a. Introduction
The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that inhumane
acts and atrocities, as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the
indictment, were committed in the course of polygal experiments. These
experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of
paragraph 6 of the indictment which particularized 12 specific types of
experimentation. On this charge the defendants Handloser, Blome, and
Poppendick were acquitted and only the defendant Sievers was convicted.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the polygal experiments
is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Blome. An
extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 670 to 672. A
corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the closing brief for the defendant
Blome. It appears below on pages 672 to 675. This argumentation is
followed by selections from the evidence on pages 675 to 683.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT BLOME_
* * * * *
In order to test the effectiveness of a blood coagulant “polygal,”
Rascher carried out experiments in which inmates of the Dachau
concentration camp were shot. Rascher’s uncle, in his affidavit,
describes the murderous experiments which were carried out by his
nephew. In August 1943, he visited Rascher in Dachau and, while Rascher
was away from his office, he saw a report which he describes as follows:
“It refers to a report about the shooting (execution) of four
people for the purpose of experimenting with the hemostatic
preparation ‘Polygal 10.’ As far as I remember they were a
Russian Commissar and a cretin, I do not remember who the other
two were. The Russian was shot in the right shoulder from above
by an SS man who stood on a chair. The bullet emerged near the
spleen. It was described how the Russian twitched convulsively,
then sat down on a chair and died after about 20 minutes. In the
dissection protocol the rupture of the pulmonary vessels and the
aorta was described. It was further described that the ruptures
were tamponed by hard blood clots. That could have been the only
explanation for the comparatively long span of life after the
shot.” (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex. 462._)
This evidence is corroborated by the testimony of the witness Stoehr
(_Tr. p. 587_) and the affidavit of Pohl (_NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_). Even
the defendant Gebhardt admitted, during his testimony, that he knew that
Rascher had carried out blood coagulation experiments on concentration
camp inmates who had been shot for the purpose. (_Tr. pp. 4240-1._)
The evidence proves that Blome collaborated with Rascher in the polygal
research. This collaboration began at least as early as the middle of
1943 in connection with cancer research. (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237_; _see
also NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122, entries for 18 February, 7 April, 14 April,
and 26 June 1943_.) The defendant Sievers stated in his affidavit that:
“Blome also had full knowledge of the blood coagulation experiments at
Dachau. He received reports from Rascher and should have a complete
knowledge of these matters.” (_NO-473, Pros. Ex. 237._) Blome admitted
that Rascher had been commissioned by Himmler to work with him in the
field of blood coagulation. (_Tr. p. 4642._) One of the collaborators of
Rascher in the polygal research was an inmate of the Dachau
concentration camp by the name of Robert Feix. By letter of 15 September
1943, Rascher requested Sievers to approach Blome, so that the latter
might arrange for the release of Feix and for his reinstatement in his
former category as half-Aryan. Rascher stated in his letter that “Blome
has given me great hopes in this respect.” (_NO-611, Pros. Ex. 239._)
This proves that Blome was already collaborating with Rascher on polygal
research in the summer of 1943. Obviously, Blome would not have put
himself out to assist in this work without knowing precisely what had
been done to test polygal.
In the latter part of 1943, Rascher and Dr. Haferkamp wrote a paper on
polygal. This paper draws a clear distinction between _experiments_ on
human beings to test the effect of polygal and _clinical tests_. It
states that: “Before we tried the clinical use of the drug and had it
probed, it was tested on _human beings_ by thorough experiments as to
its influence on the period of clotting and bleeding.” Curves were
included to show the reaction of polygal on clotting and bleeding. Later
on, the paper discusses clinical observations during operations.
(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) The experiments mentioned in this paper
obviously are the ones during which inmates were shot. They were not so
described in the paper because it was written for publication. Blome
testified that the only experiments he knew about were ones where one
cubic centimeter of blood was withdrawn to see how fast it would
coagulate in a test tube. (_Tr. p. 4643._) Such tests cannot be
described as experiments. It is impossible to conceive of Rascher’s
testing a blood coagulant to be used on soldiers wounded on the
battlefield in such a manner. And this was better known to Blome at the
time than it is now to the Tribunal. He knew that Rascher had conducted
the freezing experiments with resultant loss of life. He had been
informed about the Buchenwald typhus experiments. (_Tr. p. 4640._)
Moreover, this devious explanation of Blome does not cover experiments
to test the effect of polygal on bleeding; to test blood in a test tube
covers only coagulation reaction, not bleeding reaction. So he had to
add to the implausible by saying that Rascher once told him that he or
another doctor had rubbed the upper thigh of a person under anesthetic
until it became bloody and then tested the efficacy of polygal. But
Blome said, “I didn’t take this statement of his seriously.” (_Tr. p.
4635._) The thing which cannot be taken seriously is Blome’s display of
ignorance about experiments in which the documents prove he had a direct
personal interest.
Blome approved the publication of the paper mentioned above in the
Munich Medical Weekly [Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift]. (_Tr. p.
4639; NO-616, Pros. Ex. 244._) Both Grawitz and Pohl raised objections
to the publication of the article because they had not been consulted
and because Dachau 3 K and human experimental subjects were mentioned.
(_NO-614, Pros. Ex. 245_; _NO-615, Pros. Ex. 246_.) Both these men knew
of the murderous experiments carried out by Rascher to test polygal.
Gebhardt knew. Yet Blome asks the Tribunal to assume that he was too
naive to have known; that he didn’t even believe Rascher when he was
told that he had deliberately rubbed the hide off of an inmate’s leg to
test polygal.
On 23 February 1944 Rascher received a research assignment on polygal
from the Reich Research Council. (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247._) _Blome
admitted that he issued this assignment._ (_Tr. p. 4634._) Siever’s
diary reveals that on 1 February 1944, polygal production by Rascher was
listed as a war economy industry by the Reich Research Council. On 22
February Sievers had a conference with Rascher in which supply questions
for the production of this drug, _experiments of Blome_, and the polygal
report for the defendant Gebhardt were discussed. On 24 February Sievers
had a telephone conversation with Blome in which Blome informed him that
Himmler had issued an order concerning Blome’s work in Dachau in
collaboration with Rascher, (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._) Blome admitted
that Himmler requested him to cooperate with Rascher on polygal
research. (_Tr. p. 4510._) When Ploetner took over Rascher’s work on 31
March (_Tr. p. 973_), Blome continued his interest in polygal as shown
by a telephone conversation with Sievers on this matter on 24 July.
(_Tr. p. 976._)
* * * * *
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
BLOME_
* * * * *
The question of _polygal_ was from the beginning one of the weakest
counts of the indictment against Dr. Blome. It is a remedy to make the
blood clot and to prevent people from bleeding to death as a result of
wounds inflicted in battle or by operation, or from injury due to
excessive loss of blood. This equally innocuous and beneficial remedy
was apparently made the object of a charge only because Dr. Rascher once
maintained that he had killed four concentration camp inmates with
pistol shots in order to try out polygal on them. (_NO-1424, Pros. Ex.
462_; _NO-065, Pros. Ex. 221_.) But I believe that every intelligent
person must have approached this contention of Rascher’s with the
strongest distrust, because one cannot try out a styptic on a dead
person, and Dr. Blome, like other physicians, has repeatedly assured me
that they did not understand what Dr. Rascher had in mind with such
actions, which of course had nothing to do with “experiments”. But even
on the assumption that these stories of Dr. Rascher were true—that he
had actually killed some concentration camp prisoners in order to
“experiment” on them with “polygal”—by what right can Dr. Blome be held
responsible for this, a man who knew nothing at all about these crimes
of Dr. Rascher? Dr. Blome has been waiting in vain for evidence to be
submitted by the prosecution to prove that he (Dr. Blome) had had
anything to do with those actions of Dr. Rascher, that he had at least
approved or at any rate had some knowledge of them. The document
presented by the prosecution proves that Dr. Blome can certainly not be
held responsible for the alleged shooting of four concentration camp
inmates by Dr. Rascher. (_NO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462._) This murder committed
by Dr. Rascher, if it was committed at all, happened before August 1943,
according to Document NO-1424. It was during this month that the witness
Friedrich Karl Rascher found in the writing table of his nephew, Dr.
Rascher, the report on the shooting of the four concentration camp
inmates. Dr. Blome, however, heard about polygal for the first time only
during his second visit to Himmler in August or September 1943; before
that time the matter was unknown to him. This statement by Dr. Blome
concerning the date is in agreement with the testimony of Sievers of 10
April 1947, according to which the joint visit of Dr. Blome, Sievers,
and Rascher to Himmler took place in the autumn of 1943. From this it is
evident that the murder of the four concentration camp inmates by Dr.
Rascher, if it has really any connection with polygal, happened without
doubt at a time when Dr. Blome still had no knowledge of this styptic.
Dr. Blome has rightly pointed out that it would have been a completely
incomprehensible insanity to kill people only for the purpose of testing
a styptic at a time when every day offered an abundance of material for
the observation and study of the effect of polygal in the thousands of
wounded soldiers and of patients operated on at the front as well as
among the civilian population.
In this connection it is, incidentally, quite interesting to learn from
the interrogation of the witness Neff that he never saw or observed any
such “experiments” by Dr. Rascher. Neither did Dr. Rascher tell Neff
anything about them, although Neff held a particularly confidential
position with Rascher and otherwise learned much about Rascher and his
“experiments”. Even in the camp nothing was said at the time about these
alleged “experiments” of Dr. Rascher with polygal, although it could
certainly not have been and also did not have to be kept secret in the
camp if Rascher had actually shot four concentration camp inmates in
order to carry out “experiments” on them with polygal.
These facts justify serious doubts as to whether those “experiments”
ever took place at all and especially whether they have anything to do
with the hemostatic polygal.
In reality, polygal is an absolutely harmless drug, whether it is
injected or taken in tablet form, and the use of such a drug in this
form can in no case be considered a criminal experiment against humanity
as specified by the indictment before this Tribunal. Even when
administered by injection with the subsequent drawing of a few drops of
blood from the experimental subject, it is completely harmless. It does
not cause any more “pain” than any other injection, and the whole test
of this drug consists solely of taking one cc. of blood from the vein of
the so-called experimental subject. Thus we are not dealing with any
experiment of the kind that could be considered criminal because it
causes severe pains or because it is dangerous or for any other reasons.
Besides, the concept of “criminal experiments on human beings” has
already been explained at the trial of Field Marshal Milch[77] by the
verdict of 16 April 1947; this verdict expressly limits the range of
such experiments to experiments “which could cause torture or death to
the experimental subjects.” Thus one cannot, in the present proceedings,
object to those experiments which cannot ordinarily be assumed to cause
death to the experimental subject or be accompanied by severe pain.
Neither took place when polygal was administered. For either it serves
as a hemostatic which can only be of advantage to the patient or, in the
reverse case, it simply has no effect. Polygal can never have any
harmful consequences, least of all cause any damage to health; nor could
this be claimed by the prosecution, for polygal is generally used in
surgery nowadays.
And finally, all the persons who submitted to polygal tests were
volunteers. Dr. Blome, however, could not prove this here by
interrogating the inventor of the drug, Feix, because the prosecution
prevented defense counsel from examining Feix by transferring the latter
to Dachau, whence he later escaped. The transcript of the interrogation
of Feix by the prosecution was not submitted here, even though Feix had
told me personally that he could not understand how any blame in
connection with polygal could be put on Dr. Blome. But another witness,
namely Walter Neff, testified here on the witness stand that the
experimental subjects on whom the experiments had been carried out had
volunteered, just as he himself had done. Since Neff was produced as
witness by the prosecution,[78] the latter will hardly want to declare
the testimony, sworn to by Neff, to be untrue.
The verdict of 16 April 1947 against Field Marshal Milch quoted above,
states explicitly that medical experiments are punishable only when
carried out without the consent of the subjects. Furthermore,
punishability presumes that the experiments were a “torture” for the
experimental subject or jeopardized his life. Both conditions obviously
do not apply to polygal. Thus one comes to the conclusion that it would
have been better not to mention within the limits of this trial subjects
where even the closest observer has to look very carefully to see
whether he could not possibly find anything to object to.
This applies especially to the report of the Institute for Military
Scientific Research (Department Rascher), on coagulation of blood.
(_NO-438, Pros. Ex. 240._) In this report, the author, Dr. Rascher,
emphasizes the importance of “Polygal 10” for combat troops and in
operations and describes five operations where polygal was used with
good results. There can be no doubt that those were five bona fide
operations which were performed on patients in an entirely legitimate
way and which tested polygal’s effectiveness in stopping bleedings in an
absolutely proper manner, as it is usually done, with similar drugs. It
is inconceivable how a conclusion of illegal “experiments” could have
been drawn from that report.
One of these five legitimate operations, by the way, is described in a
report by the camp physician Dr. Kahr, dated 12 October 1943 [10
December 1943] (_NO-656, Pros. Ex. 247_); it does not offer any basis
for assuming an “experiment”. In this connection it is worthwhile to
note that Dr. Blome himself, in his affidavit of 25 October 1946
(_NO-471, Pros. Ex. 238_), under section 8 describes the use of polygal
in cases of “battle wounds and operations”, but deals with “experiments
on human beings” only in the next section, 9. Therefore, Dr. Blome knew
from the beginning that polygal had nothing to do with “experiments on
human beings”.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-1424 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich Karl Rascher, M. 676
D., 31 December 1946, concerning the life
and activities of Dr. Sigmund Rascher.
NO-438 240 Report from the Institute for Military 676
Scientific Research, (Department Dr.
Rascher) on “Polygal 10.”
NO-656 247 Memorandum by SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Wolff, 680
8 May 1944; letters from Dr. Kahr to
Rascher, 10 and 16 December 1943.
_Testimony_
Page
Extracts from the testimony of defendant Sievers 682
TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-1424
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 462
AFFIDAVIT OF FRITZ FRIEDRICH KARL RASCHER, M. D., 31 DECEMBER 1946,
CONCERNING THE LIFE AND ACTIVITIES OF DR. SIGMUND RASCHER