a. Introduction
The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged
with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct
involving incendiary bomb experiments (par. 6 (L) of the indictment).
The defendants were acquitted on this charge.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the incendiary bomb
experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant
Poppendick. An extract from this brief is set forth below on page 640. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant
Poppendick. It appears below on pages 641 to 643. This argumentation is
followed by selections from the evidence on pages 643 to 653.
b. Selection From the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_
* * * * *
_Incendiary Bomb Experiments_
Sturmbannfuehrer Ding-Schuler (hereinafter referred to as Ding) carried
out incendiary bomb experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp
between 19 and 25 November 1943. (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287._) In order to
ascertain the effectiveness of the drug R 17 and echinacine ointment and
liquid for the treatment of phosphorus burns, five experimental persons
were deliberately burned with ignited phosphorus which was taken from an
incendiary bomb. The resulting burns were very severe, the victims
suffered excruciating pain and permanent injury. The drugs to be tested
were manufactured at the Dr. Madaus Works in Dresden-Radebeul. (_Tr. pp.
1187-90._)
The report on these experiments (_NO-579, Pros. Ex. 288_) was forwarded
by Ding to the defendants Poppendick and Mrugowsky. (_Tr. pp. 1158,
1188._) The Research Department “V” (for Vonkennel) in Leipzig was also
interested in these experiments. Correspondence by Ding with this
department went through Poppendick. (_Tr. pp. 1158, 1175, 1247, 1267._)
Research Department “V” was a laboratory run by Sturmbannfuehrer
Vonkennel, with funds and material furnished by Grawitz. (_Poppendick 9,
Poppendick Ex. 8_; _Tr. pp. 5589-5592_.) Poppendick was the expert in
Grawitz’ office responsible for the work of that laboratory. (_Tr. p.
1267._) This testimony of Kogon is corroborated by letters from
Vonkennel to Poppendick and Ding to Poppendick concerning typhus
experiments. (_NO-1182, Pros. Ex. 477_; _NO-1184, Pros. Ex. 476_;
_NO-1185, Pros. Ex. 478_.) The latter was actually typed by Kogon for
Ding, as can be seen from the file notation.
* * * * *
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR
DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_
* * * * *
_Experiments with Incendiaries_
* * * * *
_Evaluation of Evidence_
The prosecution questioned the witness Kogon about the dispatch of
reports on experiments with incendiaries. He stated:
“The photos were placed opposite each other, mounted in an
album, described in detail; the result sent in two copies to
Berlin, one to Professor Mrugowsky, the other—here I am not
quite sure—to Oberfuehrer Poppendick. I believe that
Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received one report concerning
this matter because Dr. Ding intended to publish a dissertation
on this in a medical journal.”
The prosecution then referred in this connection, to the entry in the
so-called Ding diary under 5 January 1944 (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_):
“Records dispatched to the Reich Physician SS with the request
that they be forwarded to the Dr. Madaus Works.”
The prosecution now thought they would be able to connect these two
pieces of evidence with one another and wants to prove from this that
Poppendick received a regular report, with photos, on experiments with
incendiaries, and thus learned about criminal experiments with
incendiaries in Buchenwald.
The defense first questioned the persons concerned in Leipzig, in the
form of affidavits, about the previous history of the experiments with
incendiaries—the affidavit of Dr. Koch from the Madaus Works
(_Mrugowsky 103, Mrugowsky Ex. 97_), the affidavit of Kirchert
(_Poppendick 7, Poppendick Ex. 9_), and the affidavit of von Woyrsch
(_Mrugowsky 115, Mrugowsky Ex. 108_), all of these make similar reports
on these events. Each one of these three witnesses, viewing this matter
from different angles, was able to testify under oath that the
correspondence between Dr. Ding and the firm of Madaus did not pass
through Poppendick personally, and that the research section of
Professor Vonkennel also had nothing to do with the whole matter as far
as it took place in Leipzig, but that the connections were somewhat
different in many respects from what might be concluded from the
statement of Kogon.
For a person like Kogon, it was, of course, difficult to take in the
connections as a whole, as he only occasionally received letters which
had anything to do with the questions dealt with here. On the basis of
letters still available, he can only draw certain retrospective
conclusions today. Therefore, in the formulation of his statements, he
exercises a certain caution, qualifying in advance things as they
happened by remarks such as “I believe,” “certainly,” and so on. (_See
also testimony, Pohl trial, 22 April 1947_;[71] _Poppendick 21,
Poppendick Ex. 20_.) For these reasons the phrase “in this case I am not
quite sure,” relating to Poppendick’s knowledge of illustrated reports
on incendiaries, can only be taken as an indication of the fact that
Kogon did not want Poppendick to be charged, through his sworn
testimony, with the knowledge of these reports, with photographs
concerning incendiaries. Poppendick has definitely declared that he
would certainly have remembered such a report with photographs if he had
received it. In this way then, the uncertain statement of Kogon is
confronted by the definite statement of the defendant, who could not be
accused of any unreliability in the course of his examination. The
contention of the defendant is supported by the three above-mentioned
affidavits which fully confirm this. Kogon then said, however: “A
report, I think * * *”—then again with a certain limitation—“which
Oberfuehrer Poppendick certainly received because Dr. Ding intended to
publish a dissertation on this in a medical journal.”
Although this last statement was made with somewhat more emphasis, but
still not with complete certainty, the following comment can be made on
it:
It is certain that Kogon had access to the entire documentary evidence
as introduced in this trial before making his statement. Without doubt
he saw the manuscript of the Ding publication on typhus (_NO-582, Pros.
Ex. 286_) with the stamp of approval “by order of Poppendick,” even if
he did not see it while still in Buchenwald during his stay in the camp.
From this he thought he could deduce that Poppendick must be the person
responsible—in spite of the words “by order”—for the approval of
scientific publications. Kogon knew from his work in Buchenwald that
Ding meant to publish a pamphlet on the treatment of burns. He therefore
took it for granted that the only way of getting official permission was
via Poppendick, whereas actually Poppendick authorized these requests
and signed them “by order of” in every case only when given special
permission by Grawitz. Neither Kogon nor we know whether such a
manuscript was ever actually sent in for publication. Even if it was
actually sent in, it is not certain that Poppendick had to grant
permission for its publication. If Poppendick actually authorized the
publication of such a pamphlet “by order of”—a fact which cannot be
proved—there is a 100 percent probability, taking the typhus manuscript
(_NO-582, Pros. Ex. 286_) as an example, that in such a publication the
question of artificially inflicting wounds on human bodies would not
have been openly mentioned but would have been just as carefully veiled
as was done in the manuscript concerning typhus treatment.
It is quite obvious, though, and even the prosecution will not dispute
this, that Poppendick otherwise played no part whatever in the
incendiary bomb experiments, and had no contact with the authorities
responsible for them, such as the Madaus Works, Dr. Ding, etc., whereby
he might have been informed of what was going on in Buchenwald also in
regard to those incendiary bomb experiments.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Doc. No. Pros. Ex. No. Description of Document Page
NO-579 288 Extracts from a report on the findings 644
of 2 January 1944, on a skin
ointment—R 17—for phosphorus burns.
NO-1080 A, 219 A, E, F Exposures of the witness Maria 901
E, F Kusmierczuk who underwent
sulfanilamide and bone experiments
while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck
concentration camp. (_See Selections
from the Photographic Evidence of the
Prosecution._)
NO-1082 A, 214 A, C Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido 903
C who underwent sulfanilamide and bone
experiments while an inmate of the
Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (_See
Selections from the Photographic
Evidence of the Prosecution._)
_Defense Documents_
Doc. No. Def. Ex. No. Description of Document
Mrugowsky Mrugowsky Ex. Extracts from the affidavit of Udo von 647
115 108 Woyrsch, 3 May 1947, concerning
experiments on combating injuries due
to phosphorus incendiary bombs.
_Testimony_
Extract from the testimony of prosecution witness Eugen Kogon 648
Extract from the testimony of defendant Mrugowsky 651
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-579
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 288
EXTRACTS FROM A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS OF 2 JANUARY 1944, ON A SKIN
OINTMENT—R 17—FOR PHOSPHORUS BURNS
_EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS_
* * * * *
_EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS_
I. Application of the phosphorus-caoutchouc mixture and immediate
removal—