_D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects._
1. _Drug F 1001 and “Lost”._ The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments,
applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (_Tr. p. 1052_) do not
entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most
detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments
with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The
relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the
manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (_Tr. p. 1050 ff._) and the
affidavit of Wagner (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280_) also, to a certain degree,
contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital
Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with
illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit
of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments,
an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more
reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost”
experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments
were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a
committee. Sievers’ statement (_Tr. p. 5732_) reports a visit to Wimmer
at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had
been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites
two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The
experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger
involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no
deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general
condition was not impaired. (_NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253._) In contrast to
this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of
the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these
disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the
climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the
duration of the experiments.
2. _N-substance._ The experiments were not carried out. Over and above
that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments
would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm.
_VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl
Brandt._
1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out
experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders.
2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical
warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits:
(_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 5_, _Karl Brandt
Ex. 6_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 4_, _Karl
Brandt Ex. 5_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt
89_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 37_). They show that this decree does not refer to
an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and
their research, but that it represents a production order referring to
defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution
Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the
defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s
treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the
decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first
time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that
this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a
sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders
(see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts
with Himmler). (_Also Karl Brandt 120_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 35_.) The
affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is refuted by Karl
Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf
Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 4930-34._) As a matter of fact the name of the
defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents
extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy
surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas
defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the
inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide
this from the enemy. (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl
Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex.
10_.)
3. Karl Brandt’s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by
the fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from
Spain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been
predominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of
cost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (_Karl Brandt 12_,
_Karl Brandt Ex. 11._) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on
work with N-gas (_NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279_) proves that the defendant Karl
Brandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very
different sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt
Exhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further
confirmed by Sievers’ letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (_NO-793, Pros.
Ex. 258._) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing
experiments by “single possibilities”.
NO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July
1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt’s
researches in every possible way.
4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the
decree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his
affidavit, (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_; _Tr. pp. 4941-42_.)
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
SIEVERS_
* * * * *
1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by
Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp.
2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30
April 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons
are supposed to have suffered from severe burns.
3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The
prosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers’
participation in the Lost gas experiments:
Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (_NO-791, Pros.
Ex. 256_) concerning experiments with insecticides.
Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (_NO-792,
Pros. Ex. 257_) concerning answer to Sievers’ letter.
Sievers’ letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (_NO-793, Pros. Ex.
258_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s treatises on intravital microscopy
and Lost experiments.
Sievers’ letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (_NO-794, Pros.
Ex. 259_) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on
the results of Lost experiments.
Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (_NO-097,
Pros. Ex. 260_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s report on Lost wounds.
Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the
front.
Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (_NO-098,
Pros. Ex. 263_).
Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R.
Brandt of 22 April 1943—concerning release of Staff Physician
Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work
with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)
Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to
Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943—concerning
Dr. Wimmer’s transfer. (_NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266._)
Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of
8 November 1943—concerning the sending of special rations of
food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)
Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost.
(_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._)
Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr.
Brandt of 9 February 1942—concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt’s
report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which
enables one to observe a living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex.
269._)
Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the
Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944—concerning the transmission of a
Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (_NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272._) The
Fuehrer Decree mentioned—of 1 March 1944—has not been
submitted.
Letter of the Office “A” to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944
concerning Sievers’ report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt
on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._)
Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September
1942 (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_) concerning military scientific
research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp.
Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942
concerning military scientific research in connection with the
Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._)
Sievers’ memorandum concerning the carrying out of military
scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17
September 1942. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._)
The defense refers to the following evidence:
Lost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in
Berlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy.
(_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_; _Tr. p. 5679_; _Tr. pp. 8071-72_.) Professor
Dr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University
of Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (_Tr. p.
5731._) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself.
(_Tr. p. 5733._) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to
be carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers.
Himmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on
human beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942
Himmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had
also mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in
writing to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (_NO-793,
Pros. Ex. 258._) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where
it was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of
the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) The heading of this
letter is remarkable: “Report on the Lost experiments carried out by
order of the Wehrmacht.” Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the
report that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost
experiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time.
From this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings,
with the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt.
However, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business
Manager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich
Leader SS on 27 August 1942. (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._)
In a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt
should carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler
concentration camp. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Sievers set out for
Natzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain
whether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt’s report of
19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of
Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the
laboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt’s report
continues:
“We were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be
experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are
subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the
L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards’
diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same
conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case.
To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the
experiment.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._)
As Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician
to the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was
asked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer,
surgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr.
Hirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr.
Wimmer’s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (_NO-194, Pros.
Ex. 265._)
It was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory
finance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he
wrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the
administration of the concentration camps. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481_;
_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482_; _NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_.) They contain only
administrative matters.
How little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document
NO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the
commandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice.
As for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of
the performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration
camp, the following can be stated:
Ferdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3
January 1947, said nothing about Sievers’ taking part in any way in the
performance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration
camp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The
witness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS
uniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost
experiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement,
especially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners’
guard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration
camp. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._)
The witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp
hospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of
Sievers’ presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any
connection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (_Tr. p. 1099 ff._)
Sievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also
visited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost
experiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the
experimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about
10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One
of the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and
Sievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a
scab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other
hand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found
that they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor
Hirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of
the experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a
report on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for
their release. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The lecture which Hirt had
previously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by
the witness Holl. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) This was the only visit
Sievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After
25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already
known from his diary entries.
Sievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a
physician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments
and the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to
be prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt
whether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths
which, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost
experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._)
The statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April
1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the
experimental subjects who had reported for the “Burning Experiments”
were _volunteers_. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers’ statement of
10 April 1947. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The witness admitted under
cross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp
physician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the
planned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not
precisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may
certainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned
experiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed
by the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the
choice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was
present neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr.
Hirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the
question of volunteering.
4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give
instructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments.
Neither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost
experiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate
administrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the
experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt.
5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or
become inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of
the experiments.
We still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some
report or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments.
As a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer,
the “Proposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost” was
produced. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) From this report nothing at all is
to be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the
experimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness
of Sievers’ statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no
more of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at
Natzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal
experiments.
This must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and
NO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give
information on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the
information which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence
submitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of
the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under
which they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that
anyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the
experiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter
to Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31
March he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on
the research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The
contents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in
his examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only
stated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to
him the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about
being commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No
discussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the
performance of the experiments. This was the “report” from which the
prosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had
detailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 2365-66._)
The question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report
made by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of
deaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt’s report did not
disclose anything from which one could conclude that a special
endangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt
declared that he could arrive at further results only through
experiments on animals. (_German Tr. p. 5734._)
Finally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of
the prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy
constituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by
Dr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (_Tr. p. 5734._) Letter from the
firm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (_Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10_; _Tr. p.
5879_; _Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51_.) That intravital microscopic
experiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not
testified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any
document. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become
known to third parties through experimental subjects or records.
6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost
experiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course
of experiments against Himmler’s order.
7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of
criminal negligence either.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-794 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 27 336
June 1942, concerning mustard gas and
its effect on human beings.
NO-098 263 Memorandum from Sievers to Rudolf 337
Brandt, 3 November 1942, concerning
research in the Natzweiler
concentration camp.
NO-193 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf Brandt, 22 340
April 1943, regarding prevention of
Dr. Wimmer’s to active duty with the
air force.
NO-099 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on the 341
proposed treatment of poisoning caused
by Lost gas.
NO-005 279 Letter from Grawitz to Himmler, 22 344
November 1944, requesting prisoners
for experiments.
NO-1852 456 Extract from report on medical 345
experiments addressed to Karl Brandt.
NO-978 480 Letter from Sievers to Gluecks, 11 349
September 1942, concerning military
scientific research work to be
conducted at Natzweiler concentration
camp.
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
Karl Brandt 12 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walther Schieber 350
Ex. 11 on his efforts to purchase
experimental animals in Spain and
bring them to Germany.
Karl Brandt 101 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Otto Ambros, 21 351
Ex. 41 April 1947, concerning the
urgency of experiments in the
field of chemical-warfare agents
and their countermeasures.
Karl Brandt 103 Karl Brandt Affidavit of Dr. Walter Mielenz, 21 352
Ex. 42 April 1947, concerning the
assignment of Karl Brandt in
connection with chemical warfare.
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-794
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 259
LETTER FROM SIEVERS TO RUDOLF BRANDT, 27 JUNE 1942, CONCERNING MUSTARD
GAS AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN BEINGS