_Title_: Trench Fever Report of Commission Medical Research Committee,
American Red Cross, University Press 1918. Trench Fever, Bruce, Final
Report of the War Trench Fever Investigation Committee, Journal of
Hygiene 1921, page 258.
_Quotation_: Reference in Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic
Micro-organisms. VIII/1, 1302, (1930).
_Purpose_: “The American Commission (President: Strong, Members: Swift,
Ople, McNeal, Beetjew, Pappenheimer, Peacoc, Rapport) interpreted its
task in a preponderantly practical way, trying to clarify the methods
of transmission and to safeguard the troops from infection. The
English Commission (President: Bruce. Members: Harvey, Bacot, Byam,
Trench, Arkwright, Fletcher, Hird, Plimmer) set itself the task of
investigating the disease completely and thoroughly, particularly also
the causative agent.”
_Experiment_: “The experiments of the English-American Commissions,
those of transmitting Quintana with the entire blood were largely
positive, and the intravenous injection showed better results than the
intramuscular and particularly the subcutaneous.
“Experiments for the transmission of lice were carried out by the
English and American Commissions on the two bases: The bite of lice
and the rubbing in of infected lice secretion.”
The first announcement of the American Commission on successful
transmission of lice came on 14 February 1918; the first successful
experiment on the transmission of lice of the English Commission on 9
March.
_Transmission Experiments_:
with Plasma positive in 7 cases
with Serum negative
with red blood corpuscles positive 3 times in 4 experiments
with blood from skin which has negative
been scratched
_Infection_:
with secretion of lice positive
with sputum and saliva positive once in 4 experiments
with urine of patients rubbed into positive 5 times in 8 experiments
the skin
through the conjunctiva positive
through the urethra not successful
through the mouth not successful
through food and drink not successful
_Experimental persons_: Approximately at least 100
_Result_: Clarification of the etiology and the methods of transmission.
_Excerpts from the Original Report No. 25_
_Author_: Hamdi.
_Title_: Results of Immunization Tests against Typhus.
_Quotation_: Journal for Hygiene 1916, 82. Quoted in
Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-organisms VIII/2,
1204 (1930).
_Purpose_: See title.
_Experiment_: “By means of virulent blood of patients, Hamdi was in a
position to check on a large number of persons who had been treated
before partly with the blood of patients (80), partly with the blood
of reconvalescents (54), partly with a mixture of both blood types
(19) * * *. Upon the infection with the blood of patients, none of the
thrice protectively vaccinated persons became ill, two out of seven
persons who had been protectively vaccinated only twice became ill.”
_Experimental persons_: “In the first place, these experiments concerned
persons who had been sentenced to death for crimes,”
“* * * large number * * *.”
_Result_: Effectiveness of protective vaccination was proved.
_Excerpt from Original Report No. 26_
_Author_: Doerr, R.
_Title_: Pappataci Fever and Dengue.
_Quotation_: Kolle-Kraus-Uhlenhut, Manual of Pathogenic Micro-organisms
VIII/1, 501 et seq. (1930).
_Purpose_: Research in Etiology and Transmission of Pappataci Fever.
_Experiment_: II. Pappataci Fever. Page 508: “The organism circulates in
the blood of the patients during the first 24 hours after the
beginning of the fever. Its presence is betrayed only from the
pathogenicity (infectivity) of the blood for healthy and receptive
(not immune) human beings. If such an individual were to be injected
with the blood of a subcutaneously feverish person he would fall ill *
* * of a fever attack typical in every respect. This experiment was at
first successfully performed by Doerr (1908), later by Doerr and Russ
in the Hercegovina, by Birt in Malta, by Tedeschi and Napolitani in
Italy, by Lepine (Three Days Fever in Syria, Bull. Soc. path. exot.
_20_, 251, 1927) in Syria. The experiment was repeated by Kligler and
Ashner in Palestine and furnished positive results in about 35 single
experiments. In this connection it must be considered that, almost
without exception, the inoculated persons lived in areas free from
epidemics and phlebotomus so that an accidental natural infection was
out of the question from the beginning.”
Page 513: “But Whittingham and Rook brought infected phlebotomus
from Malta to England. They succeeded in breeding imagines from the
eggs of flies laid in England and infecting human beings by the bites
of these flies, that is producing fever attacks. In this way, the
question of where the virus of the Pappataci fever remains over the
winter would apparently be answered.”
_Experimental persons_: About 35.
_Result_: Determination and confirmation of the etiology and the method
of transmission.
_Report After the Original No. 33_
_Author_: Goldberger, Joseph (USA Public Health Service 1914).
_Quoted from_: Bernhard Jaffe, Scientists in America, Overseas Edition
Incorporated, New York 1944, page 401 et seq.
_Purpose_: Proof that pellagra is a deficiency disease.
_Experiment_: One-sided deficiency diet (restricted in quality) which
caused 7 severe cases of pellagra.
_Experimental persons_: 12 voluntary prisoners of the Rankin-Prison-Farm
to whom their freedom was promised after survival of the experiment,
with the agreement of the governor of the state. All survived and were
set free.
_Excerpt from Original 44_
_Author_: Fraenkel, E.
_Title_: Report on Infectious Colpitis Epidemica Observed in Children.
_Quoted from_: Arch. Path. Anath. a. Physiol. (Virchow) _99_, 251
(1885).
_Purpose_: Page 263: Confirmation of the suspicion of an “infection of
the conjunctiva caused by vaginal secretion.” Animal tests showed
negative results.
_Experiment_: Page 263: “By chance I had the possibility to inoculate
the vaginal secretion (of sick women) into the conjunctiva of 3
children patients who were in the final stage of the disease (two were
suffering from atrophia infantum, the third from cheesy pneumonia) * *
*.”
Page 264: “The two pus-producing patients had suffered for
several weeks from their colpitis.”
_Result_: 2 children died—1½ and 2 days after the inoculation without
showing any reactions. The third child contracted conjunctivitis,
which healed after treatment, and died on the 10th day.
_Experimental subjects_: 3 moribund children.
_Excerpt from Original 48_
_Author_: Current Comment. Summary of a study taken from Epidemiology
Unit No. 50.
_Title_: Cholera Studies in Calcutta.
_Quotation_: Journal of the American Medical Association _130_, 790
(1946).
_Aim_: Page 790: “* * * control experiment on the treatment of cholera *
* *.”
_Experiment_: Page 790: “* * * in a highly endemic or epidemic area of
India, patients were taken in rotation as they were admitted to the
hospital and assigned to the following group according to the
treatment given:
A, sulfaguanidine;
B, control;
C, sulfadiacine;
D, penicillin; and
E, sulfadiacine and penicillin combined.
All patients received supportive treatment in the form of i.v.
hypertonic and isotonic solution of sodium chloride and oral
stimulants as indicated of offset dehydration, emaciation, and
circulatory failure.”
_Result_: Page 791:
1. Patient treated with plasma in addition to chemo-therapy:
death rate: zero.
2. Patients receiving chemo-therapy alone: death rate 1.1
percent.
3. Control group consisting of all patients who had not received
treatment or who had insufficient treatment or only supportive
treatment: death rate 38.3 percent.
“The dramatic effect of plasma is still more evident if the shock
or collapse cases are segregated and tabulated. There were, in all,
78 severely ill patients in that group. The results in the group
showed a mortality rate of 95.8 percent for the control group, 15.8
percent for the chemo-therapy, and no mortality in the group treated
with plasma plus chemo-therapy.”
_Experimental subjects_:
No numbers given, presumably several hundred, nonvoluntary as
clinical serial tests.
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT KARL BRANDT 117
KARL BRANDT DEFENSE EXHIBIT 103
EXCERPTS FROM THE DISSERTATION “INFECTION EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS”
BY ALFRED HEILBRUNN OF THE HYGIENE INSTITUTE OF THE WUERZBURG
UNIVERSITY, 1937, CONCERNING EXPERIMENTS ON HUMAN BEINGS IN OTHER
COUNTRIES
_Excerpt from “Infection Experiment on Human Beings”_
Inaugural Dissertation for the Attainment of the Degree of a Doctor of
Medicine at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University of Berlin;
submitted by: Alfred Heilbrunn,
Hofgeismar (Hesse Nassau) 1937
From the Hygiene Institute of Wuerzburg University. (Dean: Professor M.
Knorr)
Printed by: F. W. Gadow and Son, Hildburghausen.
(The pamphlet is in the library of the Erlangen University.)
* * * * *
_MALARIA_
Infection experiments with malaria take up much space in literature. The
desire to acquire an exact knowledge of this disease, so important to
various countries, makes this fact appear quite understandable.
Therefore, numerous experiments on human beings were carried out even
before the discovery of the plasmodium malariae and without knowledge of
the transmission by anopheles. In the following enumeration, these
experiments will be quoted chronologically, thus giving a picture of how
the knowledge of the etiology, the infectiousness and the transmission
of malaria, was discovered through infection experiments on human
beings.
1. (LV 7) * * * SALISBURY (quoted from Mannaberg: Malaria Diseases,
Vienna 1899. Nothnagel, Special Pathology and Therapy II 2.) * * *
Experiment: * * * Two * * * men * * * after 12 and 14 days, fell ill
with typical tertiana. The same experiment in a second case again turned
out a positive result.
2. (LV 8) * * * DOCHMANN (Dochmann: The Doctrine of febris intermittens.
St. Petersburg Medical Journal. No. 20, quoted from Virchow-Hirsch 1880)
* * *. His experiments * * *. 1st experiment: He inoculated * * * a
healthy 30-year-old man subcutaneously with * * * feverish chills.
* * * * *
2d experiment: * * * Inoculation of three men * * *
1st man: * * * fever
2d man: Only passing indisposition.
3d man: Stayed completely well.
3d experiment: Inoculation of a woman * * *
* * * shivering fits, fever, * * *
3. (LV 9) * * * GERHARD (Gerhard: quoted from Olpp: Famous Tropical
Physicians Publ. Quello, Tuebingen) * * * transmitted * * * malaria from
a sick person to a healthy one through subcutaneous blood injections.
* * * * *
4. (LV 10) * * * MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI (Marchiafava and Celli: New
Research on Malaria Infection, Progress of Medicine, 1885, 787, 795) * *
* Five experiments were carried out on patients suffering from nervous
disorders.
1. Experiment: Experimental subject a 17-year-old man with myelitis
transversa * * *
* * * progress of fever
* * * spasm * * *
* * * swelling of the spleen * * *
An examination of the blood gave an excellent confirmation of the
malaria nature of the fever attacks * * *
2. Experiment: Experimental subject a 68-year-old man with hemichorea.
* * * * *
Characteristic attack of malaria, * * * moderate spleen tumor.
3. Experiment: Experimental subject a 32-year-old man with multiple
sclerosis.
* * * * *
* * * characteristic attacks, spleen tumor.
* * * * *
4. Experiment: Experimental subject a 47-year-old man with multiple
sclerosis.
* * * * *
No pathological manifestations in the blood picture.
5. Experiment: Experimental subject a 23-year-old man with poliomyelit.
ant.
* * * * *
* * * fever * * *
These experiments showed that—
(1) in the blood of malaria patients, corpuscles were often
found in the interior of the red blood corpuscles in amoeboic
movement and susceptible to coloring with aniline.
(2) the disease is transmissible, and that the same amoeboic
formations were found in the blood of the experimental subjects
as in the blood of the donors. The scientists carried on the
work on the basis of these results and came to the conclusion
that these amoeboic corpuscles were the morbific agents of
malaria. In order to be quite sure they made another inoculation
experiment.
Experimental subject was a 43-year-old man with paralysis
agitans.
* * * * *
* * * continual subnormal temperature accompanied by bad general
condition . . .
* * * plasmodia moving in the blood * * *
5. (LV 11) The experiments of MARCHIAFAVA and CELLI are confirmed by a
whole series of other Italian authors. I found the experiments in the
book of MANNABERG (page 7) in the form of tables and reproduce them here
in the same way. (vide pages 10-13) * * *
(LV 12) CELLI (Celli: quoted from Mannaberg (7)) had several
persons in the Roman hospital S. Spirito drink water from the
Pontinc Marshes and from the marshes near Rome and found that
these persons did not contract malaria.
(LV. 13) BRANCALEONE (Brancaleone: quoted from Mannaberg (7))
repeated the same experiment in Sicily with the same negative
result.
(LV. 14) ZERI (Zeri: quoted from Mannaberg (7)) had 9 persons,
for a period of 5-20 days, drink 1.5 litres of water each (in
toto 10-60 l.) from a malaria district; he let 16 persons inhale
the same water when sprayed. He administered it to 5 persons per
rectum: none of the experimental persons got malaria. Also
SALOMONE MARIO (LV. 15: Mario quoted from Mannaberg (7))
registered the same negative result.
* * * * *
No results were found in support of the water theory. It only
remained to examine whether mosquitoes transmitted malaria
through their sting.
6. (LV. 18) * * * BASTIANIELI (vide Mannaberg (7)) * * * To imitate the
sting of the mosquito he did nothing but insert the point of the Pravaz
syringe, moistened with malaria blood, under the skin. That sufficed in
some cases to produce a severe case of malaria.
* * * * *
7. (LV. 20) * * * 1895 ROSS (Ross, page 9) let 4 mosquitoes of the
species anopheles suck themselves full on the Indian Abdul Radir who had
numerous crescent-shaped formations in his blood, and on 25 May he let
the twenty-year-old Lutschmann, who was stated never to have been sick
before, be stung by them. On 5 June the latter contracted fever which
lasted for 3 days.
* * * * *
8. (LV. 23) In 1917 WAGNER-JAUREGG (Wagner-Jauregg: Psych. neurol.
weekly 1918) introduced artificial malaria infection to cure progressive
paralysis. Following this, now experiments were initiated.
* * * * *
9. (LV. 25) F. MUEHLENS and W. KIRSCHBAUM (Muehlens and Kirschbaum:
Further Parasitological Observations on Artificial Malaria Infection of
Paralytics. Archives for Ship and Tropical Hygiene 1924, Vol. 28, No. 4,
page 131) in 1924 report on artificial malaria infection for the
treatment of paralysis.
* * * * *
_DIPHTHERIA_
* * * * *
Despite the Behring therapeutic serum and the protective vaccine
developed by Behring, the field of diphtheria immunity has always
interested various research experts. Their efforts were all directed
toward developing safe, _active_ immunity.
48. (LV. 137) As early as 1902 DZIERGOWSKY (Dziergowsky, quoted from
Seeligmann and Happe: The Position of the Active Protective Vaccine
against Diphtheria. Result of Hygiene 11, 1930) reported on several
experiments to protect human beings against diphtheria by a number of
subcutaneous injections with a gradually increasing dose of
Diphtheria-Toxin.
* * * * *
49. (LV. 138) BLUMENAU (Blumenau, page 137) worked on this principle in
1909. He soaked cotton wads in undiluted toxin and placed them
alternately in the right and then in the left nostril of children from
3-12 years of age. He attained an antitoxin titer increase of up to 10
A.E. per ccm. of serum.
50. (LV. 139) BANDI and GAGNONI worked with killed bacteria (Bandi and
Gagnoni, page 137). They injected measles convalescents with a 4-day-old
crush of diphtheria bacilli cultures on agar which had been killed at
55° Centigrade * * *.
51. (LV. 141) BOEHME and RIEBOLD (Boehme and Riebold, One Way of Active
Immunization against Diphtheria, Munich Medical Weekly 1924, 232) were
the first to use living diphtheria bacilli for vaccination of human
beings. After extensive experiments on guinea pigs, they proceeded to
experiment on human beings. They used a diphtheria lymph, which they
named Diphcutan, a mixture of living, highly toxic diphtheria bacilli
cultures in N_{a}C1. Sixty-two persons were vaccinated with this lymph
with 10-20 scratches each on the upper arm. Those vaccinated were—
22 children from 1½-5 years of age,
11 children from 6-10 years of age,
17 children from 10-15 years of age,
2 youths from 15-20 years of age, and
9 adults from 20-50 years of age.
* * * * *
52. (LV. 142) EBERHARD (Eberhard, Contributions toward active
Immunization against Diphtheria. Hygiene Journal 105, page 614) tested 4
different vaccines produced by the Marburger Behringwerke for their
suitability for immunization of humans and for use in public vaccination
stations.
* * * * *
53. (LV. 143) BAYER used the lymph suggested by BOEHME and RIEBOLD
(Bayer, On active Immunization against Diphtheria. Yearbook of Infant
Therapeutics 1925, 273) and vaccinated 87 children with it * * *.
54. (LV. 144) MUELLER and MEYER (Mueller and Meyer, Diagnosis and
Immunization of children threatened with Diphtheria. Journal of Infant
Therapeutics 39, 405, 1925). They also checked the experiments by BOEHME
and RIEBOLD with the same methods, vaccinated 53 children who had shown
a positive reaction to the SCHICK test.
* * * * *
_TYPHUS_
55. (LV. 149) REITANO (Reitano, quoted from Rontal, Journal of
Bacteriology 1933 III, page 112) vaccinated human beings with virus
contained in dog ticks and produced typhus.
56. (LV. 150) One immunization experiment dating from the World War cost
the lives of 50 Turkish soldiers. In the year 1915 immunization
experiments against typhus were to be carried out in the hospitals of
the 3d Turkish Army with inactivated blood from a diseased person. The
doctor concerned took the blood from typhus convalescents and injected
it, as HAMDI (Hamdi, On the Results of Immunization Experiments against
Typhus-Exanthem. Hygiene Journal, 1916, 235) reports without having
inactivated it, into 120 soldiers. Each received 5 ccm. subcutaneously.
One soldier died after 14 days, others contracted typhus which, however,
progressed in a satisfactory manner. After this the doctor vaccinated
another 310 soldiers in the same way. Of these, 174 became ill and 49
died. On the average the incubation period was 12 days.
* * * * *
_PLAGUE_
62. (LV. 165) * * * BULARD (A. F. Bulard, De Moru, The Oriental Plague,
Paris 1839) * * *
* * * * *
Experiments continued to be carried out on condemned persons. On 17
August at 8 o’clock in the morning, 18-year-old Ibrahim Hassan, who had
been condemned to death, was dressed in the shirt, underwear, and jacket
of a person seriously ill with the plague. Immediately after this he was
placed in the bed of one of the patients which was still warm from the
patient’s fever. Until 21 August there was no sign that even the
slightest infection had taken place. No symptoms of the disease had
developed. On the evening of the same day, however, he complained of a
slight headache, loss of energy started, the blood circulation
accelerated * * *
A Plague Bubo developed in the left groin * * * 25 August: Further
vomiting of dark green matter. The tongue is dry and has a slightly
brackish appearance. The pulse is light and quick. Respiration is jerky,
the features are distorted. In the night death occurs.
On 7 August at 8 o’clock in the evening, Mohammed Ben Ali who has been
condemned to death was dressed in the shirt, underwear, and jacket of a
person seriously ill with the plague. Immediately thereafter he was
placed in the patient’s bed. Until the 22d no symptoms of disease. On
the morning of the 23d severe outbreak of the disease. Tottering gait,
then walking impossible. Extreme loss of energy, appearance of being
seriously ill * * *
* * * * *
On 18 August we inoculated a person condemned to death with blood
through 4 vaccinational cuts in the fold of the right arm. This blood
was taken from a head vein of a plague patient who had been ill for 2
days * * *
On 22 and 30 August a second person, condemned to death, with a
plethoric constitution and of strong build was inoculated with blood.
The first time in a fold of the left arm and in the right groin area,
the second time in the opposite positions. On the area of the
vaccination only the natural reddening and infections caused by the
vaccination instrument appeared, nothing else.
* * * * *
“A third person condemned to death was inoculated with the fluid taken
from a Plague Bubo in the groin and in the shoulder. This same person
had dressed in the clothes of a plague patient 20 days previously and
had contracted the plague with all its severe symptoms. The skin and
tissue of this experimental subject remained refractory towards any
absorption of the poison. Even when the inoculation with blood was
repeated 8 days later, no disease resulted.”
* * * * *
_SMALLPOX_
In 1791, the teacher Plett of Holstein successfully vaccinated three of
his landlord’s children in Starkendorf near Kiel. Later on when an
epidemic occurred they did not contract the disease, while their
brothers and sisters which had not been vaccinated fell sick.
81. (LV. 220) JENNER started from these premises. (Jenner, quoted from
Paschen, K.Kr.U., Manual on pathological micro-organisms, T. VIII, 1,
P821). In his first test, he inoculated with variola 16 persons who had
suffered from cowpox previously. They did not fall sick.
In 1796, a milkmaid who suffered from a finger injury contracted an
infection when milking a cow sick with cowpox. She developed a case of
cowpox. With the contents of one pustule, Jenner vaccinated a boy. The
boy developed typical vaccine pustules at the vaccination area of his
arm. Two weeks later, Jenner carefully inoculated the boy on both arms
with new pustule matter. No sickness ensued, and a second inoculation
also was negative. Thus, clear proof was furnished that cowpox
transmitted to human beings possessed the same protective value as that
produced in animals.
However, another epidemic was necessary before Jenner’s success was
recognized. In this instance he inoculated 6 children directly from the
cow. They developed a slight infection, and a subsequent inoculation
failed.
The success of Jenner’s experimental infections on human beings have
resulted in a blessing for all mankind inasmuch as his fundamental
experiments on human beings have caused the extermination of variola in
all countries that have compulsory vaccination.
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT
WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY[27]
* * * * *
_CROSS-EXAMINATION_
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you are an expert in the field of aviation
medicine?
WITNESS DR. IVY: Yes.
Q. May I ask you what fields within aviation medicine you have worked on
specifically, because my clients, who are recognized specialists in this
field, attach importance to ascertaining precisely what fields you have
worked in particularly?
A. I have worked particularly in the field of decompression or pressure
drop sickness, and I have also worked in the field of anoxia or exposure
to altitude repeatedly at a level of 18,000 feet to ascertain if that
has any effect in the causation of pilots’ fatigue.
Q. At what time did you specifically concern yourself with the fields
you have just named? Was that before the Second World War, during the
Second World War, or was it earlier than that?
A. My interest in these fields of aviation medicine, including free fall
which I did not mention, started in 1939.
Q. Regarding your specific work in this field, Witness, you have also
issued publications. I believe you spoke of two publications. Did I
understand you correctly, or were there more?
A. There were two in the field of decompression sickness. There was one
publication in the field of the effects of repeated exposure to a mild
degree of oxygen lack. My other work has not yet been published but was
submitted in the form of reports to the Committee on Aviation Medicine
of the National Research Council of the United States.
Q. When were these two papers published of which you just told us; when,
and were they printed by a publishing house? Did they appear in a
journal or a periodical?
A. One appears in the Journal of Aviation Medicine either in September
or October of 1946. The other appears in the Journal of the American
Medical Association in either December or January 1946 or 1947. The
publication on the effect of repeated exposure to mild degrees of oxygen
lack at altitude appears in the quarterly bulletin of Northwestern
University Medical School and part of the work, insofar as its effect on
the elimination of the basis in the urine is concerned, appeared in the
Journal of Biological Chemistry around 1944 or 1945, I am not sure of
that date.
Q. Theretofore, Witness, you had thus made no publication in the field
of aviation medicine before the papers of which you just gave the dates
of publication?
A. The question is not clear.
Q. You just gave us the titles of the publications you have published
and when; now I ask whether before the dates you just gave, you did not
have any publications in the field of aviation medicine?
A. No. My first research started in 1939.
Q. You, yourself, have carried out experiments too; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. With human experimental subjects, of course?
A. Yes, and on myself.
Q. And with a low pressure chamber?
A. Yes.
Q. Were these frequent experiments, or were the experiments in which
you, yourself, took part only infrequent in number?
A. The experiments in which I took part were infrequent in number
compared to the total number of experiments which I performed.
Q. Did you take part in these experiments as the director of the
experiments, as the person responsible, or were you usually the
experimental subject yourself?
A. I served in both capacities. For example, I have frequently gone to
the altitude of 40,000 feet to study the symptoms of bends with an
intermediate pressure device, which we produced in our laboratory. I
have been to 47,500 feet on three or four occasions, on one occasion at
52,000 feet for half an hour. I have frequently been to 18,000 feet
without supplemental oxygen in order to study the effect of the degree
of oxygen lack present there for my ability to perform psycho-motor
tests.
Q. Can you tell us approximately during what year you began these
experiments of your own?
A. In 1939.
Q. 1939; did you at this time carry out explosive decompression
experiments too? Witness, one moment please, the English for that is
“explosive decompression.” That is thus the experiment in which one
ascends slowly to a certain height, let us say 8,000 meters, and then
all at once suddenly one is brought up to a height of 15,000 meters;
that is, first slowly up to 8,000 and then suddenly to, let us say,
15,000—that is what I understand under the term “explosive
decompression” experiment, and my question is: whether you also carried
out such experiments and if so when and to what extent?
A. I carried out over one hundred experiments on explosive decompression
in various laboratories on animals, the rabbit, the dog, the pig, and
the monkey. I did not serve as a subject myself in experiments on
explosive decompression, but a student who was trained with me in
physiology, Dr. J. J. Smith, did the first experiments on explosive
decompression in which human subjects were used, at Wright Field. I am
familiar with the work which Dr. Hitchcock did on this subject at Ohio
State University in which he studied some one hundred students under
conditions of explosive decompression.
Q. To what altitude, Witness; to what maximum altitude did you carry
your own explosive decompression experiments?
A. In animals it was up to 50,000 feet; in the case of human subjects,
the maximum was 47,500 with pressure breathing equipment.
Q. This altitude you reached in your own experiments. Now, Doctor, it
would interest me to know to what maximum altitude have any experiments
in explosive decompression been carried in America; what do you know
about this maximum altitude?
A. I believe that 47,500 or slightly above is the maximum.
Q. Witness, do you know the German Physiologist Dr. Rein; Professor
Rein, do you know his name; R-e-i-n from Goettingen?
A. Yes.
Q. At the moment he is the Ordinarius for Physiology at Goettingen, he
is a rector at the university and a member of the Scientific Advisory
Committee for the British Zone. On the basis of your own knowledge, do
you consider Professor Rein an authoritative scientist in the field of
physiology and aviation medicine?
A. I consider him an authoritative physiologist, I am not acquainted
with his work in the field of aviation medicine.
Q. Mr. President, I previously put in evidence—I want to recall that
now—an expert opinion from this Dr. Rein regarding Dr. Ruff. (_Ruff 5,
Ruff Ex. 3._) This expert testimony is from Professor Rein.
In your own experiments, Witness, you also used conscientious objectors,
is that not so? Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, in some of the experiments.
Q. Will you tell us why you used conscientious objectors? Were they
particularly adapted for these experiments; or what was the reason for
you, as one conducting experiments, to use especially conscientious
objectors?
A. It was their duty, their volunteer duty to render public service.
They had nothing else to do but to render public service. In the
experiments in which we used the conscientious objectors, they could
devote their full attention to the experiments. Many of the subjects,
which I have used, have been medical students or dental students, who
besides serving as subjects had to attend their studies in schools. In
the experiments we did on the conscientious objectors, they could not
attend school at the same time and carry on or perform all the tests
they were supposed to perform. For example, we used a group of
conscientious objectors for repeated exposure to an altitude of 18,000
feet without the administration of supplemental oxygen. These tests
involved the following of a strict diet, they involved the performance
of work tests and psycho-motor tests, which required several hours every
day to perform. Another group of conscientious objectors that I used
were used for vitamin studies in relation to fatigue.
These conscientious objectors had to do a great deal of carefully
measured work during the day as well as to perform psycho-motor tests so
medical students or dental students could not be used. We had to have
subjects who could spend their full time on the experiments.[28]
* * * * *
Q. Witness, from the answers that you have given so far, I am still not
clear in my mind precisely why you hit upon conscientious objectors in
particular as the experimental subjects. You said there were two groups
of them: some were in prison and some had to perform public service.
From the latter group you took your experimental subjects, but please
give me a clear answer to the question: Why did you specifically use
such conscientious objectors for your altitude experiments?
A. They could devote full time to the experimental requirements. They
did not have to do any other work as was the case of medical students or
dental students, the only other type of subjects that I had available to
me.
Q. Doctor, these persons were obliged to perform public service. If
these conscientious objectors had not been there or if they had been
used for public service, then you would not have had any experimental
subjects. There must be a specific reason why you specifically used
conscientious objectors and I ask you, please, to tell me that reason.
A. Well, we could not have done the experiments unless the conscientious
objectors had been available. That is the answer to your question.
Q. Could you not have used prisoners, even conscientious objectors who
refused to do public service and were therefore in prison without doing
any work? Could you not have used them?
A. Well, that would have meant that I and my assistants would have to go
to the prison which was quite a distance away. The conscientious
objectors could come to us at the university where they could live in
the university dormitory or in the university hospital.
Q. Doctor, if your experiments were really important—perhaps important
in view of the state of war—then it is difficult to understand why the
experiments could not have been carried out in a prison, let us say.
Other experiments have been carried out in prisons to a large extent,
and on another occasion. Doctor, you told us that you simply had to get
in touch with the prisoners; you simply wrote them a letter or you put
up a notice on the bulletin board and then, to a certain extent, you had
prisoners available. Can you give me no other information as to why you
used specifically and only conscientious objectors?
A. No. If it had been convenient and necessary for me to use prisoners,
I believe that we could have had prisoner volunteers for this work.
Q. Witness, were you ever in a penitentiary as a visitor?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see there how the criminals condemned to death were housed?
A. Yes.
Q. Are they completely at liberty there or are the criminals condemned
to death locked up in their cells?
A. They were locked up in their cells.
Q. Now, can you please tell us how a criminal condemned to death is to
see the notice that you would put on the bulletin board? You told us
today that it was very simple—you simply put a notice on the bulletin
board—and for hours now I have been trying to figure out how a criminal
condemned to death, who is locked up in his cell, is going to see that
notice on the bulletin board.
A. While these prisoners are taken out for their meals, they can pass by
a bulletin board, or a piece of paper with the statement on it which I
read can be placed in their cells for reading or, as a large group in
the dining room, the statement can be read to them.
Q. Are criminals condemned to death together at meals in America? So far
as I know, there too the criminal condemned to death is given his food
through an opening in the cell door; he cannot eat in a common mess
hall.
A. Yes. But you must recall that I did not specify that the criminals
which were used for malaria experiments were prisoners condemned to
death; neither did I specify that if I were to go to a penitentiary to
see if I could get volunteers for a nutrition experiment that I should
select prisoners condemned to death.
Q. If you are speaking here of condemned criminals as experimental
subjects, are you speaking of criminals condemned to death or just of
criminals who have just received some sentence or other?
A. I have not used prisoners or criminals condemned to death. You have
been using that statement. I have used prisoners.
Q. You spoke only of prisoners then?
A. That is correct.
Q. Are those prisoners in pre-trial imprisonment who have not yet been
put on trial or are those prisoners who have already received some
sentence?
A. Prisoners who have already received some sentence.
Q. In other words, prisoners who have been condemned or sentenced?
A. But not necessarily to death.
Q. Yes, other sentences, aside from the death sentence, included. Did
you as a scientist interest yourself in the question of why a person was
sentenced, for what crimes he was sentenced?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you at least concern yourself with the question whether the man
was condemned, was sentenced by a regular court or a court martial, or
an extraordinary court?
A. None of these prisoners would have been sentenced by a court martial;
they would have been sentenced by an ordinary civilian court.
Q. How do you know? Did you see the personal files of these prisoners or
did you see the opinions and sentences on the basis of which the
prisoner had been incarcerated?
A. Only on the basis of the type of prisoner that would be incarcerated
in a certain penitentiary.
Q. How do you, as a doctor, know exactly what sort of prisoner is
incarcerated in this penitentiary and what sort of prisoner is
incarcerated in another prison? How do you know that?
A. That’s a matter of common knowledge to one who reads the newspapers,
the press, and who is generally informed on such matters. In a Federal
penitentiary then you might have prisoners who have been incarcerated
because of court martial.
Q. Are inmates of Federal penitentiaries used for experiments too, as
far as you know?
A. Yes. They may be.
Q. In other words, political prisoners too, that is, prisoners who were
condemned by a court martial or by another court?
A. We have no political prisoners in the United States.
Q. Are not prisoners condemned for high treason or treason and the like?
Those are political crimes.
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. For conspiring with the enemy during the war; such cases have not
only arisen but they have also been punished, and you must know that
from reading your newspaper, Professor; those are political prisoners.
Do you not have those in America?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Doctor, if I understood you correctly, you stated this morning that a
medical experiment with fatal consequences is to be designated either as
an execution or as a murder; is that what you said?
A. I did not say that.
Q. What did you say then?
A. It was more or less as I quoted it, as I remember, I said that under
the circumstances which surrounded the first death in high-altitude
experiments at Dachau, which Dr. Romberg is alleged to have witnessed,
Dr. Rascher killed the subject; that the death could be viewed only as
an execution or as a murder; and if the subject were a volunteer, then
his death could not be viewed as an execution.
Q. Witness, in your opinion, is there a difference whether the
experiments are to be traced back to the initiative of the experimenter
himself, or whether they are ordered by some authoritative office of the
state which also assumes the responsibility for them?
A. Yes. There is a difference, but that difference does not pertain, in
my opinion, to the moral responsibilities of the investigator toward his
experimental subject.
Q. I cannot understand that, Doctor. I can imagine that the state gives
an experimenter the order, particularly during wartime, to carry out
certain experiments, and that in peacetime, on his own initiative, the
researcher would not carry out such experiments unless he was ordered to
by the state. You must recognize this difference yourself.
A. That does not carry over to the moral responsibility of the
individual to his experimental subject. I do not believe that the state
can assume the responsibility of ordering a scientist to kill people in
order to obtain knowledge.
Q. Witness, that is not the question. I am not interested in whether the
state can order some one to murder; I am interested in the question
whether, in your opinion, the state can order, let us say dangerous
experiments, experiments in which perhaps fatalities may occur. In
America, too, deaths occurred several times in experiments; what is your
view on this?
A. The state, as far as I know, in the United States of America has
never ordered scientists to perform any experiment where death is likely
to occur.
Q. Doctor, I did not say where death was probable, I said where death is
possible, and I ask you to answer the question I put to you. If deaths
are probable, then you are correct, then it is murder. If deaths are
possible, then I want to know what you say to that. And, let me remind
you, Doctor, that even in the American Air Force deaths did occur; in
other words, death was possible.
A. Yes, I agree that it is possible for deaths to occur accidentally in
experiments which are hazardous. As I said in my testimony under such
conditions when they do occur, their cause is investigated very
thoroughly as well as the circumstances surrounding the death.
* * * * *
Q. Witness, you spoke yesterday of a number of experiments carried out
in the United States and in other countries outside of Germany. For
example, pellagra, swamp fever, beri-beri, plague, etc. Now, I should
like to have a very clear answer from you to the following question. In
these experiments which you heard of partly from persons involved in
them and partly from international literature, did deaths occur during
the experiments and as a result of the experiments or not? Professor, I
ask you this question because you said yesterday that you examined all
international literature concerning this question and, therefore, have a
certain specialized knowledge on this question.
A. I also said that when one reviews the literature, he cannot be sure
that he has done a complete or perfect job.
So far as the reports I have read and presented yesterday are concerned,
there were no deaths in trench fever. There were no deaths mentioned, to
my knowledge, in the article on pellagra. There were no deaths
mentioned, to my knowledge, in the article on beri-beri, and there were
no deaths in the article, according to my knowledge, in Colonel Strong’s
article on plague. I would not testify that I have read all the articles
in the medical literature involving the use of human beings as subjects
in medical experiments.
Q. And, in the literature which you have read, Witness, there was not a
single case where deaths occurred? Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes. In the yellow fever experiments I indicated that Dr. Carroll and
Dr. Lazare died.
Q. That is the only case you know of?
A. That’s all that I know of.
* * * * *
EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[29]
_CROSS-EXAMINATION_
* * * * *
MR. MCHANEY: Now, would the extreme necessity for the large scale
production of typhus vaccines and the resultant experiments on human
beings in concentration camps have arisen had not Germany been engaged
in a war?
DEFENDANT ROSE: That question cannot simply be answered with “yes” or
“no”. It is, on the whole, not very probable that without the war,
typhus would have broken out in the German camps, but it is not
altogether beyond the bounds of possibility because in times of peace
too typhus has broken out in individual cases from time to time. The
primary danger in the camps is the louse danger, and infection by lice
also occurs in times of peace. If typhus breaks out in a camp that is
infected with lice, a typhus epidemic can arise in peacetime too, of
course.
Q. But Germany had never experienced any difficulty with typhus before
the war. Isn’t that right?
A. Not for many decades, no.
Q. You stated that nine hundred persons were used in Dr. Strong’s plague
experiments?
A. Yes, I know that number from the literature on the subject.
Q. What is the usual mortality in plague?
A. That depends on whether it is bubonic plague or lung pest. In one,
namely, bubonic plague, the mortality can be as high as sixty or seventy
percent. It also can be lower. In lung pest, the mortality is just about
one hundred.
Q. How many people died in Dr. Strong’s plague experiments?
A. According to what his reports say, none of them died, but this result
could not have been anticipated because this was the first time that
anyone had attempted to inoculate living plague virus into human beings,
and Strong said in his first publication in 1905 that he himself was
surprised that no unpleasant incidents occurred and that there was only
severe fever reaction. That despite this unexpectedly favorable outcome
of Strong’s experiments the specialists had considerable misgivings
about this procedure can be seen first of all from publications where
that is explicitly stated; for example, two Englishmen say that,
contrary to expectations, these experiments went off well but
nevertheless this process cannot be used for general vaccination because
there is always the danger that, through some unexpected event, this
strain again becomes virulent. Moreover, from other works that Strong
later published it can be seen that guinea pigs and monkeys that he
vaccinated with this vaccine died not of the plague, but of the toxic
affects of the vaccine. All these difficulties are the reason why this
enormously important discovery which Koller and Otto made in 1903, and
Strong in 1905, has only been generally applied, for all practical
purposes, since 1926. That is an indication of the care and fear with
which this whole matter was first approached, and Strong could not know
ahead of time that his experiments would turn out well. I described here
the enormous concern that Strong felt during all these months regarding
the fact that that might happen which every specialist feared, viz.,
that the virus would become virulent again. That is an enormous
responsibility.
Q. Be that as it may, nobody died. That is a fact, isn’t it?
A. If anyone did die, the publications say nothing about it. There were
deaths only among the monkeys and guinea pigs that are mentioned in the
publication. If human beings died, there is no mention in the
publication. It is generally known that if there are serious accidents
in such experiments as this, they are only most reluctantly made public.
Q. Now, Professor, I have no wish to limit you but, as I understand it,
you have explained these things in considerable detail during the four
days in which you have already testified. If you can give a short answer
to my question that is all I want. If I want any further explanation
I’ll ask you for it.
Now, what is the normal death rate in beri-beri?
A. That depends on the medical care given. If the care is good, the
mortality is zero, and if they have no medical care at all, then a lot
of them die.
Q. Sixty to eighty percent would probably die if they were not treated.
Is that right?
A. Beri-beri lasts for many, many months before a person dies, and
usually one does not die of beri-beri in sixty days—that would be a
severe case.
Q. How many people did Strong use in his beri-beri experiments? Is
twenty-nine all you know about?
A. So far as I know from the literature, the number was twenty-nine.
Q. Well, it says in the literature that he used only twenty-nine. Is
that right?
A. So far as I know, yes.
Q. And one of those died?
A. According to what the literature says, one of them died.
Q. What is the mortality in typhus?
A. That varies enormously. It depends on the epidemic. In some epidemics
the mortality is five percent. In general, you count on a mortality of
twenty percent. In the Serb-Albanian epidemic in 1915, there was a
mortality of seventy percent, but that mortality rate is so
extraordinarily high that it is generally assumed that probably, in
reality, there were more cases of typhus than were actually reported.
Q. Well, we could take roughly five to thirty percent as the mortality.
Is that right?
A. Yes. That is what the textbooks generally say.
Q. What was the mortality in the Buchenwald experiments, Professor?
A. In the controlled cases in the experiments that I knew of, the
mortality rate was thirty percent.
Q. Among the controls, you figured thirty percent?
A. Yes. There were ten control persons in the first group of
experiments, and of them, three died.
Q. Three died? Well, but I assume that you have read through the Ding
diary and let us assume for the moment that it is correct. Didn’t you
say that they also used control persons in the four or five other series
of experiments?
A. In the controlled cases where they were testing the vaccine, the
general mortality rate was thirty percent. But then there were these
therapeutic experiments in which, according to the diary, blood
infections were undertaken and, in this case, the diary does mention an
unusually high mortality rate.
Q. Well, Professor, for your information, we have figured out five
control series in the Ding diary, and I mean by controls those that were
not treated with anything. The mortality ranges between fifty-four to
one hundred percent and averaged eighty-one percent. Do you accept those
figures as correct? I mean, do you think that’s right?
Q. No. That does not correspond with the impression I got from the
numbers in the diary, but I did not calculate it so precisely as all
that. I looked at the individual experiments and it is true that, for
instance, in these therapeutic experiments, Ding’s work mentions a
mortality of something like fifty to fifty-five percent, and then there
is one series that deals with blood infection where of twenty people, I
believe nineteen died.
Q. Let me put it to you, Professor, is it not a fact that they were not
dealing with epidemic typhus in Buchenwald, but with a super-typhus,
developed from man to man passage, which was much more virulent and much
more deadly than any typhus you could expect in an epidemic?
A. That I cannot judge because I have no knowledge of the work done in
Buchenwald and can only refer to what Ding’s diary says, which I regard
as unreliable.
Q. Well, if you regard it as reliable, Doctor, and if you figure out the
deaths among the untreated control persons and find a mortality which
averaged eighty-one percent, will you not, as a scientist and an expert
on tropical diseases, concede that they had developed a highly virulent,
something we might call a super-typhus, in Buchenwald? Isn’t that right,
Professor?
A. As a scientist, I am accustomed to state my opinion on the basis of
reliable documentation and not on the basis of such falsifications which
are produced for a special purpose.
Q. I can appreciate that you do not regard the document as reliable,
Professor, but we will investigate that a little later.
* * * * *
-----
[1] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July
1947, pp. 10718-10796.
[2] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp.
10874-10911.
[3] See section on Status of Occupied Poland under International Law,
vol. I, pp. 974-979.
[4] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 1947, pp.
11020-11048.
[5] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 1947, pp.
11268-11288.
[6] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7 Feb. ’47, pp. 2301-2661.
[7] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15, 16
Apr. 1947, pp. 5926-5994.
[8] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,
14 June 1947, pp. 9029-9824.
[9] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July
47, pp. 10718-10796.
[10] United States _vs._ Erhard Milch. Concurring Opinion of Judge
Musmanno, vol. II, sec. VII, B.
[11] See also excerpts from the closing brief for the defendant Karl
Brandt (Section VIII E, vol. I, pp. 983-990).
[12] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp.
10874-10911.
[13] Art. 59 of the German Penal Code reads:
“If a person in committing an offense did not know of the
existence of circumstances [Tatumstaende] constituting the
factual elements of the offense as determined by statute
[gesetzlicher Tatbestand] or increasing the punishment, then
these circumstances may not be charged against him.
“In punishing an offense committed through negligence, this
provision applies only insofar as the lack of knowledge does not
in itself constitute negligence for which the offender is
responsible.”
[14] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,
28, 31 March, 1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.
[15] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,
14, 16 June 47, pp. 9029-9324.
[16] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18 July 47, pp.
11289-11309.
[17] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp.
11128-11152.
[18] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 26, 27,
28, 31 March, 1, 2, 3 Apr. 47, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.
[19] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25 April 47, pp. 6081-6484.
[20] Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July
1947, pp. 10718-10796.
[21] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp.
10874-10911.
[22] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 17 July 47, pp.
11128-11152.
[23] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6081-6484.
[24] Professor of History of Medicine at Erlangen University.
Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27 Jan. 1947,
pp. 1961-2028.
[25] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,
14 June 1947, pp. 9029-9324.
[26] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 16 July 47, pp.
10972-10994.
[27] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 12, 13,
14, 16 June 47, pp. 9029-9324.
[28] To the question of conscientious objection in the United States,
see Section VIII E—Voluntary Participation of Experimental Subjects,
cross-examination of Dr. Ivy (vol. I, p. 944 ff.).
[29] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 18, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25 April 47, pp. 6081-6484.
IX. RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON COUNT
ONE OF THE INDICTMENT[30]
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Secretary General will note for the record
the presence of all the defendants in Court.
The Tribunal will now announce its ruling on the motion of certain
defendants against Count I in the indictment concerning the charge of
conspiracy.
_MILITARY TRIBUNAL I_
Count I of the indictment in this case charges that the defendants,
acting pursuant to a common design, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly
did conspire and agree together to commit war crimes and crimes against
humanity as defined in Control Council Law No. 10, Article 2. It is
charged that the alleged crime was committed between September 1939 and
April 1945.
It is the ruling of this Tribunal that neither the Charter of the
International Military Tribunal nor Control Council Law No. 10 has
defined conspiracy to commit a war crime or crime against humanity as a
separate substantive crime; therefore, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction
to try any defendant upon a charge of conspiracy considered as a
separate substantive offense.
Count I of the indictment, in addition to the separate charge of
conspiracy, also alleges unlawful participation in the formulation and
execution of plans to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity
which actually involved the commission of such crimes. We, therefore,
cannot properly strike the whole of Count I from the indictment, but
insofar as Count I charges the commission of the alleged crime of
conspiracy as a separate substantive offense, distinct from any war
crime or crime against humanity, the Tribunal will disregard that
charge.
This ruling must not be construed as limiting the force or effect of
Article 2, paragraph 2 of Control Council Law No. 10, or as denying to
either prosecution or defense the right to offer in evidence any facts
or circumstances, occurring either before or after September 1939, if
such facts or circumstances tend to prove or to disprove the commission
by any defendant of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in
Control Council Law No. 10.
-----
[30] Tr. pp. 10717-10718, 14 July 47.
X. FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT[31]
BY DR. SERVATIUS
Mr. President, your Honors:
I cannot comment on all the questions which the prosecution brought up
this morning. I must limit myself to a few things and can refer to my
closing brief where I have gone into considerable detail on all these
questions.
This morning I heard the detailed legal arguments advanced by the
prosecutor. I have commented particularly on these legal questions in my
closing brief, and I will now merely make a few brief comments.
The prosecution assumes that Law No. 10 is an independent law. This is
not correct, for it designates itself explicitly as a law for the
execution of the London Charter and declares that Charter to be an
integral part of the law.
Now, the sole purpose of the London Charter is to punish disturbances of
international legal relations, and not what has happened or is happening
somewhere within an individual state. Any other interpretation would put
an end to the conception of sovereignty, and it would give right of
intervention into the affairs of other states.
In the trial before Tribunal III, Case No. 3, against Flick et al.,[32]
General Taylor referred to an alleged right of intervention, quoting a
considerable amount of literature with regard to this right of
intervention into the internal affairs of another country.
I have ventured to refer to the position taken concerning this by one of
the four signatory powers of the London Charter, a signatory power which
was itself the victim of intervention in the name of civilization, the
Soviet Union. I have attached the said literature to part I of my
closing brief.
The Soviet Union drew a clear inference from the intervention to which
it had been exposed by the Entente at the end of the First World War and
obtained an alteration in the text of the London Charter, under which
intervention would have been possible, by insisting that the text, which
was ambiguous in consequence of the punctuation, be altered by the
insertion of a comma. This comma was so important that the
representatives of the four signatory powers met on purpose to discuss
it.
It results therefrom that the internal affairs of a country cannot be
affected by the London Charter and, consequently, by Law No. 10.
Punishment by this Tribunal of acts committed by Germans against Germans
is therefore inadmissible.
The prosecution further discussed at length this morning another
question, that is the question of conspiracy. I have also commented on
that in my closing brief. I will merely make a brief reply here to the
prosecution.
The point of view of the defense, that a charge of conspiracy as an
independent offense is inadmissible, was confirmed by the Tribunal’s
decision of today. In that way the leak in the dike, so to speak, was
stopped, and one cannot let the ocean pour into the land from the other
side by declaring the conception of conspiracy admissible under common
law.
The conception of conspiracy is really only a technical expedient of the
jurists. Its purpose is to effect, beyond the number of accomplices in
the true sense of the word, other persons who are considered deserving
of punishment, but who cannot be proved guilty of complicity.
This may be done where the law against conspiracy is common law. If,
however, this law is introduced in Germany after the event and applied
to facts which have occurred in the past, this would mean that by a
detour of the law of procedure new conceptions of offense would be
introduced into material law. This would amount to an _ex post facto_
law and is, therefore, illegal according to legal principles generally
recognized.
The purpose of enlarging the circle of participants cannot be attained
under Law No. 10 by breaking up the conception of conspiracy into its
component parts and introducing forms of complicity hitherto unknown in
Germany.
Now, I shall read my statement proper:
In the closing statement against the defendant Karl Brandt the
prosecution discussed very little the counter-evidence brought forward
by the defense in the course of the proceedings. They relied to a large
extent on evidence already advanced in the indictment.
The affidavits of the defendants themselves play a special part in
support of the prosecution. For the defendant Karl Brandt they are
important with respect to his position and consequent knowledge of the
event referred to in the indictment.
If these affidavits contain imputations they can only be used, according
to the Tribunal’s statement, against the affiants themselves. As far as
they involve the defendant Karl Brandt, however, they have been
clarified in respect to the decisive issues. But in spite of this
correction the first statements may prejudice credibility unless good
reasons justify such correction.
Here the result of interrogations made in the initial proceedings is in
contradiction to the evidence given before the Tribunal. On the basis of
practical experience, German law considers as valid evidence only the
result of an interrogation made by a judge. The reason is the lack of
impartiality which may be found, quite naturally, in the case of an
interrogating official who is to conduct the prosecution. The capacity
of the interrogator to elicit the truth impartially depends on his
character, his training, and his professional experience.
The qualification of the interrogators has been attacked here by the
defense, but the prosecution has made no effort to substantiate it.
In order to form a judgment it is also important to know the general
lines on which the prosecution carries out its interrogations. Under
German law the prosecutor also has to ascertain and put forward
exculpating material when investigating a case personally or through
assistants. As to American procedure, Justice Jackson clearly rejected
this principle during the trial before the International Military
Tribunal and said he could never serve two masters.
This critical view of the affidavits is confirmed by their contents,
which frequently show the struggle between the interrogator and the
interrogated person. He is no classical witness who says, “I believe,”
“I presume,” “as far as I remember,” and so on, for he shows thereby
that he can give no positive information. And such testimony becomes
completely worthless if conclusions are drawn in the form of, “It would
have been impossible for him,” “he might have known,” “perhaps he was
the highest authority,” and so forth.
Not only individual words thus demonstrated that the testimony is
composed of conclusions, but whole parts of the reports show the same
character.
In view of all this, the defendants’ contentions are to be believed,
that they raised objections but succumbed to the weight of the prepared
record presented to them and signed, trusting that they would have an
opportunity later to clarify deficiencies and to state their true
opinion.
This criticism of the defendants’ affidavits is also called for in the
case of the affidavits given by the witnesses for the prosecution. Facts
are recorded therein which the witnesses did not know themselves, but
which they had only heard about, and which they presumed after having
been made to believe them by persuasion. The individual cases in which
objections are to be raised on these lines have been dealt with in the
closing brief.
The charges advanced against the defendant Karl Brandt include medical
experiments on human beings and euthanasia. In both cases the defendant
is charged with having committed crimes against humanity.
The press comments on the proceedings, anticipating the sentence and
publishing articles about base characters and depravity. Pamphlets with
striking titles appear.
On the other hand the Tribunal will make itself acquainted with the
literature collected by the defense as evidence. If one reads this
literature one loses one’s self-confidence and cannot conclude without
admitting that these are problems which persons not considered criminals
tried to solve before the defendants. These are problems of the
community. The individual may make suggestions for their solution, but
the decision is the task of the community and therefore of the state.
The question is how great a sacrifice may the state demand in the
interest of the community? This decision is for the state alone.
How the state decides depends on its free discretion, and finds its
limit only in the rebellion of its citizens. In obeying the orders of
his state, the defendant Karl Brandt did no wrong. If sentence is passed
against him, it would be a political sentence against the state and the
ideology it represents.
One can condemn the defendant Karl Brandt only by imposing on him the
duty of rebellion and the duty of having a different ideology to his
environment.
It is contended that the state finds its limits in the eternal basic
elements of law, which are said to be so clear that anyone could discern
their violation as a crime, and that loyalty to the state beyond these
limits is therefore a crime. One forgets that eternal law, the law of
nature, is but a guiding principle for the state and the legislator and
not a counter-code of law which the subject might use as a support
against the state. It is emphasized that no other state had made such
decisions up to now. This is true only to a certain extent. It is no
proof, however, that such decisions were not necessary and admissible
now. There is no prohibition against daring to progress.
The progress of medical science opened up the problem of experiments on
human beings already in the past century, and eventually made it ripe
for decision. It is not the first time that a state has adopted a
certain attitude with regard to euthanasia with a change of ideology.
Only the statesmen decide what is to be done in the interests of the
community, and they have never hesitated to issue such a decision
whenever they deemed it necessary in the interest of their people.
Thereupon their rules and orders were carried through under the
authority of the state, which is the basis of society.
Inquisition, witch trials, and revolutionary tribunals have existed in
the name of the state and eternal justice, and the executive
participants did not consider themselves criminals but servants of their
community. They would have been killed if they had stood up against what
was believed to be newly discovered eternal justice. What is the subject
to do if the orders of the state exceed the customary limits which the
individual himself took for inviolable according to tradition.
What did the airman think who dropped the first atomic bomb on
Hiroshima? Did he consider himself a criminal? What did the statesmen
think who ordered this atomic bomb to be used. We know from the history
of this event that the motive was patriotism, based on the harsh
necessity of sacrificing hundreds of thousands to save their own
soldiers’ lives. This motive was stronger than the prohibition of the
Hague Convention, under which belligerents have no unlimited right in
the choice of methods for inflicting damage on the enemy.
“My cause is just and my quarrel honorable,” says the king. And
Shakespeare’s soldier answers him: “That’s more than we know.” Another
soldier adds: “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough
if we know we are the king’s subjects; if his cause be wrong, our
obedience to the king wipes the crime out of us.”
It is the hard necessity of the state on which the defense for Karl
Brandt is based against the charge of having performed criminal
experiments on human beings.
Here also—in addition to the care for the population—the lives of
soldiers were at stake, soldiers who had to be protected from death and
epidemics. In Professor Bickenbach’s experiment, the issue was the lives
of women and children who without 45 million gas masks would have been
as unprotected against the expected gas attack as the Japanese were
against the atomic bomb. Biological warfare was imminent, even praised
abroad as cheaper and more effective than the atomic bomb.
Is it really against the law and all political morals if the state in
such a situation provides for the expected emergency and orders the
necessary medical experiments to be performed on its own citizens? As
applied to foreigners such procedure is limited in principle. In my
closing brief I have discussed the exceptions.
What is to be done is decided not by the physician but by the political
leader. Even the expert Dr. Ivy had to grant him the fundamental
authority.
The question is why, with the legal position so clear, a man like Keitel
refused to have such experiments carried out in the Wehrmacht, and why
some of the defendants themselves try to disprove any connection with
the experiments. The answer is that a measure may be as unavoidable as
war and yet be abhorred in the same way.
Unlike Professor Ivy, these men certainly considered these experiments
an evil, and their desire was not to become involved in them personally,
if possible, and not to allow troops to participate in them who should
not be burdened with such questions and who had no insight into the
necessity of the measures to be taken. In spite of everything, Germany
was not yet so “communized” that all private feelings in the individual
had disappeared.
The prosecution opposes to this necessity the condition of absolute
voluntariness.
It was a surprise to hear from the expert Professor Ivy that in the
penitentiaries many hundreds of volunteers were pressing for admission
to experiments, and that more volunteered than could be used. I do not
want to dispose of this phenomenon with irony and sarcasm. There may be
people who realize that the community has the right to ask them for a
sacrifice. Their feeling of justice may tell them that insistence on
humanity has its limits. If humanity means the appeal to the strong not
to forget the weak in the abundance of might and wealth, the weak should
also make their contribution when all are in need.
But what if in the emergency of war the convicts, and those declared to
be unworthy to serve in the armed forces, refuse to accept such a
sacrifice voluntarily, and only prove an asocial burden to state and
community and bring about the downfall of the community? Is not
compulsion by the state then admissible as an additional expiation?
The prosecution says “No”. According to this human rights demand the
downfall of human beings.
But there is a mixture of voluntariness and compulsory expiation,
“purchased voluntariness.” Here the experimental subject does not make a
sacrifice out of conviction for the good of the community but for his
own good. The subject gives his consent because he is to receive money,
cigarettes, a mitigation of punishment, etc. There may be isolated cases
of this nature where the person is really a volunteer, but as a rule it
is not so.
If one compares the actual risk with the advantage granted, one cannot
admit the consent of these “voluntary prisoners” as legal, in spite of
all the protective forms they have to sign, for these can only have been
obtained by taking advantage of inexperience, imprudence, or distress.
Looking through medical literature, one cannot escape the growing
conviction that the word “volunteer”, where it appears at all, is used
only as a word of protection and camouflage; it is hardly ever missing
since the struggle over this problem became acute.
I will touch only briefly on what I have explained in detail in my
closing brief. No one will contend that human beings really allowed
themselves to be infected voluntarily with venereal disease; this has
nowhere been stated explicitly in literature. Cholera and plague are
also not minor inconveniences one is likely to undergo voluntarily for a
trifle in the interest of science. Above all, it is not customary to
hand over children for experimental purposes, and I cannot believe that
in the 13 experiments carried out on a total of 223 children, as stated
in Document Karl Brandt 117, Karl Brandt Exhibit 103, the mothers gave
their consent. Would not the mothers have deserved the praise of the
scientist for the sacrifice they trustfully made in the interest of
science, praise which is otherwise liberally granted to real volunteers
in reports on experiments?
Is it not likely to have been similar to the experiments carried out by
Professor McCance? (_Karl Brandt 93, Karl Brandt Ex. 29._) The German
authorities who condemn the defendants in a particularly violent form
have no objection to raise here against the order to hand over weakling
children to a research commission for experimental purposes. The
questionnaires which the Tribunal approved for me in order to get
further information about this matter have not been answered as the
higher authorities did not give permission for such statements to be
made. This silence says enough; it is proof of what is supposed to be
legal today in the line of “voluntariness”.
It is repeatedly shown that the experiments for which no consent was
given were permitted with the full knowledge of the government
authorities. It is further shown that these experiments were published
in professional literature without meeting any objection, and that they
were even accepted by the public without concern as a normal phenomenon
when reports about them appeared in popular magazines.
This happens at a time when the same press is stigmatizing as crimes
against humanity the German experiments which were necessary in the
interests of the state. Voluntariness is a fiction; the emergency of the
state hard reality.
In all countries experiments on human beings have been performed by
doctors, certainly not because they took pleasure in killing or
tormenting, but only at the instigation and under the protection of
their state, and in accordance with their own conviction of the
necessity for these experiments in the struggle for the existence of the
people.
The German doctor who acted in conformity with the German regulations
can no more be punished than the American doctor who complied with the
requests of his state in the way which is customary there.
Justice is indivisible.
To what extent is the defendant Karl Brandt implicated in the medical
experiments?
The prosecution says he is implicated in almost all the experiments and
refers to his position and his connections. They state that he was the
highest Reich authority in the medical spheres; there, however, they are
misled by an error in translation, for Karl Brandt only had the powers,
regulated in a general way, of an “Oberste Reichsbehoerde” [Supreme
Reich Authority], and the practice of those powers was restricted to
special cases.
This is apparent from the three known decrees and from the explanation
thereof given by witnesses. Moreover, Karl Brandt was not given these
functions until 1944 when these experiments were practically finished,
as is shown by the time schedule submitted to the Tribunal for
comparison.
It has been proved that the defendant Karl Brandt himself, in a
broadcast, publicly called his position as Reich Commissioner a
“Differential”. In fact, Karl Brandt’s task was not to order but to
adjust; it was a task designed to fit his character.
We have also learned from the presentation of evidence that the
defendant Karl Brandt did not have the machinery at his disposal for
issuing orders which was necessary for a supreme Reich authority; he
lacked the staff and the means. No one who is acquainted with a
government administration will think it possible that, under these
circumstances, the defendant Karl Brandt might have been able to enforce
his point of view against the resistance of the old agencies; no one
will even think it probable that anything would have been done to
facilitate such an attempt by the “new master”.
Consequently, Karl Brandt’s position was not such as to justify the
conclusion drawn by the prosecution as to his general knowledge. There
was no official channel by which everything was bound to come to his
knowledge, for he was not the superior of other authorities.
It is true that the defendant Karl Brandt was supposed to be informed
about fundamental matters, that he had the right to intervene, and so
on. But these were only possibilities, not in conformity with conditions
in practice. We have seen that Conti opposed him and that Himmler
prohibited direct contact with Karl Brandt within his sphere.
Therefore Karl Brandt can be brought into connection only with the
events in which he participated directly.
Here it is first of all striking that the defendant Karl Brandt, who is
supposed to have been the highest authority, appears only very rarely.
There are three so-called troop experiments: the testing of drinking
water, concentrated food, and an ointment for burns.
Further, three medical experiments are connected with the defendant Karl
Brandt. The hepatitis experiments, which he is said to have suggested,
were not carried out. While that research was continued during the
following years, Karl Brandt, who is said to have sponsored it
particularly, is mentioned by none of the numerous witnesses and
experts, and his name is not mentioned in any document. Is it not,
therefore, a plausible explanation that Grawitz confused the names?
The second case is the request to hand over 10 prisoners for two days
for an experiment not named. This cannot refer to a real medical
experiment, for such an experiment cannot be carried out in such a short
time with the necessary tests and observations. The speedy return of the
experimental subjects indicates that the experiment was not dangerous.
Finally, the defendant Karl Brandt is connected with the phosgene
experiments by Bickenbach, which caused the death of four Germans
sentenced to death. But precisely here Bickenbach’s affidavit shows that
the defendant Karl Brandt was outside the whole framework of the
experiment in Himmler’s sphere, and that he was merely approached to
mediate. The order came from Himmler. The experiments must have seemed
innocuous to the defendant Karl Brandt since Bickenbach wanted to carry
them out on himself.
On the other hand, there was the state emergency and the enormous
importance of the discovery that the taking of a few urotropin tablets
might give the ardently desired protection to all against the expected
gas attack and, as the result of the experiment shows, actually did so.
Now the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of Karl Brandt
with the other experiments via the Reich Research Council. It is true
that one can establish such a connection theoretically on paper, but the
links of the chain break when one examines them closely. Only the head
of the specialized department decided on the so-called research
assignments, and he only investigated whether the aim was necessary for
war, not how the experiment was to be carried out. He could not inform
others of matters about which he did not know himself.
The defendant Karl Brandt is further charged with not having protested
in one case when he heard about deaths caused by experiments on persons
sentenced to death in the well-known lecture on sulfanilamide. I must
point out that even if this experiment had been inadmissible, silence
would not be a crime, for assent after the act is without importance in
criminal law, and one can only be connected with plans and enterprises
as long as they have not been concluded.
Now the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief a new charge
holding the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for negligence. In this
respect I should like to point out that no indictment for negligence has
been brought in, and that the concept of crime against humanity
committed by negligence cannot exist.
Therefore, it will be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged
negligence depends on the existence of a duty of supervision and the
right to give orders through other agencies. In every state the spheres
of competence are separated, and it is not possible for everyone to
interfere in everything on the basis that everyone is responsible for
everything.
The prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used
his influence and availed himself of his intimate relations with Hitler
to stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the facts
as crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal, but only of a political or
moral nature. Until now nobody has been held criminally responsible for
the conduct of a superior or a friend; the question of criminal law,
however, is the only one the Tribunal has to consider. As a matter of
fact this close relationship did not exist. The defendant Karl Brandt
was the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. Morell, the
latter’s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the confidence
placed in Karl Brandt so that he was given commissions which removed him
further and further from the sphere of his medical activity.
The alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation
of a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted
even a hearing on the charges advanced against him.
If one sums up everything relating to the medical experiments and
follows to a large extent the charges of the prosecution, it is an
established fact that it is not shown that the defendant Karl Brandt
participated in any way in experiments on prisoners of war and
foreigners, or that he was cognizant of them. Therefore, no war crime or
crime against humanity has been committed, and consequently punishment
under Law No. 10 is excluded. I refer in this connection to the legal
arguments in my closing brief.
The second problem is euthanasia.
The authorization of 1 September 1939 was issued before the period of
the medical experiments, at a time when the defendant Karl Brandt was
still closely attached to the Fuehrer’s headquarters and to Hitler as an
accompanying physician.
In my closing brief I have explained in detail that the defendant Karl
Brandt did not participate in the Action 14 f 13, with the “special
treatment” of prisoners in concentration camps, occurrences which were
given the name of euthanasia only here in the trial.
Neither did the defendant Karl Brandt take any part in the extermination
of Jews in Auschwitz, which again has nothing in common with the idea of
euthanasia.
I have further shown that the so-called “wild euthanasia”, which was
carried out simultaneously with and immediately after legal euthanasia,
was not instigated by Karl Brandt. The stopping of euthanasia in August
1941 has been proved, and therefore that was the end of the defendant
Karl Brandt’s duties; for what would have been the meaning of this
cessation if, after it, increased activity was to set in? The contacts
of Karl Brandt after the cessation have been clarified as being the
consequence of his activities connected with evacuation for air
protection. Where the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is mentioned
otherwise, it obviously serves only as means of information for
uninformed people who never saw or heard anything of him themselves.
I shall deal here with euthanasia only to the extent that it is
officially dealt with under the ordinance of 1 September 1939.
Concerning the “Reich committee”, I refer to my closing brief.
The presentation of evidence has established that the defendant Karl
Brandt actually had no “administrative and medical office” from which
the whole organization might have been administered. On the contrary, it
is a fact that Bouhler declared himself solely responsible for the
procedure; this is testified to by unequivocal documents.
Nor has any regulation or instruction become known which was issued by
Karl Brandt. Not a single document was signed by him. He made no
speeches and conducted no discussions.
But what did he do and what was his duty?
His duty was not to carry out euthanasia; he was only to be informed in
special cases in order to be able to report to Hitler. This was in
conformity with the existing conditions—his presence at and
simultaneous attachment to the Fuehrer’s headquarters, and to Hitler.
Only once was Karl Brandt seen active, and that is in the negotiations
with Pastor von Bodelschwingh, which led to the result, amazing for us,
that the defendant Karl Brandt won Bodelschwingh’s sympathy, and after
the collapse the latter said in a radio interview that Brandt was an
idealist but not a criminal.
But the defendant Karl Brandt took note of interrogation forms, he
inspected a registrar’s office, and he co-signed the authority for
physicians to execute euthanasia.
What could the defendant Karl Brandt learn from the forms?
The prosecution thinks that Jews and foreigners were to be affected in
the first instance. The affidavit by the director of the Jewish lunatic
asylum, in which all the insane Jews of Germany were concentrated,
proves that this was not the case.
The prosecution says that all persons unfit for work were to be killed
as “useless eaters”. But it is a fact that even work-houses were
requested to give information only about cases of really grave insanity.
What did the defendant Karl Brandt know about the procedure?
He knew that the authorization which was issued was not an order given
to the doctor, but only conferred on him the right to act on his own
responsibility after the most careful consideration of the patient’s
condition. This was a clause inserted in the ordinance of 1 September
1939 on Karl Brandt’s initiative.
The defendant Karl Brandt knew that the specialists, whom he did not
know, were chosen by the Ministry of the Interior, and that the experts
were eminent men in their special spheres.
The defendant Karl Brandt also knew that the authorities concerned saw
no reason to object to the execution of the measure, and that even the
chief jurists of the Reich declared the legal foundations to be
irreproachable, after having been informed of the facts.
Within this framework the defendant Karl Brandt approved of official
euthanasia and supported it.
But the prosecution even calls euthanasia a thousand-fold murder. In
their opinion there was no formal law, and it is alleged that the expert
Dr. Lammers confirmed this.
Yes, but he also stated that even an informal ordinance was valid. Even
an order issued by the Fuehrer had the force of law, as can be clearly
seen from the indisputable effects of such orders, in particular in
relation to foreigners.
But for the defendant Karl Brandt it is of no importance whether the
ordinance of 1 September 1939 was actually valid or not; the only
important thing is that he had reason to believe it was valid and that
he could rely on this opinion.
German courts have already dealt with cases of the practice of
euthanasia; but these cases occurred after the official procedure had
been stopped, as at Hadamar, or after persons had been killed who could
never have come under the powers conferred by the ordinance, or other
crimes were committed.
It should be observed that these sentences always confirm the base
motives of the offenders. On the other hand, these courts were concerned
with the question of public law only to the extent that they confirm
that no formal law was available. In one case the court restricted
itself to information given by a member of the prosecution staff in the
trial before the International Military Tribunal.
The real objections to euthanasia are not based on a formal point of
view, but rather on the same reasons which are advanced against the
admissibility of the medical experiments.
Even an insane person of the lowest grade may not be killed it is said.
No human being may presume to kill another human being.
But the right to kill in war is accepted in international law, and
public law allows the suppression of a revolt by violence.
What prevents the state from ordering killing in the sphere of
euthanasia too?
The answer is that there is no motive which might justify an action of
this kind.
The economic motive of eliminating “useless eaters” is certainly not
sufficient for such measures. Such a motive was never upheld by the
defendant Karl Brandt; it was apparently mentioned by others as an
accompanying contingency and later taken up by counter propaganda.
The defendant Karl Brandt considered the motive of pity for the patient
to be the decisive one. This motive is tacitly accepted for euthanasia
on the deathbed, and doctors in all countries increasingly acknowledge
it.
In former times the courts were repeatedly concerned with killings
committed out of pity, and in sensational trials, juries found offenders
not guilty who freed their nearest relatives from the torment of life.
Who would not have the desire to die while in good health rather than to
be forced by all the resources of medical science to continue life
degraded to an animal’s existence! Only misguided civilization keeps
such beings alive; in the normal struggle for existence Nature is more
charitable.
But the legislator has hitherto refrained from giving authority to kill
in such cases. But he can solve the problem if he wants to. The reasons
for his restraint are exactly those which led in this case to the
disguising of those measures and to the secrecy observed. There is the
fear of base intrigues concerning inheritance, the mental burden of the
relatives, and so on. The individual does not want to bear this burden,
nor is he able to do so. It can be taken over only by the state, which
is independent of the desires of those concerned.
That such is the will of the great majority of those who really come
into touch with these problems was shown by the result of the inquiry
conducted by Professor Meltzer, which has been offered in evidence. It
was carried out by him many years ago in order to obtain an argument
against euthanasia and its principal supporters, Binding and Hoche. He
obtained the reverse of what he had himself expected as an expert.
But I see a third motive which unconsciously plays an important part; it
is the idea of sacrifice.
A lunatic may cause the mental and economic decay of a family and also
ruin it morally.
If healthy human beings make great sacrifices for the community and lay
down their lives by order of the state, the insane person, if he could
arouse himself mentally and make a decision, would choose a similar
sacrifice for himself.
Why should not the state be allowed to enact this sacrifice in his case
and impose on him what he would want to do himself?
Is the state to be forbidden to carry out such euthanasia until the
whole world is a hospital, while the creatures of nature keep
unblemished through what is believed to be the brutality of Nature?
The decision as to whether such an order given by the state is
admissible or not depends on the conception of the social life of
mankind and is, therefore, a political decision.
Neither the defendant Karl Brandt nor anyone else who participated in
legalized euthanasia would ever have killed a human being on his own
authority, and in the German sentences passed the blameless former life
of the persons stigmatized as mass-murderers is always emphasized.
This is a warning to be cautious. Did they really commit brutalities, or
were they sentenced only because they were not in a position to swim
against the tide of times and to oppose it with their own judgment?
A Christian believing in dogma will turn away in pity from this way of
thinking. But if the order to use euthanasia to the desired limited
extent was really in such contradiction to the commandment of God that
everyone could realize it, then it is incomprehensible why Hitler, who
never withdrew from the church, was not excommunicated.
This must remove the burden of guilt which one now wants to pile up.
Then humanity would have clearly realized at the time that in this
devilish struggle man cannot prevail for God stands for Justice.
If there are offenders there are many co-offenders, and one understands
Pastor Niemoeller saying: “We are all guilty.”
This is a moral or a political guilt, but cannot be shifted to a single
person as criminal guilt.
I have thus shown the fundamental lines along which the actions of the
defendant Karl Brandt have to be judged.
The primary consideration for the judgment of this Tribunal is that no
prisoners of war or foreigners were submitted to euthanasia with the
knowledge or the desire of the defendant Karl Brandt.
Thus the defendant Karl Brandt cannot be punished under Law No. 10 on
this count either. What happened between Germans is not subject to the
decision of this Tribunal.
Finally, the defendant Karl Brandt is also charged with having been a
member of the SS, an organization which has been declared criminal.
Evidence to show that the defendant Karl Brandt knew of a criminal aim
of this organization and approved of it must be brought by the
prosecution. A reference to the general assertions in these proceedings
is not sufficient proof, for precisely here the prosecution cannot
prevail with their assertions in regard to Karl Brandt.
As to the details, I refer to the statements made in my closing brief.
The fact that the defendant Karl Brandt was the only member of the SS
who at the same time retained his position as a medical officer in the
army shows that his honorary rank in the SS was really only a formality,
and that he was no true member of this organization.
When the defendant Karl Brandt testified here that he wore the uniform
of the SS with pride, this only shows that he, like the majority of the
SS men, knew nothing about the criminal aims. In judging the
organization of the SS, the International Military Tribunal was aware
only of a small part of the whole, looking, so to speak, through a
keyhole into a dark corner.
Nor could the defendant Karl Brandt have any personal knowledge of
Himmler’s secrets, for Himmler rejected him personally, as is shown by a
number of affidavits. Since the defendant Karl Brandt could not obtain
information even in his own sphere of medicine, how is he to have
obtained knowledge of other matters?
I do not want to repeat the affidavits which give information about the
basic attitude of the defendant Karl Brandt and show that he adopted an
attitude which was incompatible with the mentality supposed to be
typical of the SS. In this connection I merely refer to the statements
made by Pastor Bodelschwingh, Dr. Gerstenmaier, Meyer-Bockhoff, Philipp
Prince of Hesse, and others.
If I, as the defense counsel, consider Karl Brandt’s conduct as a whole
and see the wounds he has received in the struggle of life, I must
acknowledge that he is a man and not a criminal.
For the Tribunal’s decision, however, the only conclusive fact is that
the defendant Karl Brandt did not disturb the circle of international
law, for he committed no war crimes and consequently no crimes against
humanity. I, therefore, ask that defendant Karl Brandt be acquitted.
-----
[31] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 47, pp.
10797-10817.
[32] United States _vs._ Friedrich Flick et al. See vol. VI.
XI. FINAL STATEMENTS OF THE DEFENDANTS,
19 JULY 1947
A. Final Statement of Defendant Karl Brandt[33]
There is a word which seems so simple—order; and how colossal are its
implications. How immeasurable are the conflicts which hide behind the
word obey. Both affected me, obey and order, and both imply
responsibility. I am a doctor and on my conscience lies the
responsibility of being responsible for men and for life. Quite
dispassionately the prosecution has brought the charge of crime and
murder and they have raised the question of my guilt. It would have no
weight if friends and patients were to shield me and speak well of me,
saying I had helped and I had healed. There would be many examples of my
actions during danger and my readiness to help. All that is now useless.
As far as I am concerned I shall not evade these charges. But the
attempt to vindicate myself as a man is my duty towards all who believe
in me personally, who trusted in me and who relied upon me as a man as
well as a doctor and a superior.
No matter how I was faced with the problem, I have never regarded human
experiments as a matter of course, not even when no danger was entailed.
But I affirm the necessity for them on grounds of reason. I know that
opposition will arise. I know things that disturb the conscience of a
medical man, and I know the inner distress that afflicts one when ethics
of every form are decided by an order or obedience.
It is immaterial for the experiment whether it is done with or against
the will of the person concerned. For the individual the event seems
senseless, just as senseless as my actions as a doctor seem when
isolated. The sense lies much deeper than that. Can I, as an individual,
detach myself from the community? Can I remain outside and do without
it? Could I, as a part of this community, evade it by saying I want to
live in this community, but I don’t want to make any sacrifices for it,
either of body or soul? I want to keep a clear conscience. Let them see
how they can get along. And yet we, that community and I, are somehow
identical.
Thus I must suffer these contradictions and bear the consequences, even
if they remain incomprehensible. I must bear them as my lot in life,
which allocates to me its tasks. The meaning is the motive—devotion to
the community. If on its account I am guilty, then on its account I will
be answerable.
There was war. In war, efforts are all alike. Its sacrifices affect us
all. They were incumbent upon me. But are those sacrifices my crime? Did
I tread on the precepts of humanity and despise them? Did I pass over
human beings and their lives as if they were nothing? Men will point at
me and cry “euthanasia”, and falsely, “the useless”, “the incapable”,
“the worthless”. But what actually happened? Did not Pastor
Bodelschwingh, in the middle of his work at Bethel last year, say that I
was an idealist and not a criminal? How could he say that?
Here I am, subject of the most frightful charges, as if I had not only
been a doctor, but also a man without heart or conscience. Do you think
that it was a pleasure to me to receive the order to permit euthanasia?
For 15 years I had toiled at the sickbed and every patient was to me
like a brother. I worried about every sick child as if it had been my
own. My personal lot was a heavy one. Is that guilt?
Was it not my first thought to limit the scope of euthanasia? Did I not,
the moment I was included, try to find a limit and demand a most
searching report on the incurables? Were not the appointed professors of
the universities there? Who could there be who was better qualified? But
I do not want to speak of these questions and of their execution. I am
defending myself against the charge of inhuman conduct and base
intentions. In the face of these charges I fight for my right to humane
treatment! I know how complicated this problem is. With the utmost
fervor I have tortured myself again and again, but no philosophy or
other wisdom helped me here. There was the decree and on it there was my
name. It is no good saying that I could have feigned sickness. I do not
live this life of mine in order to evade fate if I meet it. And thus I
assented to euthanasia. I fully realize the problem; it is as old as
mankind, but it is not a crime against man nor against humanity. It is
pity for the incurable, literally. Here I cannot believe like a
clergyman or think as a jurist. I am a doctor and I see the law of
nature as being the law of reason. In my heart there is love of mankind,
and so it is in my conscience. That is why I am a doctor!
When I talked at the time to Pastor Bodelschwingh, the only serious
admonisher I knew personally, it seemed at first as if our thoughts were
far apart; but the longer we talked and the more we came into the open,
the closer and the greater became our mutual understanding. At that time
we were not concerned with words. It was a struggle and a search far
beyond the human sphere. When the old Pastor Bodelschwingh left me after
many hours and we shook hands, his last words were: “That was the
hardest struggle of my life.” For him as well as for me that struggle
remained; and the problem remained too.
If I were to say today that I wish this problem had never come upon me
with its convulsive drama, that would be nothing but superficiality in
order to make me feel more comfortable in myself. But I am living in
these times and I see that they are full of antitheses. Somewhere we all
must make a stand. I am fully conscious that when I said “Yes” to
euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my
conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death
is life—just as much as birth. It was never meant to be murder. I bear
a burden, but it is not the burden of crime. I bear this burden of mine,
though with a heavy heart, as my responsibility. I stand before it, and
before my conscience, as a man and as a doctor.
B. Final Statement of Defendant Handloser[34]
During my first interrogations here in Nuernberg, in August 1946, the
interrogator declared to me:
First, you have been the Chief of the Army Medical Service. Whether or
not you knew of inadmissible experiments does not matter here. As the
Chief, you are responsible for everything.
Secondly, do not make the excuse that among other nations the same or
similar things have happened. We are not concerned with that here. The
Germans are under indictment, not the others.
Thirdly, do not appeal to your witnesses. They, of course, will testify
in your favor. We have our witnesses, and we rely upon them.
Those were the guiding principles of the prosecution up to the last day
of these proceedings. They have remained incomprehensible to me, because
I always believed a criminal to be a man who did wrong, and because I
was of the opinion that even the prosecution endeavored to be objective,
at least after the end of the presentation of evidence. The final plea
by the prosecution, however, has shown me that I made a mistake. The
speech by the prosecution did not take into account the material
submitted in evidence, but it was a summarized repetition of one-sided
statements by the prosecution without taking into account that which was
submitted in the course of the presentation of evidence in my case.
I am quite convinced that the high Tribunal has gained a true impression
of my activity and of my attitude. Just as I have tried throughout my
entire life to fulfill the tasks allotted to me by fate according to the
best of my capacity and in the full knowledge of my responsibility, so
have I also tried to stand this most serious task before this Court with
the aid of the strongest weapon which I possess—that is the truth.
If there is anything which could console me for the mental suffering of
the last months, it is the consciousness of knowing that before this
Court, before the German people, and before the people of the world, it
has been made clear that the serious general charges of the prosecution
against the Medical Corps of the German Armed Forces have been proved to
be without any foundation.
It can be seen how unjust these charges were by the fact that no charges
have been raised or any proceedings initiated against a single leading
doctor of the German Armed Forces in combat or at home. As the last
Medical Inspector of the Army, and as Chief of the Medical Service of
the Armed Forces of Germany, I think with pride of all the medical
officers to whose untiring devotion countless wounded and sick patients
of this dreadful war owe their lives and cure and their possibilities of
existence. Never and nowhere were the losses of an army medical corps
greater than those among the medical officers of the German Armed Forces
in carrying out their duties.
More than 150 years ago, the motto and guiding principle created for
German military doctors and their successors was “Scientiae, Humanitati,
Patriae” (For Science, Humanity, and Fatherland). Like the medical
officers in their entirety I also have remained true to that guiding
principle in thought and in deed. Realizing the outcome of the events of
these recent times, may the joint endeavors of all the nations succeed
in avoiding in future the immeasurable misfortune of war, the dreadful
side of which nobody knows better than the military doctor.
C. Final Statement of Defendant Rostock[35]
I have nothing to add to the pertinent statements by my defense counsel,
Dr. Pribilla, regarding the individual points of the indictment in this
trial; but with regard to the general position of German medical science
during this war, there are a few words, which I would like to say from
this dock.
During my direct examination I have already stated why I, as the Chief
of the so-called “Science and Research” department undertook to work for
medical science as late as 1943 and 1944. At that time the problem was
to avoid, or at least to minimize, the great and acute danger of
teaching and research, and with that Germany’s universities, becoming
completely destroyed. When this had been prevented at the very last
moment, there arose the task and the duty of improving the means and the
possibilities of basic research which had been more and more restricted
in the course of the war, and through dwindling resources research in
Germany would have come to a standstill. Due to the chaotic development
of the last year of the war, success was comparatively small. There
were, however, some results and there were a few things which were saved
after the end of the war.
Today through the evidence produced in this trial, I know the reasons
which paralyzed the work at the time. It was the striving for power on
the part of certain organizations which used the effective support of
certain executive departments of the Third Reich who held unrestricted
power. It was the principle of totalitarianism which these organizations
followed particularly in the case of what they called the “university
science”. It was there, however, that we had founded the tradition of
German science recognized the world over. In contrast to that, their
aim, as shown in some of the testimonies given in this trial and some of
the documents submitted, was to found a “politically directed science”
of their own. That was the reason why my personal efforts and those of
the health and medical services, which I have referred to in this trial,
did not achieve complete success. Today, at the end of this trial, that
is now clear to me. At that time, in the year 1944, we did not know of
this masterly camouflaged and, therefore, so very dangerous opponent to
that branch of science with which I myself had grown up.
Throughout my life I have never worked for one form of a state or
another, or for any political party in Germany, but simply and solely
for my patients and for medical science.
D. Final Statement of Defendant Schroeder[36]
It is very difficult for a defendant to find the right final words here.
In methodical, detailed work throughout the last months, the defense has
tried to rebut the charges of the prosecution.
When now the prosecution states in its final plea that details do not
matter so much, but that the entire complex of questions has to be
considered as a whole, that one has to look at matters as at a bundle of
sticks, not as individual branches and twigs of the bundle. If,
furthermore, the prosecution refers to a sentence pronounced in the Far
East by an American Military Court, by which a Japanese general and
military commander was sentenced only because, as a commander, he bore
the responsibility for all the acts of his troops, regardless of whether
he ordered them, knew of them, approved of them, or did not even know of
them—if, gentlemen of the Tribunal, these principles are decisive for
proceedings, then I have to ask, why bother at all to start proceedings
of that kind, to prepare them, and to carry them out? Those decisions
could be made much more quickly.
What can I, as a defendant, bring against these arguments? That can be
said in a few words: myself, my work, my acts as a doctor and a soldier
in 35 years of service. Not the craving for glory and honor was the
purport of my life’s work, but the firm intention to put my entire
capacity, my full knowledge, into the service of my beloved Fatherland;
to help the soldier, as a physician, to heal the wounds caused by
wartime and peacetime service, both as a physician for the individual,
as well as a medical officer for the mass of troops which were in my
care.
That was the aim and object of my work. I do not believe that I have
deviated from that path. My eyes always looked towards the final goal:
to help and to heal.
E. Final Statement of Defendant Genzken[37]
During my testimony I stated before the Tribunal that I took no part in
the types of experiments of which I am accused. I have nothing to add to
what my defense counsel Dr. Merkel has said. I have striven to lead a
decent life as a doctor and as a soldier. If my fatherly concern for my
2,500 doctors and 30,000 men of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS was
mentioned here in this courtroom, it is nevertheless my duty to speak
from this place on behalf of those men who, in the majority, were decent
and brave doctors and medical attendants. I am proud to have been their
leader, a leader of those who sacrificed their lives and blood with
unceasing fervor to help me in building up the organization of the
Medical Service of the Waffen SS, and to overcome the tremendous losses
among the ranks of our comrades at the front.
The soldiers of the Waffen SS have proved to history—in the focal
points of uncounted battles during an uneven struggle—that they could
rank among the finest troops on this earth as far as training,
efficiency, readiness of sacrifice, soldierly valor, and contempt of
death were concerned. Actions of modern warfare have presented to some
extent a picture of murder and horror on both sides. Who dares to raise
his head before God and gainsay that?
The men of the Waffen SS went as vanquished into captivity, out of
unimaginable physical and mental war distress. That captivity was not
free of bloodshed, ill-treatment and degradation of various kinds. To
the men of the Waffen SS there was added to the weight of such captivity
the frightful realization of the fact that their supreme commander,
Himmler, had misused their cloak of honor and deceived them, that they
had been cheated and then deserted by him. These decent men of the front
Waffen SS certainly did not deserve that fate, the fate of being branded
as members of a criminal organization.
My request and my wish is that our former opponents should realize the
honest idealism of these victims, do justice to it, and give them back
belief in justice.
F. Final Statement of Defendant Gebhardt[38]
I wish to thank the high Tribunal for having granted me an opportunity,
in the witness box, to describe my personal position in 1942 in such
detail.
The historical situation at that time placed me in a totalitarian state
which, in turn, placed itself between the individual and the universe.
Virtues in the service of the state were paramount virtues. Beyond that
I do not know anywhere where the intellect was not debased as a tool for
war. Everywhere, in some way values and solutions were put into the
service of the war. And here again, in the intellectual field, the first
step is the decisive one. I may be permitted to recall that in the war
of nerves, it was propaganda with and for “medical preparations” which
caused the first step, the order to examine the question of
sulfanilamides.
In my final statement today may I be permitted to describe my entire
attitude. In doing so, I may perhaps utilize the most important of the
four American freedoms, that is to say the freedom of speech, until the
very end in such a way that I will refrain from any denunciation or from
incriminating others.
Without exaggerating the importance of my own person, a physician can
only be measured according to his conception of medical science.
Basically, I was neither a cold technical specialist nor a pure
scientist. I believe that I have always tried, for example when carrying
out surgical experiments, to see every disease as a human condition of
suffering. I did not look on my task as something to serve my own
advantage, or as a cheap gesture of theoretical pity, but as a personal
active support to the trembling existence of the suffering patient. My
goal as a physician was not so much purely technical therapy for the
individual patient, as therapeutical care for the particularly
underprivileged group of the poor, the children, the cripples, the
neurotics.
I am anxious that it should be believed that it was not due to moral
baseness nor to the selfish arrogance of the scientist that I came into
contact with experiments on human beings. On the contrary, during the
entire period in question I had experiments in my field of research
carried out on animals. It was only because I was the competent
responsible surgical expert that I was informed about the imminent
experiments on human beings in my field of surgery, which had been
ordered by the state authorities. After the order had been given, it was
no longer a question of stopping these experiments, but the problem was
the method of their execution.
My problems as an expert consisted of the following: For one, the
experiments that had been ordered had to be of practical scientific
value, for the purpose of testing immunization to protect thousands of
injured and sick. On the other hand, I considered humane safety measures
for the experimental subjects most important. The main point for me was
never the purpose and the object of the experiments, but the manner in
which they were carried out. To realize that in a humane way I did not
remain aloof and restrict myself to theoretical instruction in the field
of surgery, but I myself took part, with my clinic and with all its
safety measures.
I hope that this will show that in carrying out experiments I tried with
the best of intentions to act primarily in the interest of the
experimental subjects. We did not take advantage of the unlimited
opportunities given us by Himmler, that is to say, the surgical
experiments were not followed by others. I believe that as far as was
possible at that chaotic period I fulfilled my duty as an expert,
because these experiments did not increase in the field of surgery in
spite of the crescendo of the catastrophic policy. My desire was to help
and not to give a bad example.
In seeing my responsibility in this way I, of course, made a decision
for myself. I hope that hitherto I have always faced criticism, even
from foreign countries, without any secrecy, but also without any
feeling of guilt for my activities as an expert.