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Oberstarzt Dr. Kahnt, in June 1944 regarding the cases of typhus which had occurred in the Natzweiler camp. Such an inquiry would never have been made if the office of the Chief Medical Officer had known that Natzweiler was a concentration camp, since all matters concerning concentration camps were handled by the SS as its exclusive domain, and it refused even to report epidemics among concentration camp inmates to other offices, e.g. the Wehrmacht, as was usually required between military and civilian offices - Health Officials, Health Offices, etc.
The only conclusion that remains is, therefore, that even Oberstarzt KAHNT as Chief of Staff did not know that Natzweiler was a concentration camp, but assumed that it was one of the numerous barrack camps for the purpose of using of troops and that it was newly created during the war.
The defense will prove that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER did not have any personal knowledge of this letter of his chief of staff, since he happened to be on an official trip to Italy at the time in question.
e) The Counts in the Indictment regarding experiments on human beings concerning yellow fever and hepatitis are eliminated in any case since the prosecution did not submit any evidence at all to conducted in these two groups.
From the documents submitted by the prosecution it is quite obvious that a clearly delineated production assignment for yellow fever vaccine was issued in 1942 and that it was withdrawn after the African theater of war was given up, in July 1943.
There was no hepatitis research assignment for HAAGEN on the part of the Luftwaffe at all. The assignment had likewise been issued as "Top Secret" by the Reich Research Council.
As the submitted documents prove, HAAGEN selected assistants for the execution of his experiments from the circles of the established specialists, without considering their membership in one or another part of the Wehrmacht. Thus Prof. GUTZEIT and DOHMEN belonged to the Army, BRUECKNER and KALK to the Luftwaffe.
As the witness EYER has already testified before this tribunal, no experiments on human beings were conducted with reference to the hepatitis assignment.
We shall substantiate this evidence extensively through additional witnesses.
Regarding the typhus experiments on the basis of the order of the Reich Research Council, the prosecution neither offers reasons for nor proves a knowledge of these things on the part of the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER. On the contrary, we shall be able to demonstrate by tacit acquiescence undeniably by the testimony of witnesses that Prof.
Dr. SCHROEDER could not have known anything about them.
Concerning the experiments to make sea water patable, the following is applicable:
1) In accordance with his basic attitude toward medical ethics, which was described in the introduction, SCHROEDER condemns all experiments on human beings which could bring about injury to the health or even death. He draws the line of demarcation even more sharply against such experiments on living human beings, if they could be undertaken with intent to torture and with intent from the outset to kill. Neither do such experiments, as for example, those of RASCHER and DING, according to his attitude have anything to do with medical science, nor do the people who conduct them have the right to claim, to be called physicians or scientists. He considers that they are criminals and have to be judged accordingly,
2) SCHROEDER could agree only to experiments in which, under application of all scientific principles and precautions, the occurrence of an injury to the health was impossible according to the recognized principles of medical experience.
Here it has to be considered in his favor that, in this case, special circumstances prevailed, which made it possible to conceive the undertaking of experiments in a concentration camp and which, in a sense, forced them to be executed there.
Special weight against the defendant is given to the fact that in the letter to the Reich Minister of the Interior and the Reichsfuehrer SS of 7 June 1944 he did not mention that the experiments planned in the concentration camp Dachau were to be carried out on voluntary experimental subjects and that he had consented at all to the undertaking of these experiments on concentration camp inmates.
The defense will prove that Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER, first, did everything possible in order to see to it that these experiments be carried out at a Luftwaffe hospital or at the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe as troop experiments, and that only a whole series of circumstances, which will be detailed later, forced him to desist from this original plan.
He assured himself, however, in an extensive conversation with the Reich Physician SS Grawitz that, even under the changed outer conditions, the prerequisites for the experiment would remain the same as in the originally planned troop experiments, especially the voluntary nature of the experimental subjects.
3) It is evident, further, from the ordering of the experiments and from the clear and definite, directives issued for their execution to the director of the experiments, that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER was guided by the aim of eliminating every injury to an experimental subject and of continuing the experiments only to the limit of the compatibility of the amount of water administered in each case, but to discontinue them immediately, when this limit seemed to have been reached and the conclusion of the experiments seemed desirable from the subjective point of view of the experimental subject, who refused further acceptance of water if the experiment was continued, as well as objectively, according to the physiological findings.
The defense therefore believes that it can prove that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER in no case went beyond the limits which have been imposed upon the physician and scientist in the exercise of his profession by the ethical-medical and moral-human principles of medical science recognized throughout the world.
We are, moreover, of the opinion that the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER, through the order to conduct experiments on making sea water potable, by careful preparation, by consulting recognized, proven and experienced scientists, and by the execution of the experiments under the supervision of a scientifically proven, medically experienced University professor of sound character, created the prerequisites for the best scientific work, and that, with the result achieved by these means he helped to solve a problem of enormous value for humanity not only during times of war but, over and above that, for tasks of peace, the problem of rescuing human beings in distress at sea from dying of thirst.
Mr. President! Your Honors!
The Defendant GENZKEN was Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS from the time it was organized. He was in change of all the medical care of the troops of the Waffen SS, that is to say medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and hygienic care of the four original and later 36 divisions of the Waffen SS. In his capacity as Chief of the medical Service of the Waffen SS he had no scientific research problems to solve, never actually raised such problems himself nor ordered their execution. Scientific research and planning were not, as the evidence will clearly show, in the hands of the Defendant GENZKEN, but exclusively in the hands of the Reich Physician SS and Police Dr. GRAWITZ. The sole and exclusive task of the Defendant GENZKEN was the medical care of the fighting units of the Waffen SS at the front and their reserves at home. At the end of the war the Waffen SS comprised about 900,000 men, the medical personnel alone amounted to over 40,000 persons at the end of 1944. GENZKEN alone was responsible for the professional direction and personal management of this personnel, the 61 hospitals and the medical units, and finally for the medical care of the entire Waffen SS. It is clear that this huge and extensive task, led and directed by him alone, left him no time to take even a superficial, not to mention a detailed interest in any scientific research or planning.
In the presented of my evidence I shall first, by examining the defendant as well us the witnesses whom I have called, present to the Tribunal evidence of GENZEN's non-participation in the alleged conspiracy of the defendant. In particular, I shall prove that GENZKEN was in a very tense relationship with GRAWITZ as well as HIMMLER, that he had considerable controversies with both, and that consequently both of them considered him "persona ingrata et incerta", and so that for this reason alone it must seem improbable that GRAWITZ and HIMMLER would initiate him into the experiments an concentration camp inmates which those two planned and ordered, or would even inform him of these experiments. If even the originators of these experiments did not want the Defendant GENZKEN to be informed about their experiments, the executing agents could certainly not have done so. I shall furthermore prove, through the defendant, that with one single exception he did not discuss the experiments with which he is charged with any of his co-defendants or with other persons, and that he did not request or receive any scientific reports or carry on any correspondence about these experiments.
Aside from this general point of view of conspiracy and membership in the SS, GENZKEN is charged with special responsibility for alleged participation in the sulfonamide, typhus, phosphorus, and poison experiments. He is not charged with active participation in these experiments. It is only asserted that, in spite of allegedly complete knowledge, above all of the typhus experiments; he did not do anything against them. Dr. DING; the director of the Section for Typhus and Virus Research in the Buchenwald concentration camp, and the latter's superior, the co-defendant MRUGOWSKY, are alleged to have been his subordinates. It is asserted that GENZKEN carried on continuous correspondence with DING and was therefore accurately informed about the typhus experiments; also that he consciously tolerated and promoted the sulfonamide, phosphorus, and poison experiments. The Prosecution attempted to prove its assertions regarding participation in the typhus experiments by submitting affidavits of the co-defendants HOVEN and MRUGOWSKY, by submitting the DING diary, and through the witness Dr. KOGON I shall on the other hand bring proof, by examining the defendant and through defense witnesses, that no such criminal responsibility of GENZKEN can be assumed. It will, in particular, appear from the evidence that GENZKEN did not suggest, tolerate, or know any details about either the establishment of the research institute or the execution of experiments on human beings. The evidence will show that Reich Physician GRAWITZ ordered the experiments without any previous or subsequent participation of the Defendant GENZKEN!
It is true that GENZKEN know Dr. DING. He did not, however, order Dr. DING's assignment to Buchenwald, and he never requested scientific reports from him or received such reports unsolicited; he never accented DING's occasional invitation to visit him in Buchenwald.
What GENZKEN know of Buchenwald was merely the fact that a station existed for the production of the typhus vaccine which was urgently needed by the units or the Waffen SS, and that from about the Spring of 1943 approximately 30,000 doses of vaccine were to be produced monthly.
He never learned anything about deliberate causing of infections, series of experiments, or deaths running into several digits, nor has the Prosecution been able to present any conclusive evidence to this effect. Whether and to what extent the purely formal relationship of subordination of the co-defendant MRUGOWSKY and the deceased Dr. DING to GENZKEN incriminates the latter in the sense of being criminally punishable will also be clarified in the course of the presentation of evidence.
As for the sulfonamide experiments, the Prosecution believed that it could deduce criminal participation of the defendant by proving that the bacteria cultures used for this purpose in Ravensbrueck and even the wood and glass particles needed for the artificial contamination of the wounds were delevered by the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS.
I shall prove through defense witnesses that the execution of these sulfonamide experiments was no more on the field of work of the Medical Office of the Waffen SS than the typhus experiments, the question of whether the experiments are punishable remains open. Moreover I shall prove that nothing was known about these experiments in the Medical Office of the Waffen SS either to the Defendant Genzken in particular knew nothing about them. Whether, beyond that, the shipment of gangrene cultures, etc., from the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS to the concentration camp Ravensbrueck in itself constitutes punishable action of the defendant Genzken will also be cleared up in the course of my presentation of evidence. Moreover, the Prosecution has not been able to present any evidence here, either, to the effect that Genzken himself had anything to do with the delivery of the cultures.
The Prosecution, further to support its charges against Genzken, refers to the East meeting at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin in May 1943 and in this connection presented an affidavit by the co-defendant Fischer stating that Genzken was present at this meeting and heard Fischer's report on sulfonamide experiments.
Fischer is mistaken. He will not only correct this testimony in this respect himself, but, moreover, the defendant and witnesses will prove that Genzken did not hear Fischer's report. Whether or not the conclusions drawn by the Prosecution from participation in this meeting are at all pertinent from a legal point of view or not, these arguments do not apply to the Defendant Genzken because he did not participate in the meeting.
Finally, as to counts 6 K and 6 L of the indictment, namely poison experiments by administering poisoned food, etc., and experiments with phosphorus incendiary bombs, I am completely at a loss to see how the defendant could have had anything to do with these experiments, which took place in the concentration came Buchenwald beginning in the late fall of 1913.
It has already been established and will be emphasized once more during the presentation of evidence that from 1 September 1913 the Hygienic Institute was no longer under the defendant Genzken, but under the Reich Physician SS Grawitz. The same is true of the subordination of the co-defendant Mrugowsky. The Prosecution's contention that Mrugowsky, whom the Prosecution attempts to make primarily responsible for these experiments, was Genzken's subordinate is incorrect in this respect. For these experiments took place at a time when the Hygienic Institute under Mrugowsky had already been taken away from the defendant Genzken.
Nor did Genzken have any knowledge of these experiments; he learned of them only through the Indictment. This will be shown unequivocally by the evidence.
The evidence in the Genzken case will show that it was not the duty of the defendant to conduct scientific research or experiments on prisoners, but only to give medical care to the troops of the Waffen SS.
The case for the Prosecution may at first give the impression that Genzken, at least by tacit toleration, participated in experiments. The case for the Defense, on the other hand, will show that is not so; it will show that the Defendant neither ordered such experiments nor tolerated them, nor knew anything about the methods used in such experiments, but that he worked only as a physician, seller, and organizer in the medical service of the Waffen SS.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken to 1515)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser and Fischer may proceed.
DR. SEIDL: For the Defendants Dr. Karl Gebhardt, Dr. Herta Oberheuser and Dr. Fritz Fischer.
Mr. President, Your Honors: The experiments carried out on behalf of the German Wehrmacht represent in the indictment a separate group which has nothing to do with the other actions forming the grounds of the indictment. Although it may be true that the individual experiments differ considerably in method, and scientific result, and consequences, one point is common to all of them: they were brought about by the necessities of the war, and their results were to help the hard-fighting armies and the nation, which was involved in a life and death struggle.
The defendants represented by me are accused of special responsibility for all or some of these experiments. In view of that, I shall deal only with that part of tne indictment and testimony, and shall pay no attention to the other points of the indictment.
Nevertheless it seems necessary to begin with a few fundamental remarks with respect to the statement of the Chief Prosecutor.
The prosecution emphasized that tne Tribunal has a twofold responsibility in this case. On the one hand the defendants must have a fair trial and a just sentence, which responsibility, however, is borne by every regular court. But also, it was stated -- and this is much more important -- the incredible facts and ideas and motives must be established which moved these defendants. The insane and vicious doctrines of National Socialism have to be brought to light; otherwise there is the danger of a repetition of such misdeeds, which could not be survived by the civilized world.
There can be no doubt that this intention is a source of considerable danger for an objective and just verdict. The purpose of all criminal proceedings is the discovery of the material truth. The first prerequisite for the discovery of tne truth in a court trial is the impartial establishment of the objective facts.
This includes all the circumstances, which are in direct connection with the deed itself. It is necessary to establish these objective facts to solve the problem of the illegality of the action and the guilt of the defendants, and to apply the law.
It goes without saying that the motives that led to the actions of the defendants must also be thoroughly examined. The defense too is particularly interested in clearing up these facts.
It seems, however, superfluous, and imperils the finding of a just verdict, to include as one of the points of the trial the general political and philosophical principles, which allegedly had the actions of the defendants as their consequence. In this trial we cannot place the political and philosophical principles independently beside or above the accused persons.
The object of the trial is specific actions and not the examination of the question whether a political or philosophical conviction might generally be apt to result in criminal actions or in a certain type of crime.
There is all the more reason to point to this peril since in another trial, which dealt with similar problems, the tribunal apparently did not limit itself to the ascertaining of the facts which formed the basis for the indictment and the legal guilt of the accused, but in addition passed judgment also as basis for the verdict. I refer to the review of proceedings of the General Military Court at Dachau vs. Schilling et.al. (Document NO856), which the prosecution submitted as Exhibit No. 125 in the course of the testimony on the malaria experiments and where it says literally in Paragraph XIV:
"In many respects the accused Schilling was the most reprehensible. He voluntarily came to Dachau fully cognizant of the nature of the work he intended to perform. Being the educated and learned person that he was, Schilling undoubtedly must have realized the manner in which his work suited the needs of the Nazis. Although his personal motives may have stemmed from the desire to aid humanity, he permitted himself to utilize Nazi methods in contrast to other eminent German artists and scientists who either fled or refused to make themselves a part of the Nazi system."
I believe it is generally accepted that the value or truth of a philosophic system or a specific "Weltanschauung" cannot be ruled on by a court of law. Whatever our opinion may be of the value of the National Socialistic theories, there can be no doubt that legal proceeding can no more pass judgment on the value of this philosophic and political program than it can on the value and truth of historical materialism or any similar doctrine. A legal proceeding can only concern itself with the investigation of concrete acts and with the application of the law to these acts. No vital importance can be attached to National Socialist ideology in the solution of the problem whether or not a specific act or failure to act on the part of these defendants is illegal and punishable and hence of the nature of a crime.
The introduction of philosophic and political principles in a criminal proceeding is always a threat to the finding of factual truth and to the passing of a just verdict - a threat to which no tribunal should expose itself without compelling cause.
There is likewise just as little reason to examine in this trial fundamental problems of medical ethics. Opinion will actually differ only very little here. The pledge of Hippocrates, "primum non nocere", is a fundamental part of any medical activity, and no arguments on the principle are necessary. The problem of this trial is not whether the physician, according to the viewpoint of his profession, is justified in carrying out experiments on living people, and if so, to what extent. The problem is rather: does the law, with regard to specific emergencies caused by the war mention special extenuating circumstances which, as an exception, exempt an other wise forbidden operation from punishment. This, however is not a problem of medical ethics but solely a legal problem. This Question will have to be discussed more thoroughly after all the evidence has been presented.
It would be well also to call attention now to a third peril which could, under certain circumstances, jeopardize the finding of the factual truth with respect to the defendants, and that is the only problem with which the present proceeding is concerned - and the ascertaining of the guilt of the defendants. I am referring to the conditions in the concentration camps.
It is true that the experiments were carried out almost exclusively in concentration camps. Evidence regarding these camps has already been submitted in the proceedings before the International Military Tribunal. In this connection I refer mainly to the testimony of the witness Dr. Morgen (page 14846 of the German transcript). Documents were also submitted to this court which among other things describe the general conditions in these camps. Witnesses were also heard on this subject. The indictment does not assert that the defendants are responsible for the conditions in these camps. Nevertheless the danger cannot be denied that the impression of the conditions in these camps could only too easily affect the ascertaining and evaluation of the guilt of these defendants.
This is another reason for limiting the subject of this court examination to the facts for which the defendants are made accountable in the indictment. The general conditions in the concentration camps were entirely outside their sphere of authority. They were the responsibility of agencies which had no organizational connection with the Wehrmacht or the Medical Service of the Waffen SS.
At the end of the war the defendant Gebhardt had the rank of Major General of the Waffen SS in the Medical Service of the Waffen SS. After 1 September 1943 he was chief clinician of the Waffen SS. The indictment accuses him of special responsibility in the carrying out of the medical experiments alleged by the prosecution.