4) The Action against the tubercular Poles, cf. Section 8 & 13 of the Indictment (Doc. Book 9)
5) The Euthanasia Program, cf. Section 9 & 14 of the Indictment (Doc. Book 14/1,14/11,14/111, 15,16,17 ) In regard to these five points the Prosecution has charged Dr. Blome with special responsibility; in addition, it has raise the general charee of conspiracy.
11) The purpose of the defense of Dr. Blome will be as follows:
1): Dr. Blome participated in no way in the malaria, experiment. He had no knowledge of Dr. Schilling's malaria experiments in - chau, he never set foot in the latter's insituation, he never spoke award with Dr. Schilling about the latter's malaria experiments, and he never met him in his life.
2): Dr. Blome had equally no knowledge of the Lost experiment it was only here that he heard of them. Particularly, Blome never gave a research assignment to Professor Dr. Hirth concerning Lost gas experiments on living organisms; that assignment from the Reich Research Council, to Professor Hirth was given by Geheimrat Sauerbruch. Nor was the giving of such an assignment among the competencies of Dr. Blome; the giving of this assignment to Professor Hirth was in accordance will the usual procedure, registered with the Reich Research Council under the name of Dr. Sauerbruch; the simultaneous registration of that assignment under the name "Blome" Apparently was a writting error. The evidence will prove this.
5) With the Sulfonamide experiments Dr. Blome had nothing to do, either; he learned of them only here in Nuernberg. On principle, Dr. Blome was not present and never represented by an associate at conferences of physicians where reports on this subject were allegedly given; thus he never heard of these conferences, especially since they were congresses of SS physicians or Wehrmacht physicians, who were not subordinate to the Reich Leader of Physic ians.
4) : It is true that Dr. Blome was connected with the plan to liquidate thousands of Poles suffering from incurable open tuberculosis, but not in a criminal manner, just the contrary: he opposed the project and finally managed to prevent its execution. This was the exclusive accomplishment of Dr. BLOME; this is clearly proved by the documents already submitted by the prosecution in Document Book 9. Futhermore, BLOME fought most vohemently and successfully against the further plan to exterminate the intellectual upper class of Poland by means of sterilization; this will also be proved by the evidence.
Futhermore, BLOME fought most vohemently and successfully against the further plan to exterminate the intellectual upper class of Poland by means of sterilization; this will also be proved by the evidence.
5) : BLOME had no share in the euthanasia program. The documents and other evidence which the prosecution has submitted on the program and execution of euthanasia never one mentioned the name of Dr. BLOME. Nevertheless the Prosecution has alleged a special responsibility of Dr. BLOME in regard to euthanasia, apparently basing this claim on two facts. One, Dr. BLOME'S position as deputy of Dr. CONTI and, second the chart shown here, which was prepared on the basis of statements by the co-defendant BRACK, which beside the square for Dr. CONTI has a little square with the name "BLOME". However, it has already been established that Dr. CONTI was concerned with the euthanasia program exclusively in his capacity as State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, but never in his capacity as Reich Leader of Physicians. But Dr. BLOME acted, at no time as deputy for Dr. CONTI as State Secretary in capacity as Reich Leader of Physicians and, in a merely nominal way, also as head of the Main Office of the Party of the Interior the exclusive deputy of Dr. CONTI in regard to euthanasia was Ministerialrat LINDEN, whose name correctly appeared in the chart below CONTI's name. The Office of the Reich Leader of Physicians of Dr. BLOME, as a matter of principle had nothing whatsoever to do with the euthanasia program, but completely excluded from it; for the official physicians and the mental institutions which carried out the euthanasia program were in no way subordinate to tho Reich Leader of Physicians. At no time did Dr. BLOME receive or give any reports, oraers, or instructions concerning the euthanasia program. He did not even know of the planning of the euthanasia program all of this will also be proved by witness to be examined. Therefore, it is an obvious and incontestible error that the name "BLOME" appealed in the chart it all. 2196 This will also be affirmed by the co-defendant Brack when he takes the witness stand.
It has already been proved that Dr. Blome was in no way responsible for the outhanasia program and that he had no competencies of any kind for that program.
Now, the Prosecution has submitted for the euthanasia program particularly extensive material in several volumes of documents, and many witnesses and affidavits. Nowhere can the name of Dr. Blome be found therein. This shows that the charges against Dr. Blome on this point cannot be upheld.
The evidence of the Prosecution against Dr. Blome on this point was absolutely insufficient mark. I therefore make application that the charges against Dr. Blome in regard to euthanasia be rejected immediately by order of the Court.
It is merely a demand of justice that the Prosecution should not maintain any charge if it is already apparent that it cannot be proved in any way .
The same must be true of the charge against Dr. Blome in regard to the malaria experiments, the Lost experiments, and the sulfonilamide experiments. In regard to these points I also apply for the immediate rejection of the charges, because the Prosecution has not given sufficient evidence for its charge.
111. As evidence Dr. Blome plans to use the following:
He has named nine witnesses, all of whom have been approved by the Tribunal. The subject of their individual testimony has been stated in detail in my respective applications, so that the Prosecution is informed on this count.
Dr. Blome plans to submit affidavits of six of those witnesses; these will be submitted for translation and inclusion the document book Dr. Kurt Blome; they will be submitted to the Tribunal and the Prosecution in time.
The affidavits of the two witnesses Dr. Klare and Dr. Boohm have already arrived. I have not yet heard from the four witnesses Porwitschy, Wittmann, Dr. Kroening, and Dr. Kliewe. Therefore I am not yet in a position to inform the Tribunal definitely whether the affidavits of these four witnesses will be sufficient for my purposes or whether I shall ask them to take the witness stand here, or whether I may possibly be able to get along without one or the other of the so four witnesses.
The remaining three of the nine witnesses I mentioned , the witnesses Dr. Gundermann, Dr. Dingeldey, and Dr. Kosmehl, seem so important that I should like to examine then as witnesses in this courtroom.
During the War, Dr. Gundermann was the responsible supreme medical officer with the Reich Governor in the Warte Gau Posen. He is, therefore, in a position to give reliable information concerning tho fight against tuberculosis in that Gau and particularly to the effect that it was Dr. Blome who prevented the liquidation of tens of thousands of tuberculosis-infected Poles which Gauleiter Greiser (Posen) had suggested.
On the other hand, the witnesses Dr. Dingeldey and Dr. Kosmehl were for many years associates of Dr. Blome and can therefore give definite information about the personality, character, principles and conduct in office, of the defendant Dr. Blome. Finally , I shall include in the document book Blome, some quotations particulary from his own books, and they will be translated. Thus, the Prosecution will also be informed in time of this further evidence.
It is the intention of Dr. Blome to take the stand in his own defense, and be will do so after the witnesses who ho has called are heard.
IV. Against the defendant Dr. Blome, the Prosecution submitted in the session of 10 January a number of documents which are not collected in any document book, and which refer to biological warfare.
It has not yet been made clear whether this is to constitute a separate charge aga inst Dr. Blome. This complex had not been included in the indictment and no formal charges have been raised on this matter since. By way of prosecution, Dr. Blome will express himself on the question of biological warfare when he takes the stand in his own defense , and he will present the following facts:
1) As far as Dr. BLOME is concerned; all these measures were merely German defense measures; contemplated only in the eventuality that the enemy should initiate biological warfare against Germany. These were never plans of an aggressive nature on the part of Germany. At least the defendant Dr. BLOME knows nothing to that effect.
2) Dr. BLOME and his so-called "Lightning Rod Committee were repeatedly officially informed by an officer of the German counterintelligence service that the enemy had developed the methods of biological warfare to a considerable degree, and that Germany, therefore, had to expect that the enemy some day would apply these methods.
3) Whenever an opportunity offered itself; Dr. BLOME counseled against biological warfare and warned that the German people would become the primary victims of such warfare.
4) No means of biological warfare were actually ever used by the Germans; even the preparations for the defense against enemy biological warfare were intentionally carried out in such a way that Germany would in effect never have been able to employ such means offensively. Finally,
5) not a single experiment on human beings was undertaken in this work. All of this concerned the biological warfare and will be proved by Dr. Blome. In Document Book 11, (on blood coagulation) the Prosecution has further charged the defendant Dr. BLOME with having been informed about illegal experiments with the blood coagulation drug "polygal" and also with having, in October 1943; given Dr. RASCHER a research assignment on the treatment of freezing; which was known under the code name "Human Rewarming". In the course of his defense Dr. BLOME will also disprove That charge, which, incidentally, is not yet included in the indictment.
As a matter of fact, he had no knowledge of the illegal experiments of Dr. RASCHER, and did not give Dr. RASCHER any illegal research assignment.
V) Finally, the Prosecution has charged the defendant Dr. BLOME from the point of view of conspiracy. This charge to, will be refuted by Dr. BLOME by his own evidence.
A larger number of the defendant with whom he became acquainted, either as Deputy Reich Leader of Physicians or as the man charged with cancer research within the Reich Research Council, be it ******* official or private. He never engaged in any conversations concerned with the proposal or planning of illegal experiments or the commission of crimes. Particularly, however participated in any congresses where reports in such matters were given or where anything was planned in that direction. The presumptuos suggestion by HIMMLER to carry out experiments with humans to obtain an effective vaccine against plague, Dr. BLOME did not carry out. At no time was he a member of the SS, at no time he was never a medical officer; during this war he was not even a member of the Wehrmacht.
DR. SAUTER: At this time I have completed my specific statement on Dr. Blome's case. In that statement I have not completed on the general problems which arise in the factual an legal aspects, and in the terroristic and medical aspects in the course of this case. I could not make such a general statement for the simple reason that only today did I learn whether and to what extent the defense counsel who proceeded me commented on these general problems, and it is possible that I maybe forced in my closing speech to deal with one or the other general points of view.
In furthermore of that, Mr. President, I ask you now that, I be credited with the balance of the hour which would have been allotted time for my two clients today which I did not use, and at this time I ask that it maybe added to the time which was allotted to me for the closing speech.
I have finished my statement on Dr. Blome's case.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsels for the defense may be assured that in their closing arguments, time will be afforded them to adequately present any proper legal or factual questions that should be then presented to the Tribunal.
DR. SAUNTER: Mr. President, before you go on to the next case, I ask that I may make a suggestion. Tomorrow I have an opening statement for the defendant Dr. Ruff. The case of the defendant Dr. Ruff is very closely connected with the case of the defendant Romberg and with the case of the defendant Dr. Weltz. These three cases for one whole. Between these three defendants, there is tho defendant Brack and the defendant Becker-Freyseng. The defense counsel of all these defendants, together with the defendants themselves, have agreed in the following: after the case of the defendant Ruff, the case of the defendant Romberg is to be presented immediately, and after that, the case of the defendant Weltz. The case of the defendant Brack and that of the defendant Becker-Freyseng are to be presented only after the case of the defendant Weltz.
This procedure seems experiment to us. We have agreed on this procedure and I should like to suggest to the president that he approve this procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal approves the procedure outlined by counsel. It appears expedient also to the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you.
DR. KAUFFMANN: Attorney Kauffmann for the defendant Rudolf Brandt. Mr. President,
MR. PRESIDENT: First, in the dock, besides 20 physicians, there are three administrative officials who are indicted as accomplices in and accessories to crimes against humanity. My client, Dr. Rudolf BRANDT, took part objectively, i. e. by outwardly apparent actions, in various crimes against humanity, by, for example, writing letters on HIMMLER'S instructions acknowledging the receipt of letters written by physicians to HIMMLER, or passing on such letters to other offices for their information.
Furthermore, the Prosecution considers Dr. Rudolf BRANDT guilty as participant in a conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. The socalled conspiracy, in the sense of a general plan, constitutes the most comprehensive legal concept imaginable; its application, however, as is apparent from the Explanation of the Sentences of the International Military Tribunal, page 16881 following in the English text, must in practice be limited to such legal concept of "participation", as is also recognized by German Law. This punishable participation presupposes, in the person of the participant, objectively speaking, the existence of a condition for committing the main crime, and subjectively speaking, knowledge of these circumstances.
Second, in Dr. Rudolf BRANDT, the Prosecution visualizes the personal consultant of HIMMLER, and thus an influential adviser of that pernicious man; from this, the Prosecution deduces that Dr. BRANDT possessed full knowledge of the criminal actions - experiments, sterilization, etc., - and also agreed to, approved of, promoted, and thereby was responsible for innumerable crimes.
The purpose of my brief statement today cannot be to go into details as yet and to enter into a discussion with the prosecution.
In some of the cases in which Dr. Rudolf BRANDT is accused of participating, it will be found that he participated to a greater extent, in others to a lesser extent. Dr. BRANDT took no part whatsoever in the crime of euthanasia and several others.
Even a stenographer "participates" establishing the proviso for a crime, if he takes dictation from a criminal or, if, on the instructions of the criminal he writes a letter himself, this promoting the major crime to a greater or lesser degree. Although he acted under order, although he was threatened with very serious consequences if he were to refuse to carry out his order, he may be guilty; the degree of his guilt, however, depends on a great variety of circumstances attending each individual case, and the judge's most difficult task is to establish this degree of guilt according to law and justice.
Dr. Rudolf BRANDT himself does not assert that he was merely HIMMLER's stenographer until the end of the war, although in actual fact he began his career with HIMMLER as a stenographer in the true sense of the word, and for years was nothing but a stenographer.
His later position his slow rise to an official withe the rank of Ministerial Counsellor did not, however, mean any fundamental, any essential change in his relations with HIMMLER. Rudolf BRANDT remained the industrious little employee; later on, too, he was merely the technical Chief Clerk of one of the many departments which existed within HIMMLER's so-call Personal Staff. Never did Rudolf BRANDT occupy the position of, say, HIMMLER's adviser, as the Prosecution appears to imagine; never was he present at one of HIMMLER'S discussions or conferences with physicians.
The official duties and activities of the department of which Rudolf BRANDT was in charge concerned the affairs of the General SS ( not the Waffen SS), the handling of applications from the population and similar matters; they were not, however, concerned with any matters of the Gestapo or Police, i.e. the Executive The matters which passed through BRANDT's hands and which are to be judged here were here wore outside the scope of things mentioned above. Numerically speaking, these cases are infinitesimal, compared with the average monthly postal dispatches of about 3,000 to 4,000.
The fact that for years Rudolf BRANDT was over-worked and was no longer able to supervise matters as a whole was known to his department.
and to outsiders as well.
Nor did Rudolf BRANDT know the almost unique mixture in one human soul of civic virtues and mad crimes against the fundamental rights of man and against the dignity of the human being, as it existed in HIMMLER, a disregard for which, by sophistical arguments of mere expedience and by violating the inalienable principles of natural and Christian moral law, must always lead to the collapse of human and moral order.
Without disputing Rudolf BRANCH's participation and guilt in essence. I will try, as his defense counsel, in the course of this case to explain that the degree of this guilt is far smaller than would appear from the objective external evidence.
To prove this striking discrepancy between external deed and inner guilt, I shall, with the permission of the Court, call upon the defendant to give evidence; further, I shall examine the witness August MEINE, Rudolf BRANCH's closest associate, and present a number of affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to inquire of the defense counsels who have not yet presented their arguments whether they have any reason to suppose that in their arguments tomorrow they will desire to consume any more time than has appeared upon the schedule which has been handed to the Tribunal this morning. Are there no further groups of defense counsels who desire to present their cases consecutively or together other than those that have already been called to our attention?
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants arc all present in Court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendant Oberheuser is absent today in continuation of the illness for which she has been absent several days. The defendant Karl Brandt is also absent, having been excused by this Tribunal yesterday morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants save the defendant Oberheuser, absent on account of sickness in accordance with the doctor's certificate which I have, and the defendant Karl Brandt, having been excused by this Tribunal, and the defendant Brandt's counsel. The secretary-General will file this certificate in the absence of the defendant Oberheuser.
Counsel for defense may proceed with their arguments.
DR. FRITZ FLEMMING (attorney for Mrugowsky): Mr. President: The defendant Mrugowsky is charged in the first place under Count 1 of the indictment with a common design or a conspiracy.
I shall prove in respect to this Count that the provisions of Control Council Law No. 10 concerning conspiracy on which the Indictment is based on this point do not apply to the case which is here under review. As a precautionary measure I shall further prove that the actual conditions of a conspiracy are non-existent.
Under Count 2 of the Indictment, War Crimes, Mrugowsky is charged with High altitude and freezing experiments.
Malaria experiments, and Sea water experiments Sulfanilamide experiments and Epidemic jaundice experiments Sterilization experiments and Typhus experiments, Experiments with poison and Incendiary bomb experiments.
He is, furthermore, charged under Count 3. Section 11 of the Indictment With Crimes against Humanity on account of the same experiments.
PAGE TWO In connection with The altitude experiments Count II, 6A of the Indictment The Malaria experiments Count II, 6C of the Indictment The sea water experiments Count II, 6D of the Indictment The experiments with epidemic jaundice Count II, 6H of the Indictment The Prosecution in presenting their evidence submitted nothing to show that the defendant Mrugowsky had any part in those experiments.
The Prosecution did not submit one document nor called one witness to prove his participation in the said experiments. The Indictment is entirely unsubstantiated in these respects. It has merely been assorted that the defendant Mrugowsky, together with other defendants, is guilty of a special responsibility and participation in these experiments.
As regards the Sterilization experiments Count 2, 6I of the Indictment The Prosecution have merely produced; in order to charge the defendant Mrugowsky; an affidavit of the co-defendant Rudolf Brandt; dated 19 October 1946, Document No. 440; Prosecution Exhibit 141.
This reads as follows at the end:
"Blumenreuther Poppendick and Mrugowsky probably also knew about this."
This is a mere assumption on the part of Brandt which is given without any more detailed support and without reference to actual data and does not therefore constitute a proof of Mrugowsky's participation in the sterilization experiments.
PAGE THREE:
The Prosecution have neither presented nor given any other proof for Mrugowsky's participation in sterilization experiments or even only for his knowledge of such experiments.
The Indictment against Mrugowsky is therefore inadequate in the points which I have just mentioned and I move that The Indictment be rejected as inadequate in the points which I have just mentioned, Count II, 6A, C, D, H & I of the Indictment.
And also in regard to III, 11 of the Indictment.
The defendant Mrugowsky is further charged in connection with Freezing experiments, Count II, 6B of the Indictment Sulfanilamide experiments.
Count II, 6E of the Indictment Typhus experiments, Count II, 6J of the Indictment Experiments with poison, Count II, 6K of the Indictment Experiments with incendiary bombs, Count II, 6L of the Indictment.
With War Crimes and on account of the same experiments under Count III.
11 of the Indictment with Crimes against Humanity.
On these Counts, I shall call the defendant Mrugowsky and other witnesses to the witness stand. I shall refer to the evidence given by witnesses interrogated by the Prosecution and by co-defendants as well as to the evidence of the co-defendants given in the witness stand, I shall submit documents and refer to documents submitted by the Prosecution and co-defendants.
PAGE FOUR I shall prove that the so-called Ding diary was pieced together subsequently and thus is a fake which has no value as evidence whatsoever.
I shall prove that the so-called work report drawn up by Ding for 1943, which the Prosecution have submitted, is a draft which has no value as evidence.
I shall do all this in order to prove that the defendant Mrugowsky under the counts of the Indictment was not a principal in, an accessory to, did not order, abet nor took a consenting part in, and that he was not connected with the performance of medical experiments mentioned above without the subjects' consent and that he committed neither murders nor brutalities nor cruelties, tortures, atrocities and other inhumane acts.
As regards the freezing experiments I shall prove that the defendant Mrugowsky had no part in these experiments at all. The Prosecution have submitted conclusive evidence of his participation in these experiments.
As regards the sulfanilamide experiments, I shall prove that the defendant Mrugowsky was not in any way involve in these experiments. The Prosecution have not claimed that he took part in the performance of the experiments, and I shall prove that he had no association whatsoever with the sulfanilamide experiments.
As regards the spotted typhus experiments, the Prosecution have not claimed that Mrugowsky was involved in the experiments at Natzweiler.
As regards the spotted typhus experiments at Buchenwald Concentration Camp, the Prosecution have presented comprehensive evidence. They have repeatedly claimed that Mrugowsky took part in these experiments and that he is responsible for them together with others.
I shall prove that Mrugowsky objected when his superior, Grawitz, for the first time referred to the intention to have spotted typhus experiments possibly performed inmates of a concentration camp.
I shall prove that the experiments in concentration camp inmates were ordered against Mrugowsky's opposition by Himmler and Grawitz. Mrugowsky did not become actively involve in these experiments, but Dr. Ding was directly instructed by Grawitz to perform the experiments.
The Prosecution have not claimed that Mrugowsky took an active part even in one single spotted typhus experiment.
I shall prove that during the whole period during which spotted typhus of experiments were carried out, he was at Buchenwald only twice and not in connection with these experiments but for other reasons.
I shall further prove that the spotted typhus experiments which General Taylor himself calls on page 115 of the German record of 9 December 1946, "The most important but fatal spotted typhus research" were no crime at all.
On the contrary, they constituted a research work which had to be carried out unless further hundreds of thousands of men, whose lives could be saved only with the help of these experiments, were to die of spotted typhus.
I shall prove that the so-called checks introduced in the spotted typhus serial experiments were unavoidable if the end was to be achieved to obtain quickly a clear idea of the effectiveness of the various vaccines and drugs. But I shall above all prove through the evidence given by witnesses of the prosecution that the number of deaths given in the documents furnished by Ding and presented by the Prosecution is wrong.
As regards the experiments with poison, the Prosecution mentioned three cases in presenting their evidence.
In the first case which was carried out upon the initiative of the SSTribunal at Buchenwald, it is not quite clear whether the Prosecution intend to charge Mrugowsky in the same way as the others. I shall prove in this case that he was not involved. One or the two other cases is the killing of six people by poison, mentioned by Dr. Ding in his diary as "A special experiment performed on six persons by order of Mrugowsky and of the Reich Criminal Police Office."
I shall prove in this case that the Prosecution have failed to give proof that Mrugowsky ordered this killing or that he even knew about it.
As regards the experiments with poison there remains the killing of three people at Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, on which Mrugowsky reports in his letter to the Reich Criminal Police Office, dated 12 December 1944, Document No. 201. I shall prove that this was not an experiment to ascertain how much time it takes to kill a man in the indicated manner - that is what the Prosecution assert - but an execution which had been caused by the Reich Criminal Police Office.
As regard the incendinary bomb experiments I shall prove that they were performed by Ding, not by order of Mrugowsky, but by order of other agencies, and that Mrugowsky was not involved in these experiments at all and merely received a subsequent report when the experiments had been concluded.
In addition to the experiments specifically mentioned in the Indictment, the Prosecution have presented further evidence concerning a number of further experiments which it includes in the Indictment. I shall prove also in respect to those experiments that Mrugowsky was not in any way concerned with them.
The evidence which I have mentioned, in connection with war crimes, will also show that Mrugowsky is in no way committed crimes against humanity.
Mrugowsky does not deny his membership in the SS, which was declared a criminal organization by the International Military Tribunal. I shall prove, however, that in many questions, same of which were of decisive importance, he was in open opposition to the SS.
In conclusion I repeat my mention to declare the Indictment against Mrugowsky inadequate insofar as it is concerned with High altitude experiments Malaria experiments Sea-Water Experiments Experiments with epidemic jaundice.
Sterilization experiments concerning experiments under Count II 6 as well as Count III 11 of the Indictment.