Poppendick attended the Third Meeting of Consulting Surgeons at the

Military Medical Academy, Berlin, and heard lectures by Gebhardt and

Fischer concerning the sulfanilamide experiments, which have been

discussed elsewhere in this judgment. Under date of 7 September 1942 he

signed a certificate to a true copy of a report, concerning

sulfanilamide experiments which had been conducted at Ravensbrueck, made

by Gebhardt to Grawitz. Grawitz forwarded the report, or a certified

copy thereof, to Himmler.

We are of the opinion that Poppendick had knowledge of the criminal

nature of the experiments conducted by Gebhardt and Fischer at

Ravensbrueck, but the defendant’s criminal connection with any such

experiments has not been proved by the evidence.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

The evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that Poppendick

was criminally implicated in these experiments.

EPIDEMIC JAUNDICE EXPERIMENTS

The evidence does not disclose beyond a reasonable doubt that Poppendick

was criminally implicated in these experiments.

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

Poppendick was Chief Physician of the Main Race and Settlement Office.

The judgment of the International Military Tribunal found that this

office was “active in carrying out schemes for Germanization of occupied

territories according to the racial principles of the Nazi Party and

were involved in the deportation of Jews and other foreign nationals.”

(_See the “Trial of the Major War Criminals,” Vol. 1, p. 270._)

Testifying before this Tribunal, Poppendick stated that the Nazi racial

policy was twofold in aspect; one policy being positive, the other,

negative in character. The positive policy included many matters, one

being the encouragement of German families to produce more children. The

negative policy concerned the sterilization and extermination of

non-Aryans as well as other measures to reduce the non-Aryan population.

According to Poppendick’s testimony, he was not concerned with the

execution of negative, but only with positive measures.

By letter dated 29 May 1941 Grawitz wrote to Himmler concerning a

conference held on 27 May 1941 at which Dr. Clauberg was present, and

discussed his “new method of sterilization of inferior women without an

operation.”

Poppendick by letter dated 4 June 1941, which referred to a previous

telephone conversation with Grawitz, wrote Rudolf Brandt stating that he

was enclosing “the list of physicians who are prepared to perform the

treatment of sterility” as requested by Himmler. The list referred to is

evidently the same as was contained in a letter from Grawitz to Himmler,

dated 30 May 1941, which stated: “In the following, I submit a list of

specialists in charge of the treatment of sterility in women according

to the method of Professor Clauberg.”

It is shown by the evidence that Clauberg later carried out

sterilization experiments on Jewesses at Auschwitz. Similar experiments

were carried out in other concentration camps by SS doctors who were

subordinate to Grawitz. It is evident that Poppendick knew of these

sterilization experiments, although it is not shown that he was

criminally connected with them.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

It is not clear from the evidence that Poppendick was criminally

connected with, or had knowledge of, the nature of the typhus

experiments at Buchenwald, or the type of subjects upon which they were

conducted.

INCENDIARY BOMB EXPERIMENTS

There is some evidence in the record to the effect that after incendiary

bomb experiments were completed at Buchenwald, reports of the

experiments were forwarded to Poppendick and Mrugowsky. It is evident

that through the reports Poppendick gained knowledge of the nature of

the experiments, but the record fails to show criminal responsibility of

the defendant in connection therewith.

PHLEGMON EXPERIMENTS

The evidence clearly proves Poppendick’s knowledge of these experiments,

but it fails to show the defendant’s criminal connection therewith.

POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS

The record does not show Poppendick’s knowledge of or connection with

these experiments.

HORMONE EXPERIMENTS

The prosecution contends that the evidence shows Poppendick’s criminal

responsibility in connection with a series of experiments conducted at

Buchenwald by Dr. Varnet, a Danish physician who claimed to have

discovered a method of curing homosexuality by transplantation of an

artificial gland.

Under date 15 July 1944, Poppendick wrote to Dr. Ding at the

concentration camp Buchenwald as follows:

“By request of the Reichsfuehrer SS the Danish doctor SS

Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Varnet has been given opportunity to

continue his hormone research with the SS, particularly the

development of his artificial gland. The Reichsfuehrer SS

anticipates certain results from the treatment of homosexuals

with Vamet’s artificial gland. The technical preparations have

come to such a point that experiments on human beings can be

started within a reasonable space of time.

“As SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Lolling informed me, the

concentration camp Weimar-Buchenwald has been directed to make

available 5 prisoners for SS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet’s

experiments. These prisoners will be made available to SS

Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet by the camp physician at any time.

“SS Sturmbannfuehrer Varnet intends to go to Buchenwald shortly

in order to make certain necessary preliminary tests on these

prisoners. In case there will be special laboratory tests, you

are requested to assist Varnet within the scope of your

possibilities.

“Particulars on Varnet’s research were sent today to the camp

physician of Weimar-Buchenwald for his information.”

There is evidence that during the summer of 1944 Dr. Varnet conducted

the experiments referred to in Poppendick’s letter. However, the

nationality of the prisoners used for the experiments is not shown, nor

has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the experiments were

harmful or caused death, or injury to the experimental subjects.

We have given careful consideration to the evidence concerning the

charges made by the prosecution against the defendant Poppendick.

Certainly the evidence raises a strong suspicion that he was involved in

the experiments. He at least had notice of them and of their

consequences. He knew also that they were being carried on by the SS, of

which he was and remained a member.

But this Tribunal, however, cannot convict upon mere suspicion; evidence

beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary. The evidence is insufficient to

sustain guilt under counts two and three of the indictment.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

The defendant Poppendick is charged with membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, namely, the SS. Poppendick joined the SS in July 1932. He

remained in the SS voluntarily throughout the war, with actual knowledge

of the fact that that organization was being used for the commission of

acts now declared criminal by Control Council Law No. 10. He must,

therefore, be found guilty under count four of the indictment.

With reference to the nature of punishment which should be imposed under

such circumstances, the International Military Tribunal has made the

following recommendation:

“1. That so far as possible throughout the four zones of

occupation in Germany the classifications, sanctions, and

penalties be standardized. Uniformity of treatment so far as

practical should be a basic principle. This does not, of course,

mean that discretion in sentencing should not be vested in the

Court; but the discretion should be within fixed limits

appropriate to the nature of the crime.

“2. Law No. 10 * * * leaves punishment entirely to the

discretion of the trial court even to the extent of inflicting

the death penalty.

“The De-Nazification Law of 5 March 1946, however, passed for

Bavaria, Greater Hesse, and Wuerttemberg-Baden, provides

definite sentences for punishment in each type of offense. The

Tribunal recommends that in no case should punishment imposed

under Law No. 10 upon any members of an organization or group

declared by the Tribunal to be criminal exceed the punishment

fixed by the De-Nazification Law. No person should be punished

under both laws.”

(_See “Trial of the Major War Criminals,” Vol. 1, p. 257._)

In weighing the punishment, if any, which should be meted out to the

defendant for his guilt by reason of the charge contained in count four

of the indictment, this Tribunal will give such consideration to the

recommendations of the International Military Tribunal as may under the

premises seem meet and proper.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds the defendant Helmut Poppendick not guilty

under counts two and three of the indictment, and finds and adjudges the

defendant Helmut Poppendick guilty as charged in the fourth count of the

indictment.

SIEVERS

The defendant Sievers is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with special responsibility for, and participation in,

High-Altitude, Freezing, Malaria, Lost Gas, Sea-Water, Epidemic

Jaundice, and Typhus Experiments, and with extermination of Jews to

complete a skeleton collection. Under count four of the indictment, he

is charged with being a member of an organization declared criminal by

the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

The prosecution has abandoned the charge of participation in the

Epidemic Jaundice experiments, and hence, this charge will not be

considered further.

Sievers is one of the three defendants who are not physicians. He joined

the NSDAP in 1929 and renewed his membership in the Nazi Party in 1933.

He joined the SS at the end of 1935 on the suggestion of Himmler. In

this organization he attained the rank of a Standartenfuehrer (colonel).

From 1 July 1935 until the war ended, Sievers was a member of Himmler’s

personal staff and Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Society.

According to a statute of 1 January 1939, the purpose of the Ahnenerbe

was to support scientific research concerning the culture and heritage

of the Nordic race. The Board of Directors was composed of Himmler as

president, Dr. Wuest as curator, and Sievers as the business manager.

Sievers was responsible for the business organization administration and

the budget of the Ahnenerbe. The place of business was Berlin. Sievers

supported and participated in the medical experiments which are the

subject of the indictment, primarily through the Institute of Military

Scientific Research which was established by order of Himmler dated 7

July 1942 and was administratively attached to the Ahnenerbe.

On 1 January 1942 Himmler ordered the establishment of an entomological

institute; in March 1942 the Institute Dr. Rascher in Dachau; and in the

first month of the year 1942, the Institute Dr. Hirt, at Strasbourg.

These subsequently became part of the Institute for Military Scientific

Research.

Sievers was, for all practical purposes, the acting head of the

Ahnenerbe. In this capacity he was subordinated to Himmler and regularly

reported to him on the affairs of this Society. The top secret

correspondence of Himmler concerning the Ahnenerbe was sent to Sievers.

The charter of the Ahnenerbe defines Sievers’ duties as follows:

“The Reich Business Manager handles the business affairs of the

community; he is in charge of the business organization and

administration. He is responsible for the drawing up of the

budget and for the administration of the treasury.”

Sievers was responsible for the entire administrative problems of the

secretary’s office, bookkeeping and treasury. Besides that he also had

to manage the Ahnenerbe publishing house. In June 1943 Professor Dr.

Mentzel, who among other things was Chief of the Business Managing

Advisory Council of the Reich Research Council, appointed Sievers as his

deputy. By this act Sievers did not become a member of the Reich

Research Council but held only an honorary position.

In a letter to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, dated 28 January 1943,

Sievers defines his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe

as follows:

“My duty merely consists in smoothing the way for the research

men and seeing that the tasks ordered by the Reichsfuehrer SS

are carried out in the quickest possible way. On one thing I

certainly can form an opinion; that is, on who is doing the

quickest job.”

Sievers received orders directly from Himmler on matters of research

assignments for the Ahnenerbe and he reported directly to Himmler on

such experiments. Sievers devoted his efforts to obtaining the funds,

materials, and equipment needed by the research workers. The materials

obtained by Sievers included concentration camp inmates to be used as

experimental subjects. When the experiments were under way, Sievers made

certain that they were being performed in a satisfactory manner. In this

connection, Sievers necessarily exercised his own independent judgment

and had to familiarize himself with the details of such assignments.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

The details of these experiments are discussed in other portions of this

judgment. Sievers’ activities in the high-altitude experiments are

revealed clearly by the evidence. Rascher, in a letter to Himmler dated

5 April 1942, states as follows:

“SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers took a whole day off to watch

some of the interesting standard experiments and may have given

you a brief report * * * I am very much indebted to

Obersturmbannfuehrer Sievers as he has shown a very active

interest in my work in every respect.”

Sievers admitted that he reported to Himmler about his visit to Dachau.

On the basis of the reports of Sievers and Rascher, Himmler authorized

Rascher to continue the high-altitude experiments in Dachau, in the

course of which the evidence shows that 180 to 200 inmates were

experimented upon; that 70 to 80 of them died. Rascher became associated

with the Ahnenerbe in March 1942, and during the entire time covered by

the period of the high-altitude experiments, Rascher was attached to the

Ahnenerbe and performed the high-altitude experiments with its

assistance. On 20 July 1942, when the final report on high-altitude

experiments was submitted to Himmler, Rascher’s name appeared on the

letterhead of the Ahnenerbe Institute for Military Scientific Research

as shown by the cover letter, and the inclosed report bore the statement

that the experiments had been carried out in conjunction with the

research and instruction association “Das Ahnenerbe”. Sievers had actual

knowledge of the criminal aspects of the Rascher experiments. He was

notified that Dachau inmates were to be used. He himself inspected the

experiments. Sievers admitted that Rascher told him that several died as

a result of the high-altitude experiments.

Under these facts Sievers is specially chargeable with the criminal

aspects of these experiments.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

Before the high-altitude experiments had actually been completed,

freezing experiments were ordered to be performed at Dachau. They were

conducted from August 1942 to the early part of 1943 by Holzloehner,

Finke and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the Medical Services of

the Luftwaffe. Details of the freezing experiments have been given

elsewhere in this judgment.

In May 1943 Rascher was transferred to the Waffen SS and then proceeded

alone to conduct freezing experiments in Dachau until May 1945. Rascher

advised the defendant Rudolf Brandt that Poles and Russians had been

used as subjects.

The witness Neff testified that the defendant Sievers visited the

experimental station quite frequently during the freezing experiments.

He testified further that in September 1942 he received orders to take

the hearts and lungs of 5 experimental subjects killed in the

experiments to Professor Hirt in Strasbourg for further scientific

study; that the travel warrant for the trip was made out by Sievers; and

that the Ahnenerbe Society paid the expenses for the transfer of the

bodies. One of the 5 experimental subjects killed was a Dutch citizen.

Neff’s testimony is corroborated in large part by the affidavits of the

defendants Rudolf Brandt and Becker-Freyseng, by the testimony of the

witnesses Lutz, Michalowsky and Vieweg, and by the documentary evidence

in the record. In the Sievers’ diary, there are numerous instances of

Sievers’ activities in the aid of Rascher. On 1 February 1943 Sievers

noted efforts in obtaining apparatus, implements and chemicals for

Rascher’s experiments. On 6 and 21 January 1944 Sievers noted the

problem of location. Rascher reported to Sievers periodically concerning

the status and details of the freezing experiments.

It is plain from the record that the relationship of Sievers and Rascher

in the performance of freezing experiments required Sievers to make the

preliminary arrangements for the performance of the experiments to

familiarize himself with the progress of the experiments by personal

inspection, to furnish necessary equipment and material, including human

beings used during the freezing experiments, to receive and make

progress reports concerning Rascher, and to handle the matter of

evaluation and publication of such reports. Basically, such activities

constituted a performance of his duties as defined by Sievers in his

letter of 28 January 1943 to Rudolf Brandt, in which he stated that he

smoothed the way for research workers and saw to it that Himmler’s

orders were carried out.

Under these facts Sievers is chargeable with the criminal activities in

these experiments.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

Details of these experiments are given elsewhere in this judgment. These

experiments were performed at Dachau by Schilling and Ploetner. The

evidence shows that Sievers had knowledge of the nature and purpose of

these criminal enterprises and supported them in his official position.

LOST GAS EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp

under the supervision of Professor Hirt of the University of Strasbourg.

The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant Sievers supported this research

on behalf of the SS. The arrangement for the payment of the research

subsidies of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. The defendant Sievers

participated in these experiments by actively collaborating with the

defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt and with Hirt and his principal

assistant, Dr. Wimmer. The record shows that Sievers was in

correspondence with Hirt at least as early as January 1942, and that he

established contact between Himmler and Hirt.

In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers wrote that the

necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out our

military scientific research work”. He requested that Gluecks issue the

necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to enter

Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their board and

accommodations. The letter also stated:

“The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to

be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical

barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building

are required, in particular the installation of the hood which

can be produced with very little material. In accordance with

attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I

request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the

reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at

Natzweiler will be covered by this office.”

In a memorandum of 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt,

Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in

Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials.

He seemed particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials were

asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. A portion of the

memorandum follows:

“When I think of our military research work conducted at the

concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special

attention to the generous and understanding way in which our

work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given.

Payment of prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if at

Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible out

of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as a

matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea, but

to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that, to

the German people in a possible emergency.”

Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting

up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt

replied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942 and told Sievers that he

had had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and

that they would be remedied.

The testimony of the witness Holl was that approximately 220 inmates of

Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality were experimented upon by

Hirt and his collaborators, and that approximately 50 died. None of the

experimental subjects volunteered. During the entire period of these

experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society.

In early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost

experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treatment of Poisoning Caused

by Lost.” The report was described as from the Institute for Military

Scientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the

Strasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due

to Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this

report. On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer

Decree giving him broad powers in the field of chemical-warfare, Sievers

informed Brandt about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the report.

This is proved by Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944.

Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear that

experiments had been conducted on human beings.

Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler

concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning

the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments. These

arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental

subjects. Sievers testified that the Lost experiments were harmful. On

the visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been

subjected to Lost experiments and watched Hirt change the bandages on

one of the persons. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt

whether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the

experiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects

had died due to other causes.

It is evident that Sievers was criminally connected with these

experiments.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were conducted at Dachau from July through September

1944. Details of these experiments are explained elsewhere in the

judgment.

The function of the Ahnenerbe in the performance of sea-water

experiments conducted at Dachau from July through September 1944 was

chiefly in connection with the furnishing of space and equipment for the

experiments. Sievers made these necessary arrangements on behalf of the

Ahnenerbe. As a result of Schroeder’s request to Himmler through Grawitz

for permission to perform the sea-water experiments on inmates in

Dachau, Himmler directed on 8 July 1944 that the experiments be made on

gypsies and three other persons with other racial qualities as control

subjects. Sievers was advised by Himmler’s office of the above

authorization for experiments at the Rascher station at Dachau.

On 27 June 1944, Rascher was replaced by Ploetner as head of the

Ahnenerbe Institute for Military Scientific Research at Dachau. Sievers,

on 20 July, went to Dachau and conferred with Ploetner of the Ahnenerbe

Institute and the defendant Beiglboeck, who was to perform the

experiments, concerning the execution of the sea-water experiments and

the availability of working space for them. Sievers agreed to supply

working space in Ploetner’s department and at the Ahnenerbe

Entomological Institute.

On 26 July 1944, Sievers made a written report to Grawitz concerning

details of his conference at Dachau. Sievers wrote that 40 experimental

persons could be accommodated at “our” research station, that the

Ahnenerbe would supply a laboratory, and that Dr. Ploetner would give

his assistance, help, and advice to the Luftwaffe physicians performing

the experiments. Sievers also stated the number and assignment of the

personnel to be employed, estimating that the work would cover a period

of three weeks and designated 23 July 1944 as the date of commencement,

provided that experimental persons were available and the camp commander

had received the necessary order from Himmler. In conclusion, Sievers

expressed his hope that the arrangements which he had made would permit

a successful conduct of the experiments and requested that

acknowledgment be made to Himmler as a participant in the experiments.

In his testimony Sievers admitted that he had written the above letter

and had conferred with Beiglboeck at Dachau. As the letter indicates,

Sievers knew that concentration camp inmates were to be used.

Sievers had knowledge of and criminally participated in sea-water

experiments.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

Detailed description of these experiments is contained elsewhere in this

judgment. Sievers participated in the criminal typhus experiments

conducted by Haagen on concentration camp inmates at Natzweiler by

making the necessary arrangements in connection with securing

experimental subjects, handling administrative problems incident to the

experiments, and by furnishing the Ahnenerbe station with its equipment

in Natzweiler for their performance.

On 16 August 1943, when Haagen was preparing to transfer his typhus

experiments from Schirmeck to Natzweiler, he requested Sievers to make

available a hundred concentration camp inmates for his research. This is

seen from a letter of 30 September 1943 from Sievers to Haagen in which

he states that he will be glad to assist, and that he is accordingly

contacting the proper source to have the “desired personnel” placed at

Haagen’s disposal. As a result of Sievers’ efforts, a hundred inmates

were shipped from Auschwitz to Natzweiler for Haagen’s experiments.

These were found to be unfit for experimentation because of their

pitiful physical condition. A second group of one hundred was then made

available. Some of these were used by Haagen as experimental subjects.

That the experiments were carried out in the Ahnenerbe experimental

station in Natzweiler is proved by excerpts from monthly reports of the

camp doctor in Natzweiler. A number of deaths occurred among non-German

experimental subjects as a direct result of the treatment to which they

were subjected.

POLYGAL EXPERIMENTS

Evidence has been introduced during the course of the trial to show that

experiments to test the efficacy of a blood coagulant “polygal” were

conducted on Dachau inmates by Rascher. The Sievers’ diary shows that

the defendant had knowledge of activities concerning the production of

polygal, and that he lent his support to the conduct of the experiments.

JEWISH SKELETON COLLECTION

Sievers is charged under the indictment with participation in the

killing of 112 Jews who were selected to complete a skeleton collection

for the Reich University of Strasbourg.

Responding to a request by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Sievers

submitted to him on 9 February 1942 a report by Dr. Hirt of the

University of Strasbourg on the desirability of securing a Jewish

skeleton collection. In this report, Hirt advocated outright murder of

“Jewish Bolshevik Commissars” for the procurement of such a collection.

On 27 February 1942, Rudolf Brandt informed Sievers that Himmler would

support Hirt’s work and would place everything necessary at his

disposal. Brandt asked Sievers to inform Hirt accordingly and to report

again on the subject. On 2 November 1942 Sievers requested Brandt to

make the necessary arrangements with the Reich Main Security Office for

providing 150 Jewish inmates from Auschwitz to carry out this plan. On 6

November, Brandt informed Adolf Eichmann, the Chief of Office IV B/4

(Jewish Affairs) of the Reich Main Security Office to put everything at

Hirt’s disposal which was necessary for the completion of the skeleton

collection.

From Sievers’ letter to Eichmann of 21 June 1943, it is apparent that SS

Hauptsturmfuehrer Beger, a collaborator of the Ahnenerbe Society,

carried out the preliminary work for the assembling of the skeleton

collection in the Auschwitz concentration camp on 79 Jews, 30 Jewesses,

2 Poles, and 4 Asiatics. The corpses of the victims were sent in three

shipments to the Anatomical Institute of Hirt in the Strasbourg

University.

When the Allied Armies were threatening to overrun Strasbourg early in

September 1944, Sievers dispatched to Rudolf Brandt the following

teletype message:

“Subject: Collection of Jewish Skeletons.

“In conformity with the proposal of 9 February 1942 and with the

consent of 23 February 1942 * * * SS Sturmbannfuehrer Professor

Hirt planned the hitherto missing collection of skeletons. Due

to the extent of the scientific work connected herewith, the

preparation of the skeletons is not yet concluded. Hirt asks

with respect to the time needed for 80 specimens, and in case

the endangering of Strasbourg has to be reckoned with, how to

proceed with the collection situated in the dissecting room of

the anatomical institute. He is able to carry out the maceration

and thus render them irrecognizable. Then, however, part of the

entire work would have been partly done in vain, and it would be

a great scientific loss for this unique collection, because

hominit casts could not be made afterwards. The skeleton

collection as such is not conspicuous. Viscera could be declared

as remnants of corpses, apparently left in the anatomical

institute by the French and ordered to be cremated. Decision on

the following proposals is requested:

“1. Collection can be preserved.

“2. Collection is to be partly dissolved.

“3. Entire collection is to be dissolved.

“Sievers”

The pictures of the corpses and the dissecting rooms of the Institute,

taken by the French authorities after the liberation of Strasbourg,

point up the grim story of these deliberate murders to which Sievers was

a party.

Sievers knew from the first moment he received Hirt’s report of 9

February 1942 that mass murder was planned for the procurement of the

skeleton collection. Nevertheless he actively collaborated in the

project, sent an employee of the Ahnenerbe to make the preparatory

selections in the concentration camp at Auschwitz, and provided for the

transfer of the victims from Auschwitz to Natzweiler. He made

arrangements that the collection be destroyed.

Sievers’ guilt under this specification is shown without question.

Sievers offers two purported defenses to the charges against him (1)

that he acted pursuant to superior orders; (2) that he was a member of a

resistance movement.

The first defense is wholly without merit. There is nothing to show that

in the commission of these ghastly crimes, Sievers acted entirely

pursuant to orders. True, the basic policies or projects which he

carried through were decided upon by his superiors, but in the execution

of the details Sievers had an unlimited power of discretion. The

defendant says that in his position he could not have refused an

assignment. The fact remains that the record shows the case of several

men who did, and who have lived to tell about it.

Sievers’ second matter of defense is equally untenable. In support of

the defense, Sievers offered evidence by which he hoped to prove that as

early as 1933 he became a member of a secret resistance movement which

plotted to overthrow the Nazi Government and to assassinate Hitler and

Himmler; that as a leading member of the group, Sievers obtained the

appointment as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe so that he could

be close to Himmler and observe his movements; that in this position he

became enmeshed in the revolting crimes, the subject matter of this

indictment; that he remained as business manager upon advice of his

resistance leader to gain vital information which would hasten the day

of the overthrow of the Nazi Government and the liberation of the

helpless peoples coming under its domination.

Assuming all these things to be true, we cannot see how they may be used

as a defense for Sievers. The fact remains that murders were committed

with cooperation of the Ahnenerbe upon countless thousands of wretched

concentration camp inmates who had not the slightest means of

resistance. Sievers directed the program by which these murders were

committed.

It certainly is not the law that a resistance worker can commit no

crime, and least of all, against the very people he is supposed to be

protecting.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment, Wolfram Sievers is charged with

being a member of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of

the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows

that Wolfram Sievers became a member of the SS in 1935 and remained a

member of that organization to the end of the war. As a member of the SS

he was criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes

against humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the

indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wolfram Sievers

guilty under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

ROSE

The defendant Rose is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with special responsibility for, and participation in Typhus

and Epidemic Jaundice Experiments.

The latter charge has been abandoned by the prosecution.

Evidence was offered concerning Rose’s criminal participation in malaria

experiments at Dachau, although he was not named in the indictment as

one of the defendants particularly charged with criminal responsibility

in connection with malaria experiments. Questions presented by this

situation will be discussed later.

The defendant Rose is a physician of large experience, for many years

recognized as an expert in tropical diseases. He studied medicine at the

Universities of Berlin and Breslau and was admitted to practice in the

fall of 1921. After serving as interne in several medical institutes, he

received an appointment on the staff of the Robert Koch Institute in

Berlin. Later he served on the staff of Heidelberg University and for

three years engaged in the private practice of medicine in Heidelberg.

In 1929 he went to China, where he remained until 1936, occupying

important positions as medical adviser to the Chinese Government. In

1936 he returned to Germany and became head of the Department for

Tropical Medicine at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. Late in August

1939 he joined the Luftwaffe with the rank of first lieutenant in the

Medical Corps. In that service he was commissioned brigadier general in

the reserve and continued on active duty until the end of the war. He

was consultant on hygiene and tropical medicine to the Chief of the

Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. From 1944 he was also consultant on

the staff of defendant Handloser and was medical adviser to Dr. Conti in

matters pertaining to tropical diseases. During the war Rose devoted

practically all of his time to his duties as consultant to the Chief of

the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, Hippke, and after 1 January 1944,

the defendant Schroeder.

MALARIA EXPERIMENTS

Medical experiments in connection with malaria were carried on at Dachau

concentration camp from February 1942 until the end of the war. These

experiments were conducted under Dr. Klaus Schilling for the purpose of

discovering a method of establishing immunity against malaria. During

the course of the experiments probably as many as 1,000 inmates of the

concentration camp were used as subjects of the experiments. Very many

of these persons were nationals of countries other than Germany who did

not volunteer for the experiments. By credible evidence it is

established that approximately 30 of the experimental subjects died as a

direct result of the experiments and that many more succumbed from

causes directly following the experiments, including non-German

nationals.

With reference to Rose’s participation in these experiments, the record

shows the following: The defendant Rose had been acquainted with

Schilling for a number of years, having been his successor in a position

once held by Schilling in the Robert Koch Institute. Under date 3

February 1941, Rose, writing to Schilling, then in Italy, referred to a

letter received from Schilling, in which the latter requested “malaria

spleens” (spleens taken from the bodies of persons who had died from

malaria). Rose in reply asked for information concerning the exact

nature of the material desired. Schilling wrote 4 April 1942 from Dachau

to Rose at Berlin, stating that he had inoculated a person

intracutaneously with sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female

anopheles which Rose had sent him. The letter continues:

“For the second inoculation I miss the sporocoides material

because I do not possess the ‘Strain Rose’ in the anopheles yet.

If you could find it possible to send me in the next days a few

anopheles infected with ‘Strain Rose’ (with the last consignment

two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have the

possibility to continue this experiment and I would naturally be

very thankful to you for this new support of my work.

“The mosquito breeding and the experiments proceed

satisfactorily and I am working now on six tertiary strains.”

The letter bears the handwritten endorsement “finished 17 April 1942. L.

g. RO 17/4,” which evidence clearly reveals that Rose had complied with

Schilling’s request for material.

Schilling again wrote Rose from Dachau malaria station 5 July 1943,

thanking Rose for his letter and “the consignment of atroparvus eggs.”

The letter continues:

“Five percent of them brought on water went down and were

therefore unfit for development; the rest of them hatched almost

100 percent.

“Thanks to your solicitude, achieved again the completion of my

breed.

“Despite this fact I accept with great pleasure your offer to

send me your excess of eggs. How did you dispatch this

consignment? The result could not have been any better!

“Please tell Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of her

breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner

August, my best thanks for her trouble.

“Again my sincere thanks to you!”

The “prisoner August” mentioned in the letter was doubtless the witness

August Vieweg, who testified before this Tribunal concerning the malaria

experiments.

Rose wrote Schilling 27 July 1943 in answer to the latter’s letter of 5

July 1943, stating he was glad the shipment of eggs had arrived in good

order and had proved useful. He also gave the information that another

shipment of anopheles eggs would follow.

In the fall of 1942 Rose was present at the “Cold Conference” held at

Nuernberg and heard Holzloehner deliver his lecture on the freezing

experiments which had taken place at Dachau. Rose testified that after

the conference he talked with Holzloehner, who told him that the

carrying out of physiological experiments on human beings imposed upon

him a tremendous mental burden, adding that he hoped he never would

receive another order to conduct such experiments.

It is impossible to believe that during the years 1942 and 1943 Rose was

unaware of malaria experiments on human beings which were progressing at

Dachau under Schilling, or to credit Rose with innocence of knowledge

that the malaria research was not confined solely to vaccinations

designed for the purpose of immunizing the persons vaccinated. On the

contrary, it is clear that Rose well knew that human beings were being

used in the concentration camp as subjects for medical experimentation.

However, no adjudication either of guilt or innocence will be entered

against Rose for criminal participation in these experiments for the

following reason: In preparing counts two and three of its indictment

the prosecution elected to frame its pleading in such a manner as to

charge all defendants with the commission of war crimes and crimes

against humanity, generally, and at the same time to name in each

sub-paragraph dealing with medical experiments only those defendants

particularly charged with responsibility for each particular item.

In our view this constituted, in effect, a bill of particulars and was,

in essence, a declaration to the defendants upon which they were

entitled to rely in preparing their defenses, that only such persons as

were actually named in the designated experiments would be called upon

to defend against the specific items. Included in the list of names of

those defendants specifically charged with responsibility for the

malaria experiments the name of Rose does not appear. We think it would

be manifestly unfair to the defendant to find him guilty of an offense

with which the indictment affirmatively indicated he was not charged.

This does not mean that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was

inadmissible against the charges actually preferred against Rose. We

think it had probative value as proof of the fact of Rose’s knowledge of

human experimentation upon concentration camp inmates.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

These experiments were carried out at Buchenwald and Natzweiler

concentration camps, over a period extending from 1942 to 1945, in an

attempt to procure a protective typhus vaccine.

In the experimental block at Buchenwald, with Dr. Ding in charge,

inmates of the camp were infected with typhus for the purpose of

procuring a continuing supply of fresh blood taken from persons

suffering from typhus. Other inmates, some previously immunized and some

not, were infected with typhus to demonstrate the efficacy of the

vaccines. Full particulars of these experiments have been given

elsewhere in the judgment.

Rose visited Buchenwald in company with Gildemeister of the Robert Koch

Institute in the spring of 1942. At this time Dr. Ding was absent,

suffering from typhus as the result of an accidental infection received

while infecting his experimental subjects. Rose inspected the

experimental block where he saw many persons suffering from typhus. He

passed through the wards and looked at the clinical records “of * * *

persons with severe cases in the control cases and * * * lighter cases

among those vaccinated.”

The Ding diary, under dates 19 August-4 September 1942, referring to use

of vaccines for immunization, states that 20 persons were inoculated

with vaccine from Bucharest, with a note “this vaccine was made

available by Professor Rose, who received it from Navy Doctor Professor

Ruegge from Bucharest.” Rose denied that he had ever sent vaccine to

Mrugowsky or Ding for use at Buchenwald. Mrugowsky, from Berlin, under

date 16 May 1942, wrote Rose as follows:

“Dear Professor:

“The Reich Physician SS and Police has consented to the

execution of experiments to test typhus vaccines. May I

therefore ask you to let me have the vaccines.

“The other question which you raised, as to whether the louse

can be infected by a vaccinated typhus patient, will also be

dealt with. In principle, this also has been approved. There

are, however, still some difficulties at the moment about the

practical execution, since we have at present no facilities for

breeding lice.

“Your suggestion to use Olzscha has been passed on to the

personnel department of the SS medical office. It will be given

consideration in due course.”

From a note on the letter, it appears that Rose was absent from Berlin

and was not expected to return until June. The letter, however, refers

to previous contact with Rose and to some suggestions made by him which

evidently concern medical experiments on human beings. Rose in effect

admitted that he had forwarded the Bucharest vaccine to be tested at

Buchenwald.

At a meeting of consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht held in May 1943,

Ding made a report in which he described the typhus experiments he had

been performing at Buchenwald. Rose heard the report at the meeting and

then and there objected strongly to the methods used by Ding in

conducting the experiments. As may well be imagined, this protest

created considerable discussion among those present.

The Ding diary shows that, subsequent to this meeting, experiments were

conducted at Buchenwald at the instigation of the defendant Rose. The

entry under date of 8 March 1944, which refers to “typhus vaccine

experimental series VIII”, appears as follows:

“Suggested by Colonel M. C. of the Air Corps, Professor Rose

(Oberstarzt), the vaccine ‘Kopenhagen’ (Ipsen-Murine-vaccine)

produced from mouse liver by the National Serum Institute in

Copenhagen was tested for its compatibility on humans. 20

persons were vaccinated for immunization by intramuscular

injection * * *. 10 persons were contemplated for control and

comparison. 4 of the 30 persons were eliminated before the start

of the artificial injection because of intermittent sickness * *

*. The remaining experimental persons were infected on 16 April

44 by subcutaneous injection of 1/20 cc. typhus sick fresh blood

* * *. The following fell sick: 17 persons immunized: 9 medium,

8 seriously; 9 persons control: 2 medium, 7 seriously * * *. 2

June 44: The experimental series was concluded 13 June 44: Chart

and case history completed and sent to Berlin. 6 deaths (3

Copenhagen) (3 control). Dr. Ding.”

When on the witness stand Rose vigorously challenged the correctness of

this entry in the Ding diary and flatly denied that he had sent a

Copenhagen vaccine to Mrugowsky or Ding for use at Buchenwald. The

prosecution met this challenge by offering in evidence a letter from

Rose to Mrugowsky dated 2 December 1943, in which Rose stated that he

had at his disposal a number of samples of a new murine virus typhus

vaccine prepared from mice livers, which in animal experiments had been

much more effective than the vaccine prepared from the lungs of mice.

The letter continued:

“To decide whether this first-rate murine vaccine should be used

for protective vaccination of human beings against lice typhus,

it would be desirable to know if this vaccine showed in your and

Ding’s experimental arrangement at Buchenwald an effect similar

to that of the classic virus vaccines.

“Would you be able to have such an experimental series carried

out? Unfortunately I could not reach you over the phone.

Considering the slowness of postal communications I would be

grateful for an answer by telephone * * *.”

The letter shows on its face that it was forwarded by Mrugowsky to Ding,

who noted its receipt by him 21 February 1944.

On cross-examination, when Rose was confronted with the letter he

admitted its authorship, and that he had asked that experiments be

carried out by Mrugowsky and Ding at Buchenwald.

The fact that Rose contributed actively and materially to the

Mrugowsky-Ding experiments at Buchenwald clearly appears from the

evidence.

The evidence also shows that Rose actively collaborated in the typhus

experiments carried out by Haagen at the Natzweiler concentration camp

for the benefit of the Luftwaffe.

From the exhibits in the record, it appears that Rose and Haagen

corresponded during the month of June 1943 concerning the production of

a vaccine for typhus. Under date 5 June 1943 Haagen wrote to Rose

amplifying a telephone conversation between the two and referring to a

letter from a certain Giroud with reference to a vaccine which had been

used on rabbits. A few days later Rose replied, thanking him for his

letters of 4 and 5 June and for “the prompt execution of my request.”

The record makes it plain that by use of the phrase “the prompt

execution of my request” was meant a request made by Rose to the Chief

of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht for an order to produce typhus

vaccine to be used by the armed forces in the eastern area.

Under date 4 October 1943 Haagen again wrote Rose concerning his plans

for vaccine production, making reference in the letter to a report made

by Rose on the Ipsen vaccine. Haagen stated that he had already reported

to Rose on the results of experiments with human beings and expressed

his regret that, up to the date of the letter, he had been unable to

“perform infection experiments on the vaccinated persons.” He also

stated that he had requested the Ahnenerbe to provide suitable persons

for vaccination but had received no answer; that he was then vaccinating

other human beings and would report results later. He concluded by

expressing the wish and need for experimental subjects upon whom to test

vaccinations, and suggested that when subjects were procured, parallel

tests should be made between the vaccine referred to in the letter and

the Ipsen tests.

We think the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from this

letter is that Haagen was proposing to test the efficacy of the

vaccinations which he had completed, which could only be accomplished by

infecting the vaccinated subjects with a virulent pathogenic virus.

In a letter written by Rose and dated “in the field, 29 September 1943”,

directed to the Behring Works at Marburg/Lahn, Rose states that he is

enclosing a memorandum regarding reports by Dr. Ipsen on his experience

in the production of typhus vaccine. Copy of the report which Rose

enclosed is in evidence, Rose stating therein that he had proposed, and

Ipsen had promised, that a number of Ipsen’s liver vaccine samples

should be sent to Rose with the object of testing its protective

efficacy on human beings whose lives were in special danger. Copies of

this report were forwarded by Rose to several institutions, including

that presided over by Haagen.

In November 1943, 100 prisoners were transported to Natzweiler, of whom

18 had died during the journey. The remainder were in such poor health

that Haagen found them worthless for his experiments and requested

additional healthy prisoners through Dr. Hirt, who was a member of the

Ahnenerbe.

Rose wrote to Haagen 13 December 1943, saying among other things “I

request that in procuring persons for vaccination in your experiment,

you request a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with

Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also appeared in the

Buchenwald experiments, that the test of various vaccines simultaneously

gives a clearer idea of their value than the test of one vaccine alone.”

There is much other evidence connecting Rose with the series of

experiments conducted by Haagen but we shall not burden the judgment

further. It will be sufficient to say that the evidence proves

conclusively that Rose was directly connected with the criminal

experiments conducted by Haagen.

Doubtless at the outset of the experimental program launched in the

concentration camps, Rose may have voiced some vigorous opposition. In

the end, however, he overcame what scruples he had and knowingly took an

active and consenting part in the program. He attempts to justify his

actions on the ground that a state may validly order experiments to be

carried out on persons condemned to death without regard to the fact

that such persons may refuse to consent to submit themselves as

experimental subjects. This defense entirely misses the point of the

dominant issue. As we have pointed out in the case of Gebhardt, whatever

may be the condition of the law with reference to medical experiments

conducted by or through a state upon its own citizens, such a thing will

not be sanctioned in international law when practiced upon citizens or

subjects of an occupied territory.

We have indulged every presumption in favor of the defendant, but his

position lacks substance in the face of the overwhelming evidence

against him. His own consciousness of turpitude is clearly disclosed by

the statement made by him at the close of a vigorous cross-examination

in the following language:

“It was known to me that such experiments had earlier been

carried out, although I basically objected to these experiments.

This institution had been set up in Germany and was approved by

the state and covered by the state. At that moment I was in a

position which perhaps corresponds to a lawyer who is, perhaps,

a basic opponent of execution or death sentence. On occasion

when he is dealing with leading members of the government, or

with lawyers during public congresses or meetings, he will do

everything in his power to maintain his opinion on the subject

and have it put into effect. If, however, he does not succeed,

he stays in his profession and in his environment in spite of

this. Under circumstances he may perhaps even be forced to

pronounce such a death sentence himself, although he is

basically an opponent of that set-up.”

The Tribunal finds that the defendant Rose was a principal in, accessory

to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and was connected with

plans and enterprises involving medical experiments on non-German

nationals without their consent, in the course of which murders,

brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts

were committed. To the extent that these crimes were not war crimes they

were crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Gerhard Rose guilty

under counts two and three of the indictment.

RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ

The defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz are charged under counts two and

three of the indictment with special responsibility for, and

participation in, High-Altitude Experiments.

The defendant Weltz is also charged under counts two and three with

special responsibility for, and participation in, Freezing Experiments.

To the extent that the evidence in the record relates to the

high-altitude experiments, the cases of the three defendants will be

considered together.

Defendant Ruff specialized in the field of aviation medicine from the

completion of his medical education at Berlin and Bonn in 1932. In

January 1934 he was assigned to the German Experimental Institute for

Aviation, a civilian agency, in order to establish a department for

aviation medicine. Later he became chief of the department.

Defendant Romberg joined the NSDAP in May 1933. From April 1936 until

1938 he interned as an assistant physician at a Berlin hospital. On 1

January 1938 he joined the staff of the German Experimental Institution

for Aviation as an associate assistant to the defendant Ruff. He

remained as a subordinate to Ruff until the end of the war.

Defendant Weltz for many years was a specialist in X-ray work. In the

year 1935 he received an assignment as lecturer in the field of aviation

medicine at the University of Munich. At the same time he instituted a

small experimental department at the Physiological Institute of the

University of Munich. Weltz lectured at the University until 1945; at

the same time he did research work at the Institute.

In the summer of 1941 the experimental department at the Physiological

Institute, University of Munich, was taken over by the Luftwaffe and

renamed the “Institute for Aviation Medicine in Munich.” Weltz was

commissioned director of this Institute by Hippke, then Chief of the

Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. In his capacity as director of

this Institute, Weltz was subordinated to Luftgau No. VII in Munich for

disciplinary purposes. In scientific matters he was subordinated

directly to Anthony, Chief of the Department for Aviation Medicine in

the Office of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is overwhelming and not contradicted that experiments

involving the effect of low air pressure on living human beings were

conducted at Dachau from the latter part of February through May 1942.

In some of these experiments great numbers of human subjects were killed

under the most brutal and senseless conditions. A certain Dr. Sigmund

Rascher, Luftwaffe officer, was the prime mover in the experiments which

resulted in the deaths of the subjects. The prosecution maintains that

Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz were criminally implicated in these

experiments.

The guilt of the defendant Weltz is said to arise by reason of the fact

that, according to the prosecution’s theory, Weltz, as the dominant

figure proposed the experiments, arranged for their conduct at Dachau,

and brought the parties Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher together. The guilt

of Ruff and Romberg is charged by reason of the fact that they are said

to have collaborated with Rascher in the conduct of the experiments. The

evidence on the details of the matter appears to be as follows:

In the late summer of 1941 soon after the Institute Weltz at Munich was

taken over by the Luftwaffe, Hippke, Chief of the Medical Service of the

Luftwaffe, approved, in principle, a research assignment for Weltz in

connection with the problem of rescue of aviators at high altitudes.

This required the use of human experimental subjects. Weltz endeavored

to secure volunteer subjects for the research from various sources;

however, he was unsuccessful in his efforts.

Rascher, one of Himmler’s minor satellites, was at the time an assistant

at the Institute. He, Rascher, suggested the possibility of securing

Himmler’s consent to conducting the experiments at Dachau. Weltz seized

upon the suggestion, and thereafter arrangements to that end were

completed, Himmler giving his consent for experiments to be conducted on

concentration camp inmates condemned to death, but only upon express

condition that Rascher be included as one of the collaborators in the

research.

Rascher was not an expert in aviation medicine. Ruff was the leading

German scientist in this field, and Romberg was his principal assistant.

Weltz felt that before he could proceed with his research these men

should be persuaded to come into the undertaking. He visited Ruff in

Berlin and explained the proposition. Thereafter Ruff and Romberg came

to Munich, where a conference was held with Weltz and Rascher to discuss

the technical nature of the proposed experiments.

According to the testimony of Weltz, Ruff, and Romberg, the basic

consideration which impelled them to agree to the use of concentration

camp inmates as subjects was the fact that the inmates were to be

criminals condemned to death who were to receive some form of clemency

in the event they survived the experiments. Rascher, who was active in

the conference, assured the defendants that this also was one of the

conditions under which Himmler had authorized the use of camp inmates as

experimental subjects.

The decisions reached at the conference were then made known to Hippke,

who gave his approval to the institution of experiments at Dachau and

issued an order that a mobile low-pressure chamber which was then in the

possession of Ruff at the Department for Aviation Medicine, Berlin,

should be transferred to Dachau for use in the project.

A second meeting was held at Dachau, attended by Ruff, Romberg, Weltz,

Rascher, and the camp commander, to make the necessary arrangements for

the conduct of the experiments. The mobile low-pressure chamber was then

brought to Dachau, and on 22 February 1942 the first series of

experiments was instituted.

Weltz was Rascher’s superior; Romberg was subordinate to Ruff. Rascher

and Romberg were in personal charge of the conduct of the experiments.

There is no evidence to show that Weltz was ever present at any of these

experiments. Ruff visited Dachau one day during the early part of the

experiments, but thereafter remained in Berlin and received information

concerning the progress of the experiments only through his subordinate,

Romberg.

There is evidence from which it may reasonably be found that at the

outset of the program personal friction developed between Weltz and his

subordinate Rascher. The testimony of Weltz is that on several occasions

he asked Rascher for reports on the progress of the experiments and each

time Rascher told Weltz that nothing had been started with reference to

the research. Finally Weltz ordered Rascher to make a report; whereupon

Rascher showed his superior a telegram from Himmler which stated, in

substance, that the experiments to be conducted by Rascher were to be

treated as top secret matter and that reports were to be given to none

other than Himmler. Because of this situation Weltz had Rascher

transferred out of his command to the DVL branch at Dachau. Defendant

Romberg stated that these experiments had been stopped soon after their

inception by the adjutant of the Reich War Ministry, because of friction

between Weltz and Rascher, and that the experiments were resumed only

after Rascher had been transferred out of Weltz Institute.

While the evidence is convincingly plain that Weltz participated in the

initial arrangements for the experiments and brought all parties

together, it is not so clear that illegal experiments were planned or

carried out while Rascher was under Weltz command, or that he knew that

experiments which Rascher might conduct in the future would be illegal

and criminal.

There appear to have been two distinct groups of prisoners used in the

experimental series. One was a group of 10 to 15 inmates known in the

camp as “exhibition patients” or “permanent experimental subjects”.

Most, if not all, of these were German nationals who were confined in

the camp as criminal prisoners. These men were housed together and were

well-fed and reasonably contented. None of them suffered death or injury

as a result of the experiments. The other group consisted of 150 to 200

subjects picked at random from the camp and used in the experiments

without their permission. Some 70 or 80 of these were killed during the

course of the experiments.

The defendants Ruff and Romberg maintain that two separate and distinct

experimental series were carried on at Dachau; one conducted by them

with the use of the “exhibition subjects”, relating to the problems of

rescue at high altitudes, in which no injuries occurred; the other

conducted by Rascher on the large group of nonvolunteers picked from the

camp at random, to test the limits of human endurance at extremely high

altitudes, in which experimental subjects in large numbers were killed.

The prosecution submits that no such fine distinction may be drawn

between the experiments said to have been conducted by Ruff and Romberg,

on the one hand, and Rascher on the other, or in the prisoners who were

used as the subjects of these experiments; that Romberg—and Ruff as his

superior—share equal guilt with Rascher for all experiments in which

deaths to the human subjects resulted.

In support of this submission the members of the prosecution cite the

fact that Rascher was always present when Romberg was engaged in work at

the altitude chamber; that on at least three occasions Romberg was at

the chamber when deaths occurred to the so-called Rascher subjects, yet

elected to continue the experiments. They point likewise to the fact

that, in a secret preliminary report made by Rascher to Himmler which

tells of deaths, Rascher mentions the name of Romberg as being a

collaborator in the research. Finally they point to the fact that, after

the experiments were concluded, Romberg was recommended by Rascher and

Sievers for the War Merit Cross, because of the work done by him at

Dachau.

The issue on the question of the guilt or innocence of these defendants

is close; we would be less than fair were we not to concede this fact.

It cannot be denied that there is much in the record to create at least

a grave suspicion that the defendants Ruff and Romberg were implicated

in criminal experiments at Dachau. However, virtually all of the

evidence which points in this direction is circumstantial in its nature.

On the other hand, it cannot be gainsaid that there is a certain

consistency, a certain logic, in the story told by the defendants. And

some of the story is corroborated in significant particulars by evidence

offered by the prosecution.

The value of circumstantial evidence depends upon the conclusive nature

and tendency of the circumstances relied on to establish any

controverted fact. The circumstances must not only be consistent with

guilt, but they must be inconsistent with innocence. Such evidence is

insufficient when, assuming all to be true which the evidence tends to

prove, some other reasonable hypothesis of innocence may still be true;

for it is the actual exclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis but

that of guilt which invests mere circumstances with the force of proof.

Therefore, before a court will be warranted in finding a defendant

guilty on circumstantial evidence alone, the evidence must show such a

well-connected and unbroken chain of circumstances as to exclude all

other reasonable hypotheses but that of the guilt of the defendant. What

circumstances can amount to proof can never be a matter of general

definition. In the final analysis the legal test is whether the evidence

is sufficient to satisfy beyond a reasonable doubt the understanding and

conscience of those who, under their solemn oaths as officers, must

assume the responsibility for finding the facts.

On this particular specification, it is the conviction of the Tribunal

that the defendants Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz must be found not guilty.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

In addition to the high-altitude experiments, the defendant Weltz is

charged with freezing experiments, likewise conducted at Dachau for the

benefit of the German Luftwaffe. These began at the camp at the

conclusion of the high-altitude experiments and were performed by

Holzloehner, Finke, and Rascher, all of whom were officers in the

medical services of the Luftwaffe. Non-German nationals were killed in

these experiments.

We think it quite probable that Weltz had knowledge of these

experiments, but the evidence is not sufficient to prove that he

participated in them.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Siegfried Ruff

is not guilty under either counts two or three of the indictment, and

directs that he be released from custody under the indictment when this

Tribunal presently adjourns; and

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Hans Wolfgang

Romberg is not guilty under either counts two or three of the

indictment, and directs that he be released from custody under the

indictment when this Tribunal presently adjourns; and

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Georg August

Weltz is not guilty under either counts two or three of the indictment;

and directs that he be released from custody under the indictment when

this Tribunal presently adjourns.

BRACK

The defendant Brack is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in,

Sterilization Experiments and the Euthanasia Program of the German

Reich. Under count four the defendant is charged with membership in an

organization declared criminal by the judgment of the International

Military Tribunal, namely, the SS.

The defendant Brack enlisted in an artillery unit of an SA regiment in

1923, and became a member of the NSDAP and the SS in 1929. Throughout

his career in the Party he was quite active in high official circles. He

entered upon full-time service in the Braune Haus, the Nazi headquarters

at Munich, in the summer of 1932. The following year he was appointed to

the Staff of Bouhler, business manager of the NSDAP in Munich. When in

1934 Bouhler became Chief of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the

NSDAP, Brack was transferred from the Braune Haus to Bouhler’s Berlin

office. In 1936 Brack was placed in charge of office 2 (Amt 2) in the

Chancellery of the Fuehrer in Berlin, that office being charged with the

examinations of complaints received by the Fuehrer from all parts of

Germany. Later, he became Bouhler’s deputy in office 2. As such he

frequently journeyed to the different Gaue for the purpose of gaining

first-hand information concerning matters in which Bouhler was

interested.

Brack was promoted to the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer in the SS in 1935,

and in April 1936 to the rank of Obersturmbannfuehrer. The following

September he became a Standartenfuehrer in the SS, and was transferred

to the staff of the Main Office of the SS in November. In November 1940

he was promoted to the grade of Oberfuehrer.

In 1942 Brack joined the Waffen SS, and during the late summer of that

year was ordered to active duty with a Waffen SS division. He apparently

remained on active duty until the close of the war.

STERILIZATION EXPERIMENTS

The persecution of the Jews had become a fixed Nazi policy very soon

after the outbreak of World War II. By 1941 that persecution had reached

the stage of the extermination of Jews, both in Germany and in the

occupied territories. This fact is confirmed by Brack himself, who

testified that he had been told by Himmler that he, Himmler, had

received a personal order to that effect from Hitler.

The record shows that the agencies organized for the so-called

euthanasia of incurables were used for this bloody pogrom. Later,

because of the urgent need for laborers in Germany, it was decided not

to kill Jews who were able to work but, as an alternative, to sterilize

them.

With this end in view Himmler instructed Brack to inquire of physicians

who were engaged in the Euthanasia Program about the possibility of a

method of sterilizing persons without the victim’s knowledge. Brack

worked on the assignment, with the result that in March 1941 he

forwarded to Himmler his signed report on the results of experiments

concerning the sterilization of human beings by means of X-rays. In the

report a method was suggested by which sterilization with X-ray could be

effected on groups of persons without their being aware of the

operation.

On 23 June 1942 Brack wrote the following letter to Himmler:

“Dear Reichsfuehrer:

“* * * Among 10 millions of Jews in Europe, there are, I figure,

at least 2-3 millions of men and women who are fit enough to

work. Considering the extraordinary difficulties the labor

problem presents us with I hold the view that those 2-3 millions

should be specially selected and preserved. This can however

only be done if at the same time they are rendered incapable to

propagate. About a year ago I reported to you that agents of

mine have completed the experiments necessary for this purpose.

I would like to recall these facts once more. Sterilization, as

normally performed on persons with hereditary diseases is here

out of the question, because it takes too long and is too

expensive. Castration by X-ray however is not only relatively

cheap, but can also be performed on many thousands in the

shortest time. I think, that at this time it is already

irrelevant whether the people in question become aware of having

been castrated after some weeks or months, once they feel the

effects.

“Should you, Reichsfuehrer, decide to choose this way in the

interest of the preservation of labor, then Reichsleiter Bouhler

would be prepared to place all physicians and other personnel

needed for this work at your disposal. Likewise he requested me

to inform you that then I would have to order the apparatus so

urgently needed with the greatest speed.

“Heil Hitler!

“Yours

“VIKTOR BRACK.”

Brack testified from the witness stand that at the time he wrote this

letter he had every confidence that Germany would win the war.

Brack’s letter was answered by Himmler on 11 August 1942. In the reply

Himmler directed that sterilization by means of X-rays be tried in at

least one concentration camp in a series of experiments, and that Brack

place at his disposal expert physicians to conduct the operation.

Blankenburg, Brack’s deputy, replied to Himmler’s letter and stated that

Brack had been transferred to an SS division, but that he, Blankenburg,

as Brack’s permanent deputy would “immediately take the necessary

measures and get in touch with the chiefs of the main offices of the

concentration camps.”

A Polish Jew testified before the Tribunal that while confined in

Auschwitz concentration camp he was marched to Birkenau and forcibly

subjected to severe X-ray exposure and was castrated later in order that

the effects of the X-ray could be studied.

A French physician of Jewish descent who was confined at Auschwitz from

September 1943 to January 1945, testified that near Auschwitz was

Birkenau camp where people were sterilized by SS doctors. About 100 male

Poles who had been sterilized at Birkenau were attended by the witness

after the operation. Later this group was castrated by the camp

physicians.

The record contains other evidence from which it is manifestly plain

that sterilization by means of X-rays was attempted on groups of persons

who were painfully injured thereby; and that castration followed the

X-ray procedures.

Brack’s part in the organization of the sterilization program with full

knowledge that it would be put into execution, is conclusively shown by

the record.

EUTHANASIA PROGRAM

The Euthanasia Program, which was put into effect by a secret decree of

Hitler on the day that Germany invaded Poland, has been discussed at

length in the judgment in the case against Karl Brandt.

Brack contends that he was basically opposed to this program and that,

on occasion, he assisted certain of his Jewish friends to escape from

its consequences. But be that as it may, the evidence is that whatever

sentiments Brack may have entertained toward individual members of the

race, he was perfectly willing to and did act as an important

administrator in furthering the Euthanasia Program. After it had gotten

under way, he wrote letters to various public officials, explaining to

them how to keep the matter secret and to allay the public sentiment

against the program.

This much is shown by Brack’s own statements. As a witness on the stand

he testified that while at first he did not understand the full import

of the program, he decided, after a talk with Bouhler, to collaborate in

carrying out the assignment and to execute Bouhler’s orders.

He participated in the initial meetings called for the purpose of

placing the project in operation. He was present at meetings of the

experts, as well as the administrative discussions. He often acted as

Bouhler’s representative, frequently making decisions which called for

the exercise of personal judgment and a wide latitude of discretion.

Brack admitted that such were his activities in the program, that one

might well have come to the conclusion that he was the influential man

in euthanasia.

As Bouhler’s deputy he addressed a meeting at Munich, where he explained

the purpose of Hitler’s decree and mentioned the draft of a law which

was being prepared to give complete legislative sanctify to

euthanasia—a law, incidentally, which was never in fact enacted. He

represented Bouhler in April of 1941 at a meeting attended by Nazi

judges and prosecutors. He testified that the Ministry of Justice had

become considerably embarrassed because of the Euthanasia Program, and

that he was present at the meeting for the purpose of imparting

information concerning the salutary features of euthanasia to those who

were present.

Brack gave the Tribunal considerable information concerning the method

of extermination by euthanasia, stating that the program was so designed

as to render the process inconspicuous and painless. In December 1939,

or January 1940, Brack, Bouhler, Conti, and some other doctors were

present at the administration of euthanasia to four experimental

subjects. The victims were led into a gas chamber which had been built

to resemble a shower room. The patients were seated on benches and

poisonous gas was let into the chamber. A few moments later the patients

became drowsy and finally lapsed into a death sleep without even knowing

they were being executed. On the basis of this execution “Hitler decided

that only carbon monoxide was to be used for killing the patients.”

According to Brack these persons were not Jews, because, as Bouhler had

explained to him, “the philanthropic action of euthanasia should be

extended only to Germans.”

The evidence is plain that the euthanasia program explained by the

defendant, gradually merged into the “Action 14 f 13,” which, briefly

stated, amounted to an extermination of concentration camp inmates by

methods and agencies used in euthanasia. One of the prime motives behind

the program was to eliminate “useless eaters” from the scene, in order

to conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more

important use of the German Armed Forces. Many nationals of countries

other than Germany were killed.

Brack’s direct connection with and participation in the execution of

euthanasia is conclusively proved by the evidence in the record.

MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment the defendant Brack is charged with

being a member of the organization declared criminal by the judgment of

the International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows

that Brack became a member of the SS in 1929, and voluntarily remained

in that organization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he

was criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes

against humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the

indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Viktor Brack guilty

under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

BECKER-FREYSENG

The defendant Becker-Freyseng is charged under counts two and three of

the indictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in,

High-Altitude, Freezing, Sulfanilamide, Sea-Water, Epidemic Jaundice,

and Typhus Experiments.

The prosecution has abandoned all charges except as to high-altitude,

freezing, sea-water and typhus experiments, and hence only these will be

considered.

The defendant Becker-Freyseng joined the Nazi Party in 1933. In 1940 he

was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In 1943 he was promoted to the rank of

Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.

From August 1941 until May 1944 the defendant was an assistant

consultant to Anthony, Chief of the Referat for Aviation Medicine,

Berlin. This department dealt with all questions concerning aviation

medicine and reported to the Chief of the Medical Service of the

Luftwaffe. When Schroeder became Chief of the Medical Service of the

Luftwaffe on 1 January 1944, the defendant became the consultant for

aviation medicine in Schroeder’s office.

HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

As shown elsewhere in the judgment, high-altitude experiments for the

benefit of the Luftwaffe were conducted at Dachau concentration camp on

non-German nationals, beginning in February or March 1942. These

experiments had been approved, in principle at least, by Hippke, Chief

of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. A mobile low-pressure chamber

which had been in the possession of the department of aviation medicine,

Berlin, was transferred to Dachau for use in the experiments.

Concentration camp inmates were killed while being subjected to

experiments conducted in the chamber.

During the time the experiments were conducted, defendant

Becker-Freyseng was an assistant consultant to Anthony, Chief of the

Referat for Aviation Medicine, Berlin. All low-pressure chambers owned

by the Luftwaffe were under the general control of that office.

It is submitted by the prosecution that the record shows that

Becker-Freyseng was a principal in, accessory to, aided, abetted, took a

consenting part in, and was connected with plans and enterprises

involving the commission of these experiments.

The evidence upon this charge is not deemed sufficient to preponderate

against a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilty participation in

the experiments here involved.

FREEZING EXPERIMENTS

It is claimed that in June 1942 Becker-Freyseng was informed from

certain of his official files that a meeting to consider experiments to

investigate the treatment of persons who had been severely chilled or

frozen would be held in Nuernberg the following October (referred to as

the “Cold Congress”). It is contended that the directive which set the

experiment into motion was issued from the office of the department for

aviation medicine, that the funds and equipment were supplied by that

office, and that Becker-Freyseng had knowledge of the experiments, and

that he admitted such knowledge.

As to all this, the proof is clear that Becker-Freyseng was actively

employed in organizing and was present at the so-called “Cold Congress.”

But more than the evidence discloses is needed to establish that he had

any later part in or connection with the experiments themselves, or that

he had any controlling relationship to their initial establishment.

TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS

The evidence is insufficient to disclose any criminal responsibility of

the defendant Becker-Freyseng in connection with the typhus experiments.

SEA-WATER EXPERIMENTS

We have discussed the sea-water experiments in that portion of our

judgment which deals with the case of the defendant Schroeder. As was

pointed out there, two methods of making sea water drinkable were

available to the Luftwaffe. One, the so-called Schaefer method, had been

chemically tested and apparently produced potable sea water; the other,

the so-called Berka process, which changed the taste of the sea water

but did not reduce the salt content.

Becker-Freyseng, as chief consultant for aviation medicine in the office

of Schroeder, arranged for a conference to be held in May 1944 to

discuss the testing of these two methods. At the conference the

defendant reported on various clinical experiments which had been

conducted by a certain von Sirany to test the Berka process. He came to

the conclusion that the experiments had not been conducted under

sufficiently realistic conditions of sea distress to make the findings

conclusive.

As a result of the conference it was decided that new experiments should

be conducted.

We learn from the report of the meeting, which is in evidence, that two

series of experiments were to be conducted. The first, a maximum period

of six days, during which one group of subjects would receive sea water

processed with the Berka method; a second group, ordinary drinking

water; a third group no water at all; and the fourth group, such water

as would be available in the emergency sea distress kits then used.

During the duration of the experiment all persons were to receive only

an emergency sea diet, such as provided for persons in distress at sea.

In addition to the 6-day experiment it was determined that a 12-day

experiment should be run. The plan for this series reads as follows:

“Persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as diet also

the emergency sea rations.

“Duration of experiments: 12 days.

“Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service

permanent injuries to health, that is the death of the

experimental subjects, has to be expected, as experimental

subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the

disposal by [the] Reichsfuehrer SS.”

By letter dated 7 June 1944 Schroeder requested the Reichsfuehrer SS to

allow him to use concentration camp inmates for the sea-water

experiments. The letter stated among other things the following:

“As the experiments on human beings could thus far only be

carried out for a period of four days, and as practical demands

require a remedy for those who are in distress at sea up to 12

days, appropriate experiments are necessary.

“Required are 40 healthy test subjects, who must be available

for 4 whole weeks. As it is known from previous experiments that

necessary laboratories exist in the concentration camp Dachau,

this camp would be very suitable * * *.”

When on the stand as a witness, the defendant Becker-Freyseng admitted

that he prepared the substance of the letter for Schroeder’s dictation

and signature.

Thus with actual knowledge of the nature of the Berka process, and the

fact that if used over prolonged periods it would cause suffering and

death, Becker-Freyseng counselled and conferred with his chief

concerning the necessity for experiments wherein the process would be

used. He gave advice upon the exact procedure to be used in the 6-day

and 12-day experimental series. He framed the letter to Himmler

requesting the use of concentration camp inmates at Dachau for

experimental subjects. He called the defendant Beiglboeck to Berlin to

explain to him the details and purpose of the experiments. He issued the

order under which Beiglboeck went to Dachau to begin the experiments. He

received Beiglboeck’s report after the experimental series had been

concluded.

Throughout all stages of the affair, from its inception to its

conclusion, the defendant knew of the dangerous nature of the

experiments. He knew that deaths were reasonably to be expected. He knew

that concentration camp inmates were to be used as experimental

subjects. It is impossible to believe that he supposed that the inmates

of the camps, who were to be furnished by Himmler, were to be

volunteers. The entire language of the letter, which was written to

Himmler asking for experimental subjects, entirely refutes such

implication.

The evidence shows conclusively that gypsies of various nationalities

were used as experimental subjects. They were former inmates of

Auschwitz who had been tricked into coming to Dachau under the promise

that they were to be used in a special labor battalion. When they

arrived at Dachau they were detailed to the sea-water experiments

without their voluntary consent being asked or given.

During the course of the experiment many of the experimental subjects

were treated brutally and endured much pain and suffering.

It is apparent from the evidence that Becker-Freyseng was criminally

connected with the experiments, and that the experiments were

essentially criminal in their nature. To the extent that the crimes

committed by him or under his authority were not war crimes, they were

crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Hermann

Becker-Freyseng guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

SCHAEFER

The defendant Schaefer is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with personal responsibility for and participation in

Sea-Water Experiments.

Konrad Schaefer was a scientist whose special field of research was

chemical therapy. In November 1941 he was drafted into the Luftwaffe. In

spring of the following year he was transferred to the Luftwaffe

Replacement Depot in Salow, and from there to the Luftwaffe base at

Frankfurt on the Oder. In summer of 1942 he was transferred to Berlin

and assigned to the staff of the Research Institute for Aviation

Medicine. His chief assignment at the Institute was to do research on

the problem of sea emergency for the Luftwaffe. This included research

work on various methods to render sea water potable. Schaefer remained

in his position at the Institute without ever having attained officer

rank.

In May of 1944 the defendant was ordered to be present at a meeting to

be held at the German Air Ministry in Berlin, called to consider further

research on making sea water potable. Some months previous to the

meeting Schaefer had developed a process which actually precipitated the

salts from sea water, but it was thought by the Chief of the Luftwaffe

Medical Service to be too bulky and expensive for military use by the

Luftwaffe.

Present at the meeting were Schaefer; Becker-Freyseng, research advisor

to Schroeder; Christensen, of the Technical Bureau of the Reich Ministry

of Aviation; and others. The subject of discussion was the feasibility

of using the Schaefer process, or of turning to another process known as

the Berka Method. The latter method, while cheap, did not precipitate

salts from sea water and was dangerous to health when used for a period

of time—as Schaefer, previous to the meeting, had already reported to

Schroeder. Nevertheless, those in command of the meeting agreed that

experiments should be conducted on concentration camp inmates to

determine the extent to which the Berka method might be usable.

The experiments later conducted have been described at length in dealing

with the case of Schroeder. Due to his attendance at this meeting,

Schaefer is sought to be held criminally responsible in connection with

the sea-water experiments.

The record has received careful attention from the Tribunal.

Nowhere have we been able to find that Schaefer was a principal in, or

accessory to, or was otherwise criminally involved in or connected with

the experiments mentioned. In fact, the record fails to show that the

defendant had anything to do with these experiments, except such as

might be implied from his attendance at several meetings of the parties

who were actively interested therein. Nowhere in the testimony or

elsewhere is it revealed that Schaefer voted for commencement or

prosecution of the experiments or in any other manner aided in their

execution.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Konrad Schaefer not

guilty of the charges contained in the indictment, and directs that he

be released from custody under the indictment when the Tribunal

presently adjourns.

HOVEN

The defendant Hoven is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with special responsibility for and participation in Typhus

and other Vaccine Experiments, Gas Oedema Experiments, and the

Euthanasia Program. In count four he is charged with being a member,

after 1 September 1939, of an organization declared criminal by the

International Military Tribunal.

Hoven joined the SS in 1934 and the Nazi Party in 1937. Soon after the

outbreak of the war he joined the Waffen SS. In October 1939 he became

assistant medical officer in the SS hospital at Buchenwald concentration

camp. In 1941 he was appointed medical officer in charge of the SS

troops stationed in the camp. He became assistant medical officer at the

camp inmate hospital, and in July 1942 he became chief camp physician.

He remained in the latter position until September 1943. At that time he

was arrested on the order of the SS police court in Kassel for having

allegedly murdered an SS noncommissioned officer who was a dangerous

witness against Koch, the camp commander.

TYPHUS AND OTHER VACCINE EXPERIMENTS

The vaccine experiments with which Hoven is charged were conducted at

Buchenwald under the supervision of SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding, alias

Ding-Schuler. They have already been described at length in other

portions of this judgment.

The prosecution has shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Hoven was a

criminal participant in these experiments. In collaboration with the SS

camp administration he helped select the concentration camp inmates who

became the experimental subjects. During the course of selection he

exercised the right to include some prisoners and to reject others.

While perhaps not empowered to initiate new series of experiments on his

own responsibility—that apparently being a power which only Ding could

exercise—the defendant worked with Ding on experiments then in

progress. He supervised the preparation of diary notes, fever charts,

and report sheets of the experiments. Occasionally he injected some of

the subjects with the vaccines. He acted as Ding’s deputy in the conduct

of the experiments. He was in command of experimental Block 46 in Ding’s

absence. During the period of Hoven’s activity in the experimental

station no less than 100 inmates were killed as a result of the typhus

experiments. Many of these victims were non-German nationals who had not

given their consent to be used as experimental subjects.

GAS OEDEMA EXPERIMENTS

It is asserted in an affidavit made by Dr. Ding-Schuler, who was in

charge of Blocks 46 and 50, Buchenwald, that toward the end of 1942 a

conference was held in the Military Medical Academy, Berlin, for the

purpose of discussing the fatal effects of gas oedema serum on wounded

persons. During the conference, Killian, of the Army Medical

Inspectorate, and the defendant Mrugowsky reported several cases in

which wounded soldiers who had received gas oedema serum injections in

high quantities died suddenly without apparent reason. Mrugowsky

suspected that the fatalities were due to the phenol content of the

serum. To help solve the problem Mrugowsky ordered Ding to take part in

a euthanasia killing with phenol and to report on the results in detail.

A few days later Hoven, in the presence of Ding, gave phenol injections

to several of the concentration camp inmates with the result that they

died instantly. In accordance with instructions, Ding made a report of

the killings to his superior officer.

The fact that Hoven engaged in phenol killings is substantiated by an

affidavit voluntarily made by Hoven himself prior to the trial, which

was received in evidence as a part of the case of the prosecution. In

the affidavit Hoven makes the following statement:

“There were many prisoners who were jealous of the positions

held by a few political prisoners and tried to discredit them.

These traitors were immediately killed, and I was later notified

in order to make out statements that they had died of natural

causes.

“In some instances I supervised the killings of these unworthy

inmates by injections of phenol, at the request of the inmates,

in the hospital assisted by several inmates. Dr. Ding came once

and said I was not doing it correctly, and performed some of the

injections himself, killing three inmates who died within a

minute.

“The total number of traitors killed was about 150, of whom 60

were killed by phenol injections, either by myself or under my

supervision, and the rest were killed by beatings, etc., by the

inmates.”

EUTHANASIA PROGRAM

The details of the Euthanasia Program have been discussed by us at

length in dealing with the charges against certain other defendants;

consequently they will not be repeated here.

In the Hoven pre-trial affidavit, portions of which were quoted while

discussing gas oedema serum experimentation, the defendant gives us a

partial picture of the Euthanasia Program, in the following statement:

“In 1941 Koch, the camp commander, called all the important SS

officials of the camp together and informed them that he had

received a secret order from Himmler that all mentally and

physically deficient inmates should be killed, including Jews.

300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of different nationalities were sent

to the ‘euthanasia station’ at Bernburg for extermination. I was

ordered to issue falsified statements of the death of these

Jews, and obeyed the order. This action was known as ‘14 f 13’.”

When the defendant Hoven took the stand in his own defense, he attempted

to discredit the effects of the statements contained in his affidavit by

testifying that the affidavit was taken as a result of interrogations

propounded to him by the prosecution in English, and that he was not

sufficiently familiar with the language to be fully aware of the

inculpatory nature of the statements he was making.

The Tribunal is not impressed with these assertions. The evidence shows

that prior to the war the defendant had lived for several years in the

United States, where he had acquired at least an average understanding

and comprehension of the English language. When he was on the witness

stand, the Tribunal questioned him at length in order to ascertain the

extent of his knowledge of English, and in particular, of his

understanding of the meaning of the words used by him in his affidavit.

As a result of this questioning the Tribunal is convinced that no undue

or improper advantage was taken of the defendant in procuring the

affidavit, and that at the time of his interrogation by the prosecution,

Hoven knew and understood perfectly well the nature of the statements he

was making.

The facts contained in the Hoven affidavit were convincingly

substantiated by other evidence in the record, the only real difference

being that the evidence shows the defendant to have been guilty of even

many hundreds more murders than are admitted by him in his affidavit. As

stated, in essence, by one of the prosecution witnesses in connection

with the subject, Hoven personally killed inmates in the hospital

barracks by injection. These people were mostly suffering from

malnutrition and exhaustion. Hoven must have killed 1,000 of every

nationality. These inmates were killed on the initiative of Hoven with

no requests from the illegal camp administration or the political

prisoners.

It is obvious from the evidence that throughout his entire service at

Buchenwald, Hoven attempted to serve three masters: the SS camp

administration, the criminal prisoners, and the political prisoners of

the camp. As a result he became criminally implicated in murders

committed by all three groups involving the deaths of non-German

nationals, some of whom were prisoners of war and others of whom were

civilians. In addition to these, he committed murders on his own

individual responsibility. There can be nothing said in mitigation of

such conduct. To the extent that the crimes committed by Hoven were not

war crimes, they were crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment the defendant is charged with being a

member of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the

International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that

Hoven became a member of the SS in 1934, and remained in this

organization throughout the war. As a member of the SS he was criminally

implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity,

as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Waldemar Hoven

guilty, under counts two, three and four of the indictment.

BEIGLBOECK

The defendant Beiglboeck is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with personal responsibility for, and participation in

Sea-Water Experiments.

The defendant Beiglboeck, an Austrian citizen, was a captain in the

medical department of the German Air Force from May 1941 until the end

of the war. In June 1944, while stationed at the hospital for

paratroopers at Tarvis [Tarvisio], Italy, he received orders from his

military and medical superior, defendant Becker-Freyseng, to carry out

sea-water experiments at Dachau.

The sea-water experiments have been described in detail in those

portions of the judgment dealing with defendants Schroeder and

Becker-Freyseng.

The defendant Beiglboeck testified that he reported to Berlin at the end

of June 1944, where Becker-Freyseng told him the nature and purpose of

the experiments. Upon that trip he also reported to and talked with the

defendant Schroeder. From these conversations he learned that the prime

purpose of the experiments was to test the process developed by Berka

for making sea water potable and also to ascertain whether it would be

better for a shipwrecked person in distress at sea to go completely

without sea water or to drink small quantities thereof.

It appears from the record that the persons used in the experiments were

40 gypsies of various nationalities who had been formerly at Auschwitz

but who had been brought to Dachau under the pretext that they were to

be assigned to various work details. These persons had been imprisoned

in the concentration camps on the basis that they were “asocial

persons.” Nothing was said to them about being used as human subjects in

medical experiments. When they reached Dachau some of them were told

that they were being assigned to the sea-water experiment detail.

Beiglboeck testified that before beginning the experiments he called the

subjects together and told them the purpose of the experiments and asked

them if they wanted to participate. He did not tell them the duration of

the experiments, or that they could withdraw if ever they reached the

physical or mental state that continuation of the experiment should seem

to them to be impossible. The evidence is that none of the experimental

subjects felt that they dared refuse becoming experimental subjects for

fear of unpleasant consequences if they voiced any objections.

The defendant testified that pursuant to the order that had been given

him, it was necessary that the subjects thirst for a continuous period;

and that the question of when, if ever, they should be relieved during

the course of the experiment was a matter which he reserved for his own

decision.

During the course of the experiments the subjects were locked in a room.

As to this phase of the program the defendant testified that “They

should have been locked in a lot better than they were, because then

they would have had no opportunity at all to get fresh water on the

side.”

At the trial the defendant produced clinical charts which he said were

made during the course of the experiments and which, according to the

defendant, showed that the subjects did not suffer injury. On

cross-examination the defendant admitted that some of the charts had

been altered by him since he reached Nuernberg in order to present a

more favorable picture of the experiments.

We do not think it necessary to discuss in detail what is shown by the

charts either before or after the fraudulent alterations. We think it

only necessary to say that a man who intends to rely on written evidence

at a trial does not fraudulently alter such evidence from any honest or

worthy motive.

The defendant claims that he was at all times extremely reluctant to

perform the experiments with which he is charged, and did so only out of

his sense of obedience as a soldier to superior authority. Under Control

Council Law No. 10 such fact does not constitute a defense, but will be

considered, if at all, only in mitigation of sentence.

In our view the experimental subjects were treated brutally. Many of

them endured much pain and suffering, although from the evidence we

cannot find that any deaths occurred among the experimental subjects.

It is apparent from the evidence that the experiments were essentially

criminal in their nature, and that non-German nationals were used

without their consent as experimental subjects. To the extent that the

crimes committed by defendant Beiglboeck were not war crimes they were

crimes against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges the defendant Wilhelm Beiglboeck

guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

POKORNY

The defendant Pokorny is charged with special responsibility for, and

participation in, criminal Sterilization Experiments, as set forth in

counts two and three of the indictment.

It is conceded by the prosecution that, in contradistinction to all

other defendants, the defendant Pokorny never held any position of

responsibility in the Party or State Hierarchy of Nazi Germany. Neither

was he a member of the Nazi Party or of the SS. Formerly a

Czechoslovakian citizen, he became a citizen of the Greater German Reich

under the Munich Agreement of October 1938. During the war he served as

a medical officer in the German Army and attained the rank of captain.

The only direct evidence bearing on the guilt of the defendant is a

letter written by Pokorny to Himmler in October 1941, suggesting the use

of a drug, caladium seguinum, as a possible means of medical

sterilization of peoples of the occupied territories. The letter

follows:

“To the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German

Folkdom,

SS Himmler, Chief of Police,

Berlin.

“I beg you to turn your attention to the following arguments. I

have requested Professor Hoehn to forward this letter to you. I

have chosen this direct way to you in order to avoid the slower

process through channels and the possibility of an indiscretion

in regard to the eventually enormous importance of the ideas

presented.

“Led by the idea that the enemy must not only be conquered but

destroyed, I feel obliged to present to you, as the Reich

Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Folkdom the

following:

“Dr. Madaus published the result of his research on a _medicinal

sterilization_ (both articles are enclosed). Reading these

articles, the immense importance of this drug in the present

fight of our people occurred to me. _If, on the basis of this

research, it were possible to produce a drug which, after a

relatively short time, effects an imperceptible sterilization on

human beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our

disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at

present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could

be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens

the most far-reaching perspectives.

“Madaus found that the sap of the Schweigrohr (caladium

seguinum) when taken by mouth or given as injection to male but

also to female animals, after a certain time produces permanent

sterility. The illustrations accompanying the scientific article

are convincing.

If my ideas meet your approval the following course should be

taken:

1. Dr. Madaus must not publish any more such articles. (The

enemy listens!)

2. Multiplying the plant (easily cultivated in greenhouses!)

3. Immediate research on human beings (criminals!) in order to

determine the dose and length of the treatment.

4. Quick research of the constitutional formula of the effective

chemical substance in order to

5. Produce it synthetically if possible.

“As German physician and Chief Physician of the Reserves of the

German Wehrmacht, retired (d.R.a.D.), I undertake to keep secret

the purpose as suggested by me in this letter.

“Heil Hitler!

[Signed] “Dr. Pokorny

“Specialist for skin and venereal diseases.

“Komotau, October 1941.”

The defendant has attempted to explain his motives for sending the

letter by asserting that for some time prior to its transmittal he had

known of Himmler’s intentions to sterilize all Jews and inhabitants of

the eastern territories, and had hoped to find some means of preventing

the execution of this dreadful program. He knew, because of his special

experience as a specialist in skin and venereal diseases, that

sterilization of human beings could not be effected by the

administration of caladium seguinum. He thought, however, that if the

articles written by Madaus could be brought to the attention of Himmler,

the latter might turn his attentions to the unobtrusive method for

sterilization which had been suggested by the articles and thus be

diverted, at least temporarily, from continuing his program of

castration and sterilization by well-known, tried and tested methods.

Therefore the letter was written—so explained the defendant—not for

the purpose of furthering, but of sabotaging the program.

We are not impressed with the defense which has been tendered by the

defendant and have great difficulty in believing that he was motivated

by the high purposes which he asserted impelled him to write the letter.

Rather are we inclined to the view that the letter was written by

Pokorny for very different and more personal reasons.

Be that however as it may, every defendant is presumed to be innocent

until he has been proved guilty. In the case of Pokorny the prosecution

has failed to sustain the burden. As monstrous and base as the

suggestions in the letter are, there is not the slightest evidence that

any steps were ever taken to put them into execution by human

experimentation. We find, therefore, that the defendant must be

acquitted—not because of the defense tendered, but in spite of it.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Adolf Pokorny

is not guilty of the charge contained in the indictment, and directs

that he be discharged from custody under the indictment when the

Tribunal presently adjourns.

OBERHEUSER

The defendant Oberheuser is charged under counts two and three of the

indictment with Sulfanilamide, Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and

Bone Transplantation, and Sterilization Experiments.

The charge of participation in the sterilization experiments has been

abandoned by the prosecution and will not be considered further.

The defendant Oberheuser joined the league of German Girls (BDM) in 1935

and held the rank of “block leader.” In August 1937 she became a member

of the Nazi Party. She was also a member of the Association of National

Socialist Physicians. She volunteered for the position of a camp doctor

in the women’s department of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in 1940

and remained there until June 1943. She was then given a position as

assistant physician in the Hohenlychen Hospital under the defendant

Gebhardt.

Regarding her connection with both the sulfanilamide and the bone,

muscle, and nerve regeneration and bone transplantation experiments, the

same facts are applicable as were presented in the cases of the

defendants Fischer and Gebhardt. Fischer and Oberheuser were Gebhardt’s

active agents in carrying out these experiments. They did a great deal

of the actual work. They personally committed atrocities involved in the

experiments.

A few facts produced in evidence regarding the special work of defendant

Oberheuser in these experiments are entitled to comment.

Oberheuser was thoroughly aware of the nature and purpose of the

experiments. She aided in the selection of the subjects, gave them

physical examinations, and otherwise prepared them for the operation

table. She was present in the operating room at the time of the

operations and assisted in the operational procedures. She faithfully

cooperated with Gebhardt and Fischer at the conclusion of each operation

by deliberately neglecting the patients so that the wounds which had

been given the subjects would reach the maximum degree of infection.

Testimony of the witness Sofia Maczka, an X-ray technician in the camp

at Ravensbrueck, is that deaths occurred among the experimental

subjects. Most of these deaths could have been averted by proper

post-operative care, proper treatment, or by the amputation of badly

infected members.

In one instance—the case of a Krystina Dabska—small pieces of bone

were cut from both legs of the subject. Witness Maczka testified that

she read on the cast of the patient that on one leg periosteum had been

left and on the other leg periosteum had been removed together with

bone. Because she was of the opinion that the purpose of the experiment

had been to check regeneration, the witness asked the defendant

Oberheuser, “How do you expect to get regeneration of bone if the bones

are removed with periosteum?” To this the defendant replied, “That is

just what we want to check.”

Nonconsenting non-German nationals were used in at least some of the

experiments. Many of them died as a result of the experiments. To the

extent that the crimes committed were not war crimes, they were crimes

against humanity.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Herta

Oberheuser is guilty under counts two and three of the indictment.

FISCHER

The defendant Fischer is charged under counts two and three with

Sulfanilamide and Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone

Transplantation Experiments.

Fritz Fischer joined the Allgemeine SS in February 1934 and the NSDAP in

1939. In the latter year he joined the Waffen SS and was assigned to the

SS unit in the Hohenlychen Hospital as a physician subordinated to the

defendant Gebhardt. In June 1940 he was transferred to the SS regiment

Leibstandarte “Adolf Hitler”, and returned the same year to Hohenlychen

as assistant physician to Gebhardt, where he remained until May 1943. He

then served as a surgeon on both the eastern and western fronts and,

after having been wounded in August 1944, came back to Hohenlychen as a

patient. In December 1944 he was assigned to the Charity Hospital in

Berlin, but returned again to Hohenlychen as Gebhardt’s assistant in

April 1945. In the Waffen SS he attained the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer

(major).

SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS

Gebhardt, as shown elsewhere in this judgment, was in personal charge of

the work being done in this field by his assistant Fritz Fischer. That

the latter performed most of the sulfanilamide experimental work is not

denied by him; on the contrary, he freely admits it. The defense offered

in his behalf is twofold; that the experimental subjects were to have

alleged death sentences, then impending, commuted to something less

severe in the event they survived the experiments; and that defendant

Fischer was acting under military orders from his superior officer,

Gebhardt. These defenses have been considered and separately rejected in

other parts of this judgment.

It is true, however, that paragraph 4 (_b_) of Article II of Control

Council Law No. 10 reads:

“The fact that any person acted pursuant to the order of his

government, or of a superior, does not free him from

responsibility for crime, but may be considered in mitigation.”

It is unnecessary to take up and answer all the arguments that might be

presented upon whether or not Fischer is entitled to a mitigation of

sentence due to the circumstances claimed as the basis of such

mitigation. He acted with most complete knowledge that what he was doing

was fundamentally criminal, even though directed by a superior. Under

the circumstances his defense must be rejected, and he must be held to

be guilty as charged.

BONE, MUSCLE AND NERVE REGENERATION AND BONE

TRANSPLANTATION

These experiments have been discussed in connection with the case of the

defendant Gebhardt, who was assisted therein by the defendant Fischer.

Testimony and exhibits now constituting parts of the record in this case

reveal that Fischer has offered no substantial defense to the charge.

Indeed, criminal connection with these experiments is admitted, and the

admission includes the defendant’s own testimony that he personally

performed at least some of the operations. It only remains for the

Tribunal to hold that on the specification above-mentioned the defendant

Fischer is guilty.

To the extent that the crimes committed by defendant Fischer were not

war crimes they were crimes against humanity.

MEMBERSHIP IN CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION

Under count four of the indictment Fritz Fischer is charged with being a

member of an organization declared criminal by the judgment of the

International Military Tribunal, namely, the SS. The evidence shows that

Fritz Fischer became a member of the SS in 1934 and remained in this

organization until the end of the war. As a member of the SS he was

criminally implicated in the commission of war crimes and crimes against

humanity, as charged under counts two and three of the indictment.

CONCLUSION

Military Tribunal I finds and adjudges that the defendant Fritz Fischer

is guilty under counts two, three, and four of the indictment.

[signed] WALTER B. BEALS

PRESIDING JUDGE.

HAROLD L. SEBRING

JUDGE.

JOHNSON T. CRAWFORD

JUDGE.

SENTENCES

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Military Tribunal I has convened this

morning for the purpose of imposing sentences upon the

defendants who have been on trial before this Tribunal and who

have been adjudged guilty by the Tribunal.

“KARL BRANDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Brandt, to death by hanging.

“SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you

guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences

you, Siegfried Handloser, to imprisonment for the full term and period

of your natural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other

appropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined by competent

authority.

“OSKAR SCHROEDER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty

of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,

Oskar Schroeder, to imprisonment for the full term and period of your

natural life, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other

appropriate place of confinement, as shall be determined by competent

authority.

“KARL GENZKEN, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Genzken, to imprisonment for the

full term and period of your natural life, to be served at such prison

or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as shall be

determined by competent authority.

“KARL GEBHARDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Karl Gebhardt, to death by hanging.

“RUDOLF BRANDT, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Rudolf Brandt, to death by hanging.

“JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you

guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an

organization declared criminal by the judgment of the International

Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed

against you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand

convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you, Joachim Mrugowsky, to death

by hanging.

“HELMUT POPPENDICK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you

guilty of membership in an organization declared criminal by the

judgment of the International Military Tribunal, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences

you, Helmut Poppendick, to imprisonment for a term of ten years, to be

served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of

confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“WOLFRAM SIEVERS, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty

of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an

organization declared criminal by the judgment of the International

Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed

against you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand

convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences you, Wolfram Sievers, to death

by hanging.

“GERHARD ROSE, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the indictment

heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which you have

been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you, Gerhard

Rose, to imprisonment for the full term and period of your natural life,

to be served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of

confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“VIKTOR BRACK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted,

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Viktor Brack, to death by hanging.

“HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you

guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences

you, Hermann Becker-Freyseng, to imprisonment for a term of twenty

years, to be served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate

place of confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“WALDEMAR HOVEN, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty

of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an

organization declared criminal by the judgment of the International

Military Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed

against you. For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand

convicted, Military Tribunal I sentences you, Waldemar Hoven, to death

by hanging.

“WILHELM BEIGLBOECK, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you

guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,

Wilhelm Beiglboeck, to imprisonment for a term of fifteen years, to be

served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of

confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“HERTA OBERHEUSER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty

of war crimes and crimes against humanity, as charged under the

indictment heretofore filed against you. For your said crimes on which

you have been and now stand convicted Military Tribunal I sentences you,

Herta Oberheuser, to imprisonment for a term of twenty years, to be

served at such prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of

confinement, as shall be determined by competent authority.

“FRITZ FISCHER, Military Tribunal I has found and adjudged you guilty of

war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership in an organization

declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military

Tribunal, as charged under the indictment heretofore filed against you.

For your said crimes on which you have been and now stand convicted

Military Tribunal I sentences you, Fritz Fischer, to imprisonment for

the full term and period of your natural life, to be served at such

prison or prisons, or other appropriate place of confinement, as shall

be determined by competent authority.”

-----

[56] A more correct translation is typhus, see vol. I, p. 13.

[57] Indictment originally read “January 1943” but was amended by a

motion filed with the Secretary General. See Arraignment, vol. I, p. 22.

[58] Trial of the Major War Criminals, vol. I, p. 269, Nuernberg, 1947.

XIII. PETITIONS

a. Introduction