He transferred to the troops in ignorance of facts going to prove that the SS was used for criminal activities.
That is tho end of any statements.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, your Honors, I am now beginning the opening statement for the Defendant, Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
The Prosecution charges the former Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe Reserve, Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng, first, to have participated on a conspiracy and a joint plan to commit crimes against humanity and war crimes. Those crimes are alleged to have been committed under camouflage as so-called scientific, medical experiments.
The indictment thereby was based on the assumption that in the execution of individual experiments or series of experiments several of the here present defendants or the agencies they represented at that time had taken part or were interested in them or should have had knowledge of them.
However, the Prosecution did not leave any doubt that in its opinion the carrying out of so-called medical experiments was only a pretext to do harm to enemies of the Nazi State, to torture them, even to exterminate them. The Chief Prosecutor, General Taylor, devoted a major portion of his address before the High Tribunal in demonstrating that the basis for such a a conspiracy were the doctrines of the National Socialist German Workers' party (NSDAP) particularly in regard to the race question, and that also the personal basis of the cruel and abominable crimes is to be found in those characters who freely fell for the results of those slogans about Race and State, without inner ties with and religious consideration, true medical calling, genuine science, and the eternal human values.
That is the picture of the conspirator which the prosecution developed before our eyes.
2) In contrast to that, Counsel for the Defendant, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, will attempt to prove that one latter, as a result of his education and his concept of the medical profession, as well as his general philosophy, for the factual results of which we will offer evidence, is really unable to show such attitude.
a.) Coming from a Christian family, Dr. Becker-Freyseng preserved his religious attitude at later times also as a student, as a husband and family father, he did not abandon his Christian position, even at a time when many Germans broke with church and religion, merely as a matter of expediency, in accordance with the Party trend, and left the church.
b.) Neither did he belong as a student to the Nazi Students Association, nor did he belong, as a physician and young academic teacher, to the Nazi Physicians Association or the Nazi Academic Teachers League; only in serious scientific work and service to the ill did he see the fulfillment of his freely chosen profession. His superiors and teachers were no so-called Nazi Professors but men who today again hold honored positions.
c.) This picture of the Defendant will be completed when I submit evidence to the High Tribunal that Dr. Becker-Freyseng -- as far as it was in his power -- aided and supported racially and politically persecuted people, thereby certainly not following the principles of the Party.
d.) Already from the beginning of his own scientific career the experiment carried out on himself is of exceptional importance. Already as a young interne he tested new drugs on his own body and studied in experiments on his own person, the results up to the limit of his physical endurance.
At the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin Dr. BeckerFreyseng carried out on himself oven the most dangerous experiments that ever were carried out there and thereby contacted a serious case of pneumonia.
In more than one hundred experiments with lack of oxygen he served as experimental subject for his colleagues, thereby losing his consciousness and exposed himself to other dangers; and when, after the war, he with other German aviation physicians was asked to cooperate at the Areo-Medical Center of the American Air Force in Heidelberg, he carried out almost one hundred dangerous low pressure chamber experiments in less than a year's time, which caused an illness of several months duration to one of the participating colleagues. All these experiments on himself did not bring any material gain to Dr. Becker-Freyseng. His scientific works are regarded as clean and absolutely reliable by today's critical observers, too. He cannot be accuse of an unhealthy ambition, an unfactual fanaticism or reckless egotism, and nothing of the kind could be proven against him.
Never did he carry out any dangerous experiments in his own scientific field any other way than as an experiment on himself or on similar minded co-worker.
e.) The outbreak of the war interrupted the medical-scientific activities of Dr. Becker-Freyseng. In 1940 he was drafted as Unterarzt of the Luftwaffe Reserve and transferred in 1941 to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
The indictment characterizes Dr. Becker-Freyseng as "Chief of the Division for Aviation Medicine" with the Chief of Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Actually no Division for Aviation Medicine at the Medical Inspectorate has ever existed; thus, this is a contention by the Prosecution that cannot be proved at all.
Within the Division 2 (the Medical Division) there existed only a branch (a referat) for Aviation Medicine. Dr. Becker-Freyseng was working there as an assistant consultant up to the middle of 1944 without authority to sign any papers and without any independent responsibility. Only from May 1944 until the end of the war Dr. Becker-Freyseng was himself the head of the branch (Referant).
May it please the Tribunal! The presentation of evidence will prove that this clarification is more than a merely formal correction. Sphere of activity and mainly responsibility of a division chief were in principle different from these of a chief or even assistant subordinated to him. Amongst all the defendants, who had any function in the civilian or military sector of the German health Service during the war at all, Dr. BECKER-FREYSENG is the only one, whose activities were never autonomous, and who never was authorized to make independent decision.
This, High Tribunal, is the picture of the character of the defendant Dr. BECKER FREYSENG, which the Defense will prove in detail, in order to demonstrate, that in no way Sees it conform with the Description of a criminal conspirator the prosecution has drawn.
Furthermore the Prosecution's assumption that Dr. BECKER FREYSENG participated at the "Consulting Conference" of the year 1943 is incorrect. The Defense is going to prove that he actually participated only at the Conference of 1944.
Most of the defendants he saw for the first time here in the Palace of Justice, others he knew by name on account of their high position. With the members of the Luftwaffe he had naturally official contacts.
II.
In particular, the indictment charges Dr. BECKER FREYSENG of participation or special responsibility for high altitude experiments freezing experiments sea water experiments and the experiments with sulfonamide, epidemic jaundice, typhus and other infectious diseases.
1) The Defense is going to prove, that Dr. BECKER FREYSENG had nothing to do whatsoever with the high altitude experiments and heard about these experiments only after their conclusion, and then only unofficially and by chance.
Furthermore, we are going to prove, that the low pressure chamber used in Rascher's experiment was not furnished to Dr. RASCHER by the Aviation Medicine Branch of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, that Dr. BECKER FREYSENG actually saw this chamber for the first time about July 1942, when it already had returned from Dachau, and that he took it over from German Aviation Experimental Station (DVL), as brand new.
Mr. President, I will omit the following paragraph; I request that this paragraph be stricken from the record. I will now continue with the next paragraph.
"To illustrate the attitude of the defendant Dr. BECKER FREYSENG to a request of Dr. RASCHER to be furnished with a chamber again, the Defense points out the following, and will submit evidence for it;
During the winter 1942-43, an inquiry from one of the higher SS-offices was received by the Medical Inspectorate, about letting them have a motorized low pressure chamber with a two phase pumping unit. Dr. BECKER FREYSENG had an order to report the position of his branch to his superior.
He commended a negative reply, with the argument, that none of the available chambers could be spared, and that there was no reason for the Medical Inspectorate to have RASCHER conduct high altitude experiments. It is obvious, that his refusal might have had serious consequences for Dr. BECKER FREYSENG. He also saw to it the only German specialized firm would not manufacture any low pressure chamber for the SS and RASCHER.
2. FrEezing experiments.
With the planning and conduct of the freezing experiments. Dr. BECKERFREYSENG had also never to do. Of the fact, that freezing experiments had be conducted on human beings, he personally heard only through the lecture by Prof. HOLZLODHNER during the Nuernberg Conference of Luftwaffe Physicians in October 1942.
Concerning this subject, the Defense is going to prove, that no one could learn from Prof. HOLZLOEHNER'S lecture, from what type of persons the experimental subjects were chosen. The general opinion of the participating physicians was, that the experiments were conducted on criminal sentence to death.
Dr. RASCHER, who was conducting the experiments, had specially requested permission from HIMMLER to handle the matter absolutely secret.
Dr. BECKER FREYSENG after the Nuernberg Conference never saw RASCHER again, and never had any other contacts with him.
The Luftwaffe too, shifted away completely from RASCHER, and thereby got into disfavor with his sponsor, the Reichsfuehrer-SS, HIMMLER.
From documents offered by the Prosecution it become evident that
1.) RASCHER was from the very beginning in very close contact with the SS and particularly with HIMMLER.
2.) That RASCHER continue freezing experiments without any participation of the Luftwaffe for year, and that under really perverted conditions.
Therefore, Dr. BECKER FREYSENG cannot be considered responsible for a participation on the freezing experiments.
3.) Typhus experiments, Hepatitis and Epidemic Jaundice In all these three cases we are concerned with purely hygienic or bacteriological questions, even in the difficult specialized field of virus research.
With this field, Dr. BECKER FREYSENG in his official position at the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe was not at all concerned, he never had to voice an opinion on any of these questions, he never participated o n a conference concerning them, or even heard of other. These questions did not even belong to the field of aviation medicine, which was the exclusive field of activity of this defendant. Scientifically Dr. BECKER FREYSENG never worked on these problems either, and is entirely unfamiliar with this specialize medical field.
Dr. BECKER FREYSENG was in contact with the affair HAAGEN only insofar as his branch formally worked in single cases on research order from other medical fields besides aviation medicine research orders, in order to uniformly control the permanent regulations about allocation of funds, priority rate assignment of personnel, etc. Furthermore, all of these research orders had the same file note, (no.
55!) and, therefore, merely for filing purposes were handled by his branch.
Thus it was nothing but an administrative and file matter! The real, that is the factual contents of the order were handled by the respective consultant for that specialized field.
That is how Prof, Eugen HAAGEN had received research orders about several bacteriological questions, and that already before Dr. BECKER FREYSENG came to the branch in the fall of 1941.
In the case of the defendant Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER I dealt already with the dual position of Prof. HAAGEN the different types of research orders he worked on, and therefore how the ordering agencies opposed each other.
The Defense is going to prove, that Dr. BECKER FREYSENG even in the summer of 1944 never considered the experiments HAAGENS as anything but of an animal experimental type. This is to be deducted from an order submitted to Dr. SUCHALLA, chief of the Breeding institution for such experimental animals.
4.) Dr. BECKER FREYSENG heard first about the Sulfonamide Experiments in November 1946, when he was served the indictment.
5.) The experiments about making sea water potable. As far as these experiments are concerned, the motives, which had been guiding for Dr. BECKER FREYSENG as well as his proposal of carrying out experiments for this purpose on human beings, were already elucidated in my plea for Prof. Dr. SCHROEDER.
The Defense will offer proof, that Dr. BECKER FREYSENG advocated the conduct of these experiments not for vicious planning or with the intent to torture, and to destroy. Only by the attitude of the follower of the other method "Berka" and due to the particular circumstances caused by the war then forced to suggest experiments to be carried out on inmates, after the originally intended experimentation on soldiers of the Luftwaffe in a Luftwaffe or parachutist hospital and in the Military Medical Academy had or proved to be impossible as a result f the war situation in the summer of the invasion.
The Defense intends to be in a position to prove that the planning of experiments, for which from the start the volunteering of experimental subjects had been the first condition, had been so prepared and that the carrying out had been laid down in such detail that according to all medical experience and medical estimates every precaution had been taken to prevent any disturbance of health, but certainly fatal results.
In sharp contrast to experiments the outcome which could no longer be directed by their irresponsible initiators, the nature, the preparations and the carrying out of the so-called seawater experiments guaranteed that at any time when reaching the limit of endurance the single experiments could be broken off. And only in these seawater experiments did the defendant Dr. BECKER FREYSENG participate directly.
The volunteering of experimental subjects was a really necessary requisite for the experiments, was it would have been impossible to obtain an absolutely unobjectionable observation result in fercing persons to take part in. Because the physician and scientist does necessarily depend upon the cooperation of the experimental subjects in evaluating subjective statements, like thirst, hunger and other complaints.
Dr. BECKER FREYSENG, therefore, is of the opinion to have done all that was at all possible according to the well-known standard of medical science, especially as the supervision of the experiments had been put into the hands of an experienced physician and of a blameless character.
This picture of Dr. BECKER FREYSENG shows him as a man whose concern was serious scientific research objective work, who made very high demands upon himself, not sparing this own person, a man who does draw and who may draw a sharp line between himself and such "would be - scientists", who have made tests without considering health and life of their fellow-men, finally as a physician who always endeavored to live up to the high ethical standards set by his vocation.
According to the opinion of the Defense after the hearing of the evidence the picture of the defendant will be an entirely different one from the one which was painted by the Prosecution.
Mr. President, in addition and outside of this written statement I would like to state several words. I am of the opinion that I am entitled to also state for Dr. Becker-Freyseng and also Professor Schroeder, who I am also defending, to make the request in their behalf that the trial be discontinued in so far as this includes their participation in a criminal plan or a conspiracy and even perhaps to a higher degree than is the case with one or the other of the defendant. However, I shall refrain from making such a request because I am of the opinion that the verdict will have to fee uniform about all the points with which the defendant is being charged. Therefore, I do not consider it appropriate to decide about part of the Indictment from the very beginning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until one-thirty o'clock.
(A recess as taken until 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BELCKMANN: Your Honors, Dr. Belckmann for the defendant Dr. Konrad Schaefer.
The SCHAEFER Case appears to be of a special kind, even to the superficial observer of this trial.
In these proceedings, which have lasted for weeks, the name of SCHAEFER has been mentioned only a few times by the Prosecution. He is alleged by the Prosecution to have participated in only one experiment conducted on concentration camp inmates, in which experiment a drug was tested which was intended to render sea water potable.
The Prosecution alleges that, in spite of this very limited activity, SCHAEFER was participant in the conspiracy which comprises all these defendants.
To prove its thesis of the conspiracy of all the defendants, the Prosecution has presented two points in detail.
1. The pervasion and corruption of German medical science, primarily the young medical men, by National Socialist ideas, culminating in a disregard for human life which found its expression in the experiments on concentration camp inmates.
2. The close cooperation of all defendants in various spheres of medicine, primarily in the Army, in the Luftwaffe, and in the SS, which put each defendant in a position to recognize the criminal activity of the others and to contribute his share knowingly.
In this connection I shall prove that, especially in SCHAEFER's case, these prerequisites do not apply:
SCHAEFER has always been an outspoken opponent of National. Socialism and of militarism. It was he who already in 1933 and in the subsequent years as a student and as a young physician opposed the measures which the Prosecutor described so fully on 9 December 1946 (page 100, 101 of the German transcript, and which were intended to make of these young men willing instruments of the National Socialist regime by training them within the organizations of the Party, even at the expense of their scientific achievements.
In spite of extremely strong pressure - which the Prosecution has described very vividly - he refused to join the Party or any other organization, thereby endangering his admission to the examinations. He finally had to give up his position as assistant at a university clinic, although his scientific achievements world have entitled him to a position as lecturer.
Later, too - from 1937 until the outbreak of the war, still more during the war, and also after having been drafted into the Luftwaffe in 1941 - he continued to criticize the existing system and its excesses especially in the field of medicine, and last but not least the experiments on human beings which were conducted in the concentration camps.
How is it to be explained, then, that SCHAEFER held a position in the public health service of the Third Reich (German transcript page 57) But how can the Prosecution contend that the share of each of the 20 physicians - including the defendant SCHAEFER - in the conspiracy and in its execution corresponds most closely to his professional interests and his position within the hierarchy of the Third Reich?
(cf. German transcript page 114.
I shall prove that these contentions of the Prosecution concerning the position of the defendants within the hierarchy of the Third Reich and their close cooperation with each other do not apply in the case of SCHAEFER.
From 1937 until 1945 SCHAEFER hold a position as medical man and chemist and as deputy section chief in private industry, since official positions were not open to him on account of his anti-Nazi convictions. In 1941 he was drafted as a private and after 6 months became Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe, since he was a medical man. An Unterarzt in the German Wehrmacht does not have the rank of an officer. Through an accidental meeting with his former fellow-student BECKER-FREYSENG, he was given the opportunity of entering the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine.
He seized this opportunity immediately, because in this way he was able to continue his activities in private industry, naturally in civilian clothes. He rarely entered the Institute, and he seldom wore a uniform. He knew only a few of the other medical men in aviation. He talked only once to his supreme superior, HIPPKE, and he talked only twice to HIPPKE's successor, SCHROEDER. Such an unimportant person was SCHAEFER! One cannot speak of a position within the hierarchy of the administration and of medicine of the Third Reich.
During the war he held a position like many thousands of other Germans, who were glad to be able to escape the deadly dangers of the war at the front, who had no inner connections with this war and with this system, who even were its radical opponents.
He was given the order to investigate problems arising from distress at sea, particularly the problem of thirst.
He obeyed this order with great satisfaction, because he knew that the solution of this problem would put an end to the tortures of Tantalus suffered by shipwrecked persons all over the world. He set to work with scientific thoroughness, which I shall prove in detail. A study of the entire literature, which took months, enabled him to hold a lecture on thirst and the measures to be taken against it during distress at at see, by order of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, at the meeting in Nuernberg in 1942. The lecture contained pure theory and was not a report on experiments on human beings. The Prosecution asserted - the contrary on 12 December 1946, is true (sheet 334 of the German transcript, but the complete Document 401, Prosecution, Exhibit 93, proves that this assertion is false.
The further occupation with this problem brought SCHAEFER to experiments, which were carried out by the IG-Farben. In a scientific cooperation with this firm, a drug was finally found, by which sea water could be made drinkable without any prejudice to health. This result was obtained by many chemical, and pharmacological examinations of the bactericide effects and experiments. No experiments on human beings with this drug were necessary, for SCHAEFER had recognized an the basis of all the other scientific methods of investigation that this drug was absolute innoccuous.
The drug was called "Wofatit SW" "IG Drug" or "Schaefer Drug."
It is fundamentally and also in its way of presentation with only very slight differences the same drug which was invented by the American Dr. Ivy and used by the US Armed Forces.
The Schaefer drug was completely ready at the end of 1943, and Schaefer's supreme superior, the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, intended to introduce it in the German Luftwaffe.
The Technical Office, another branch of the German Luftwaffe, however, opposed its introduction, offering as a reason that there was not enough silve available, which was needed for the production of the drug.
The important men in the Technical Office, Oberstingenieur Christensen and Stabsingenieur Shickler, demanded the introduction of a drug which has been invented by Stabsingenieur of the Air Force Berka. It consisted of glucose, which removed or diminished the salt taste of the sea water without changing the actual salt content.
I shall prove with special emphasis that Schaefer opposed this "Berka drug" as being a fake, ever since the origin of this plan.
He wrote a crushing report on the results of experiments which Oberstarzt von Sirany had conducted with the Berka drug on volunteers, patients in a Luftwaffe hospital, by order of the Technical Office. Schaefer had been ordered by his superiors from the Medical Inspectorate to make this check.
The result of Schaefer's attitude in this respect was that he was suspected of sabotage by the men of the Technical Office and by the officers of the Luftwaffe.
Schaefer know very well what this accusation meant in the Third Reich during the fifth year of war. He knew of other instances in which medical men had been persecuted by the RSHA, that is, by the Gestapo, only on account of their diverging scientific opinions on subjects of vital importance for the war.
But nevertheless he explains his opinion of the senselessness of the Berka method also at the conferences of 19 and 20 May, during which it is proposed that this method be tested on, concentration camp inmates. As a final warning he states that with the Berka method death sets in on the 12th day at latest.
This is proved by the Prosecution Document NO 177, Exhibit 133.
This was all he could do under the circumstances, not being an officer, but the least important person among the brilliant uniforms of the 13 highranking officers.
At these conferences Schaefer makes no "resolutions." This is impossible in the Army. The top-ranking chiefs of offices present "order" and "command. But the defendant Schaefer is not even ordered to conduct experiments on concentration camp inmates. He is net even assigned to the commission which had been appointed to determine the conditions for the experiments, because he is known to be an opponent of the entire enterprise.
Another chance for preventing these -- in Schaefer's opinion completely pointless -- experiments on human beings with the Berka drug, whether in the concentration camp or in the Luftwaffe hospital, passes by. On 25 May 1944 the world-famed internist professor Eppinger from Vienna declares that he does not consider entirely wrong Berka's idea that his drug would "sluice" the sea water through the human body without any injury, which Schaefer had hitherto considered absolutely absurd. Three more professors, outstanding medical men, shared the opinion of professor Eppinger.
Thus Schaefer lost one mere medical pretext to declare himself still more openly against the performance of those experiments.
No law in the world can demand of Schaefer more than he did, if one appreciates rightly and with understanding the general circumstances in Hitl Germany and Schaefer's special situation on account of his official rank. Now I already put the question why none of the participants in the conference of 19 and 20 May 1944, who in contrast to Schaefer kept silence, are present here in the defendants' dock, with the exception of Becker-Freyseng, and why just the inventor of a method which solves a very ancient problem of humanity is accused.
In none cf the conferences mentioned in the documents of the Prosecution in which Schaefer took part, was it proposed or ordered that the "Schaefer drug" be tested on concentration camp inmates. Only for such an act could Schaefer have been held responsible. But he would never have shunned this medical responsibility, in view of the good quality of his drug, although he never have approved the use of concentration camp inmates.
The experiments with the Berka drug, which he is not responsible for ordering, were carried out without his cooperation.
He therefore cannot be charged for having listened to the lecture of Professor Beiglbock, which fully revealed the uselessness of the Berka method.
Your Honors, I hereby ask you to consider the Prosecution documents and the speech of the Prosecutor, before listening to my case, and to take into consideration my statements concerning the Prosecution documents.
This examination alone will put you in a position to realize that the Defendant Schaefer is not guilty. In accordance with the practice of American and British courts in penal cases, I request as a measure of precaution that the trial of the defendant schaefer be discontinued, without the submission of any further evidence.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Hoven): The defendant Hoven has been accused on all four counts of the indictment.
Regarding Count i of the Indictment, common plan or conspiracy: In the first place, the fact of a conspiracy requires a common plan or agreement between at least two persons. The prosecution should, therefore, have stated: 1, when; 2, where; 3, between what persons this common plan or this common agreement was reached; and 4, what the substance was of this common plan or agreement.
The prosecution should have made a particular point of stating that this plan or agreement aimed at the committing of those war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are the subject of these proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution should have proved that the defendant Hoven took part in such an agreement.
Now that the prosecution has concluded its presentation the following must be stated: the prosecution has no reason whatever for assuming and has produced no proof whatever that a plan of this kind ever existed or that the defendant Hoven took part in it.
I therefore ask that the defendant Hoven be declared not guilty under Count I of the indictment.
The opinion expressed here this morning gives me occasion to add a few words at this point. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal does not need any instruction on how these proceedings should be conducted most efficiently.
I shall therefore merely comment on the question of whether such an application is legally admissible or not.
According to German penal law the Court can at any time refrain from hearing defense witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the Prosecution is not adequate.
As far as I know, and I make these statements with a certain reservation because I have foreign literature available only to a limited extent, this principle applies under the law of all states. This principle also arises from the laws of logic, for what purpose would there be in presenting defense witnesses on the count of conspiracy under the present difficulties of bringing them to Nuremberg and of taking up the time of the Tribunal by their examination if the Court is already of the opinion that what the Prosecution has presented is insufficient to prove the participation of the defendant Hoven in a conspiracy?
I shall now continue. If this application is refused, I shall prove: a, that the defendant Hoven did not take part in such plan; b, that he did not even know his co-defendants, with the exception of Mrugowsky, until the beginning of the present trial; and c, that he had only met the defendant Mrugowsky once, unofficially, and that at this meeting there was no discussion of an agreement for the commitment of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Regarding Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment (war crimes and crimes against humanity):
Under these Counts the defendant Hoven is accused of having carried out on inmates of the concentration camp Buchenwald: a, typhus experiments, and b, the euthanasia program.
As an introduction I should like to point out the following in order to clarify my presentation of evidence:
The fact that, the prosecution has proved that a crime has been committed does not suffice. Law No. 10 is only applicable if these crimes were committed on citizens of tho United Nations. I gather from the evidence so far submitted by the Prosecution, and especially from the witnesses questioned by the prosecution, that they also are of this view.
I shall now deal with the individual war crimes and crimes against humanity with which the defendant Hoven is charged, and come first to tho question whether there is a basis for the assumption that tho defendant Hoven participated in the typhus experiments a punishable act according to Law No. 10.
It cannot be doubted that between January 1942 and the end of 1944 typhus experiments were carried out on inmates in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
The defendant Hoven was arrested in September 1943 and was, until March 1945, a prisoner in the concentration camp Buchenwald. This is clear from tho evidence presented by the prosecution. It is therfore of decisive importance whether and to what extent the defendant Hoven actually took part in the typhus experiments January 1942 and August 1943. The prosecution has stated correctly that it was not the defendant Hoven who was supervisor of the department for typhus and virus research at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffs SS which was established at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, but that this was tho late Dr. Ding-Schuler.
The activity of which the defendant is accused allegedly consists in
a) having been Dr. Ding's deputy
b) having selected prisoners who were used as human experimental subjects in the typhus experiments.
Re point a) As has been correctly submitted by tho Prosecution on the strength of Dr. Ding'd diary - Doc. NO. 265, Document, Book 12, pages 36 to 56 of the German, pages 38 to 53 of the English text - the activity of the defendant Hoven as Dr. Ding's deputy has to be broken down into: