a. Introduction
The defense argued that Poland lost its sovereignty as a result of the
complete occupation of Polish territory and the cessation of Polish
military resistance in September 1939 and held that in consequence
Germany could treat Polish nationals according to German law. An extract
from the closing statement of the prosecution on this point appears on
page 975. The argument, that international law concerning belligerent
occupation was thus not applicable to the treatment of Polish nationals,
appears in the extracts from the final plea for defendant Gebhardt on
pages 976 to 979.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE
PROSECUTION_[158]
* * * * *
In the case of some of the defendants, and this is especially true with
respect to Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser in connection with the
sulfanilamide experiments, it is to be expected that the argument will
be made that crimes against Polish, and perhaps also Czech nationals, do
not constitute war crimes within the meaning of Control Council Law No.
10. This argument is based upon the proposition that Germany was no
longer bound by the rules of land warfare in many of the territories
occupied during the war because Germany had completely subjugated those
countries and incorporated them into the German Reich, and therefore
Germany had the authority to deal with the occupied countries as though
they were part of Germany. Thus, the defense placed in evidence the
Russo-German Boundary and Friendship Treaty of 28 September 1939 as well
as certain German decrees concerning the administration of occupied
Poland. (_Gebhardt 14, Gebhardt Ex. 13_; _Gebhardt 15, Gebhardt Ex. 14_;
_Gebhardt 16, Gebhardt Ex. 15_.) Without stopping to argue the point
that that part of Poland administered by the so-called General
Government, from which the Polish subjects for the sulfanilamide
experiments came, was never incorporated into the Reich, it will be
sufficient to point out that this argument was disposed of by the
International Military Tribunal. In its judgment, the following was
said:[159]
“In the view of the Tribunal, it is unnecessary in this case to
decide whether this doctrine of subjugation, dependent as it is
upon military conquest, has any application where the
subjugation is the result of the crime of aggressive war. The
doctrine was never considered to be applicable so long as there
was an army in the field attempting to restore the occupied
countries to their true owners, and in this case, therefore, the
doctrine could not apply to any territories occupied after 1
September 1939.”
The argument also has no validity with respect to Czech nationals. The
International Military Tribunal said that:
“As to war crimes committed in Bohemia and Moravia, it is a
sufficient answer that these territories were never added to the
Reich, but a mere protectorate was established over them.”[160]
* * * * *
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT_[161]
* * * * *
_The Legal Status of the Experimental Subjects_
“Inmates of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp who had been sentenced
to death by German courts martial in the General Government as members
of the Polish Resistance Movement were employed as experimental subjects
(in the sulfanilamide experiments).” The witnesses questioned in Court
and all experimental subjects from whom the prosecution has submitted
affidavits have openly professed their membership of the Resistance
Movement and it must be added that some of them exercised relatively
important functions in the Resistance Movement. If the legal status of
the experimental subjects at the time of their activity in the
Resistance Movement is examined, the result will be as follows: