Article XV of Ordinance No. 7 of Militar_Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II

provides that the judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or innocence

of any defendant shall be final and not subject to review. However,

Article XVII provides that the Military Governor has the power to

mitigate, reduce, or otherwise alter the sentence imposed by the

Tribunal, but may not increase the severity thereof. The petitions on

behalf of defendants seeking a revision of the sentences have ordinarily

been called clemency pleas.

All 16 defendants found guilty by the Tribunal in case No. I petitioned

for clemency to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of

Occupation in accordance with Article XVII of Ordinance No. 7. Each of

the condemned defendants, with the exception of the defendant

Poppendick, also petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States

for a writ of habeas corpus and for a writ of prohibition against the

proceeding or an order nullifying the trial and setting the defendants

at liberty. Moreover, all defendants, with the exception of the

defendant Becker-Freyseng, filed appeals of some kind with the Secretary

of War. From these various types of petitions, six are set forth below

in whole or in part as follows: petition of appeal to the Secretary of

War for the defendant Karl Brandt, page 302; petition for a writ of

habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition to the Supreme Court of the

United States by the defendant Rose, pp. 303 to 306; extracts from the

petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a writ of prohibition to the

Supreme Court of the United States by the defendant Schroeder, pp. 307

to 308; petition for review to the Military Governor of the United

States Zone of Occupation for the defendant Genzken, pp. 309 to 318;

clemency plea to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of

Occupation for the defendant Rudolf Brandt, pp. 319 to 321; and clemency

plea to the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation

for the defendant Poppendick, pp. 322 to 326.

b. Selections from the Petitions to the Military Governor, the

Supreme Court of the United States, and to the

Judge Advocate General

_FOR THE DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_

Nuernberg, 4 September 1947.

The

Secretary of War,

Judge Advocate General,

War Department,

Washington, D.C.,

United States of America.

Professor Dr. Karl BRANDT, Petitioner,

Defense Counsel Dr. R. Servatius, attorney-at-law, Cologne

_vs._

United States of America

Petition of Appeal

No.——

As defense counsel of the defendant Professor Dr. med. Karl Brandt, I

herewith lodge an appeal against the verdict of the Military Tribunal

No. I at Nuernberg in Case I, of 19 and 20 August 1947, by which the

defendant was sentenced to death. For justification of my appeal against

the indictment on which the verdict is based, as well as the verdict

itself, I refer to the following documents, copies of which are

attached:

(_a_) Application for review, dated 28 August 1947, addressed to

the Chief of Military Government for the American Zone of

Occupation in Germany.

(_b_) Application for writ of habeas corpus, dated 28 August

1947, addressed to the Supreme Court of the United States of

America.

It follows from these attached documents that the defendant Karl Brandt

was unlawfully deprived of the possibility to lodge an appeal before a

Military Tribunal consisting of medical experts.

A re-trial before a court of higher order is necessary in order to

re-examine the errors committed by the Tribunal in ascertaining the

facts of the case and applying the law.

I request:

(_a_) that the verdict of the Military Tribunal, dated 20 August

1947, be annulled.

(_b_) that a court of appeal be formed for a new trial of the

case.

[Signature] DR. R. SERVATIUS

_Attorney-at-law_.

_FOR THE DEFENDANT ROSE_

Prof. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose Nuernberg, 4 September 1947

POW A/938984

Palace of Justice,

Nuernberg, Germany

Defense Counsel: Dr. Heinz [Hans] Fritz

Attorney-at-law,

Bavariaring 14,

Munich, Germany

To the

Supreme Court of the United States of America

Washington, D.C.

Prof. Dr. med. Gerhard Rose, Petitioner

_vs._

United States of America

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

and

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

No.——

I, the undersigned Prof. Dr. Gerhard Rose, was sentenced, in the verdict

of the American Military Tribunal I in Nuernberg, Germany, that was

announced on 19 and 20 August 1947, of Case I, United States of America

_vs._ Karl Brandt and others, for war crimes and crimes against

humanity, as defined in Control Council Law No. 10 of 20 Dec 1945, to

life imprisonment.

I pray:

(1) that a writ of habeas corpus be issued by this Court,

directed to Lieutenant General Lucius D. Clay, Commanding

General, United States Army Forces, Germany, commanding him to

produce the body of the petitioner before your Court or some

member thereof at a time and place therein to be specified, then

and there to receive and to do what your honorable Court shall

order concerning his confinement and trial as an accused war

criminal and that he be ordered returned to the status of, and

internment as a prisoner of war in conformity with the

provisions of Article 9 of the Geneva Convention of July 27,

1929, relative to the treatment of prisoners of war and of

paragraph 82 of the Rules of Land Warfare [U. S. Field Manual

27-10], and

(2) that a writ of prohibition be issued by this Court

prohibiting the respondent from proceeding with the trial and

that the petitioner be discharged from the offenses and

confinement aforesaid,

(3) that the costs of the court shall not be levied, because I

am a prisoner of war and my property has been confiscated by the

Control Council for Germany.

As reasons for the above requests I offer the following:

The sentence imposed on me not only violates valid international

law, but also legal principles whose observance by all the

courts of the United States is guaranteed by the Constitution of

the United States of America.

The basic principle that has been violated is that no one may be

deprived of the judge [justice] provided for by law and that

each defendant must be granted a regular trial.

The following violations are charged in particular:

The sentence was passed in violation of Article 63 of the Geneva

Convention of 1929. I am a medical officer and was Generalarzt

in the Reserve, which is equivalent to a brigadier general in

the Medical Corps in the American Army. In May 1941 I was in the

Luftwaffe hospital at Kitzbuehl in Austria and became a prisoner

of war. Shortly afterwards I was flown to England and taken to

Camp Latimer (Bucks), known as POW Camp 7. There I was

registered as a prisoner of war in the middle of June 1945 and

received the POW number A 938984. I was informed that I was a

British prisoner of war. I am still a prisoner of war today,

because I was neither discharged _de facto_ nor was I ever given

discharge papers or shown discharge papers that had been filled

out. As a prisoner of war I have a right to have my case tried

by a court martial, as would be correct in case an Allied

medical officer of equal rank were to be indicted on the same

charges. This Court must not only be an officers’ court composed

of judges holding corresponding rank, but it must also be a

professional court, because it must be composed of medical

officers. Since the American Military Tribunal I is not such a

court, it was, for example, not in a position to correctly judge

my activity as scientific consultant medical officer in

relationship to that of a commanding officer.

Article 63 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 purposely makes no

differentiation between crimes that a prisoner of war commits

during his prisoner of war captivity and those which he

committed before he became a prisoner of war. In accordance with

the purpose and spirit of the Geneva Convention of 1929, the

prisoners of war are to be protected by this provision from

being brought up before a special court or from any limitation

of their legal rights.

(2) There is a violation of Article 64 of the Geneva Convention

because the legal remedies that would be available to an Allied

medical officer in a corresponding case cannot be used in the

case of the sentence that has been imposed upon me, because

Article 15 of Ordinance No. 7 of the American Military

Government in Germany provides that the verdicts of the Military

Tribunals are final and incontestable.

(3) There is a violation of Article 60 of the Geneva Convention,

because Switzerland was not informed, as the protecting power

for prisoners of war, of the criminal proceedings pending

against me.

(4) The sentence imposed on me violates generally recognized

legal principles. It is based on the Control Council Law No. 10,

dated 20 December 1945, and the _ex post facto_ definitions

contained therein. The sentence has inflicted punishment on me

for crimes against humanity, that is, on the basis of an act

which was for the first time declared punishable by Control

Council Law No. 10.

The suspension of this universally recognized legal principle by

a new law cannot change justice itself. The validity of this

special law must be tested by the court.

(5) The sentence violates the basic principle _nulla poena sine

culpa_, because it punished me according to Article II, 2_c_ and

_d_ of the Control Council Law. These parts of the Control

Council Laws allow punishment for mere consent to an act and for

a merely objective “connection” with the planning or execution

of such act. These provisions represent new substantive law that

has been created _ex post facto_.

(6) During the trial I was limited in my defense in an

inadmissible way. My defense counsel, Attorney Dr. Fritz, twice

requested, in the prescribed manner, that Prof. Dr. Blanc, a

French citizen and director of the Pasteur Institute in

Casablanca, Morocco, be summoned as an expert witness in the

examination of the research work of Prof. Haagen. The medical

research work of Prof. Haagen concerns such difficult medical

problems that it cannot, in my opinion, be judged by judges who

lack medical training, without the expert testimony of a capable

specialist. However, the Court did not approve the requests.

This is in my opinion the only reason that I was found guilty in

connection with the research work of Haagen.

(7) It is further asserted that the principle of oral

proceedings was violated. In the final stages of the trial the

Court ordered a partly written procedure. Although the main

trial had lasted many months and there was an extremely abundant

amount of material to discuss, from a factual as well as a legal

standpoint, my defense counsel was only allowed one hour for his

closing speech. As for the remaining arguments he was advised to

present a closing brief. In this way the protection of publicity

was denied and the guarantee removed that the Court would really

take cognizance of these written statements.

It was not possible for me to receive information concerning

these written statements of my co-defendants in time to take

action thereon.

The contents of the closing brief which my defense counsel

submitted, and the contents of his rebuttal to the closing brief

submitted by the prosecutor against me have obviously not been

considered in the findings of the Court, although the Court

described the closing brief which it demanded as the most

important part of the defense. The English translations of the

closing brief and rebuttal to the closing brief of the

prosecution arrived so late that it seems impossible that the

Court could have taken note of the contents before writing the

verdict.

Several closing briefs which had been submitted by the defense

counsels of my co-defendants were not even available at the time

when the verdict was read.

I assume that the Court could not peruse the rebuttal of my

defense counsels to the closing brief of the prosecution before

writing the verdict, because the verdict, insofar as it pertains

to my case, contains several obviously false statements of facts

and furthermore does not even analyze these statements.

(8) The verdict does not have, according to the provisions of

Military Government Ordinance No. 7, sufficient reasons to back

it up. For instance, it is impossible to determine whether the

Court investigated the possibility of duress that would preclude

punishment.

Insofar as incompetency of the American Military Tribunal No. I is

asserted in my case, I point to the fact that it was not possible for me

to object earlier on account of Article II _e_ of Ordinance No. 7.

I reserve the right to submit further statements and evidence later.

[Signature] DR. GERHARD ROSE.

_FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHROEDER_

To the

Supreme Court

of the United States of America

Washington

through the office of the General Secretary of the

U. S. Military Tribunal I

Nuernberg.

Oskar Schroeder, Petitioner

_vs._

The United States of America

Oskar Schroeder, former Generaloberstabsarzt (Lieutenant

General) of the Luftwaffe (German Air Force) at present in the

prison of the Court in Nuernberg, Germany.

Counsel for the defendant: Dr. Hanns Marx at present at the

Military Tribunal I Nuernberg, Roonstrasse 15.

_Writ of Habeas Corpus and_

_Writ of Prohibition_

* * * * *

Here too, the Court found that I am guilty merely because of the fact

that contrary to duty I did not supervise my subordinates.

Finally the judgment found me guilty with regard to the responsibility

for gas experiments. Here the judgment states:

“A certain Oberarzt Wimmer, a staff physician of the Luftwaffe

worked with Hirt on the gas experiments throughout the period.

“We discussed the duty which rests upon a commanding officer to

take appropriate measures to control his subordinates, in

dealing with the case of Handloser. We shall not repeat what we

said there. Had Schroeder adopted the measures which the law of

war imposes upon one in position of command to prevent the

actions of his subordinates amounting to violations of the law

of war, the deaths of the non-German nationals involved in the

gas experiments might well have been prevented.”

* * * * *

III

A further infringement against the habeas corpus is the fact that while

I have been found guilty as being responsible for the Lost experiments,

although I have never been indicted on this count.

The verdict of the Military Tribunal I states on page 11 the names of

those defendants who have been accused of having borne special

responsibility for the Lost (mustard) gas experiments. My name does not

appear on that list.

On page 187 of the verdict, the Court describes the importance that this

enumeration of defendants has in relation to the various individual

counts of the indictment. It says:

“In preparing counts II and III of the indictment, the

prosecution elected to frame its pleadings in such a manner

[page 7 of the original] 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 subparagraph dealing with

medical experiments only those defendants particularly charged

with responsibility for each particular item.”

The Court goes on to say:

“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.”

As the Court repeatedly gave evidence during the course of the

proceedings that it adhered to this view I did not defend myself, did

not need to defend myself and could not defend myself against the

accusation that I had participated in the Lost experiments.

Although the Court finds on page 187 of the verdict:

“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,”

it has still found me guilty because of responsibility for the Lost

experiment, so that in view of the Court’s own statements as contained

in the verdict, my sentence constitutes, insofar as it concerns this

matter, a gross injustice.

I believe that the sentence of the Military Tribunal I violates a

principle insofar as each defendant must be told clearly what crime he

has been charged with, and that he must have opportunity to defend

himself against these accusations.

It is this principle that is being violated in the findings of the Court

against me. In my opinion, it infringes thus the principle of legal

heading laid down in the habeas corpus. It is therefore obviously

unjust, according to the wording of the verdict itself.

* * * * *

_FOR THE DEFENDANT GENZKEN_

Dr. R. Merkel

Defense Counsel of Defendant Dr. Karl Genzken

Nuernberg, 2 September 1947.

To the

American Military Governor for Germany

General Lucius D. Clay

_via_

the Secretary General of the

Military Tribunal I

Nuernberg.

_Concerning_: Confirmation of the sentence of Military Tribunal I,

Nuernberg, of 19 August 1947.

Karl Genzken, defendant in Case I, defended by Attorney-at-Law Dr. R.

Merkel, Nuernberg, by verdict of Military Tribunal I of 19 August 1947

was found guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and membership

in the SS—counts two, three, and four of the indictment—and was

sentenced to life imprisonment.

I request that the sentence may not be confirmed, since the defendant is

innocent of the punishable participation in the typhus experiments in

Buchenwald with which he is charged.

The verdict of Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg of 19-20 August 1947

decided that Genzken in his official position was responsible for,

cooperated in, and promoted the typhus experiments which were carried

out on non-Germans against their will, and in the course of which, and

as a result of which, cases of death occurred.

On the basis of the verdict it is certain that the defendant himself did

not actively participate in the typhus experiments; he never entered the

Buchenwald concentration camp during the war and never saw the typhus

experimental station in Block 46.

The verdict is based on the presupposition—

(1) that Genzken before 1 September 1943—as superior of Mrugowsky, the

Chief of the Hygiene Institute, and of Ding in his capacity as an

assistant in this Institute—has had the command and thus the official

supervision over the experiments in the typhus experimental station in

Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp,

(2) that Genzken before 1 September 1943 was acquainted with the kind

and scope of the activity of Mrugowsky and Ding, who were supposedly

subordinated to him in the field of typhus research, and

(3) that he nevertheless failed to make sure that this research work was

carried out within legally permissible limits.

These statements of the verdict are not correct, since they do not take

into account in any way the actual facts which emerged on the basis of

the extensive evidence submitted by the prosecution and defense.

_Genzken had no command and no official supervision over the

typhus experiments in Block 46_

The research for a new typhus vaccine for the Waffen SS was purely

scientific research in the medical field. In contrast to the Chiefs of

the Medical Services of the three Wehrmacht branches (Army, Air Corps,

Navy) scientific research and planning did not belong to the tasks

delegated to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS. The

official agency in charge of scientific research and planning for all

the organizations of the SS and the police was rather exclusively Reich

Physician SS and Police Professor Dr. Grawitz (pages 4-6 of closing

brief of the defense).

Exhibit No. 39 of the prosecution proves that Grawitz in 1942 without

success requested funds for the intended establishment of several

research institutes. However, in view of the imminent pressing danger of

typhus, Grawitz, at the order of Himmler, gave the command to establish

a typhus experimental station in connection with and sharing the funds

appropriated for Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp and in

December 1941 he appointed Dr. Ding of the Hygiene Institute of the

Waffen SS head of Block 46. In reference to this Mrugowsky states:

“Himmler did not order me to take charge of these experiments, but at

the suggestion of Grawitz assigned these duties to Dr. Ding.” (_p. 5067

of the English transcript._) In the affidavit of S. Dumont, we read:

“Mrugowsky told me that Grawitz will transmit Himmler’s order direct to

Ding” (_Document Mrugowsky 38, Exhibit 13, p. 50 Document book Mrugowsky

I_). Finally Blumenreuther declares in his affidavit of 3 February 1947

(_Document Mrugowsky No. 26, Exhibit 6, p. 170 Document Book Mrugowsky

I_) as follows: “In 1942 Grawitz brought about Himmler’s order to

establish in the Buchenwald concentration camp an experimental station

for typhus research and appointed Dr. Ding to take charge of this

experimental station.” Thus Ding left the Hygiene Institute, when his

research work began, and from this time on he was no longer a

subordinate of Genzken, but as chief of the research department in Block

46 was directly, immediately, and exclusively subordinate to Grawitz. As

oldest hygienic expert, Grawitz consulted his consulting hygienist

Mrugowsky in the course of his researches concerned with typhus. This

latter called himself “Reich Physician SS and Leading Police Hygienist”

in his report of 5 May 1942 which was mentioned in the verdict

(_Mrugowsky, Exhibit 20, p._ _86, Doc. Book Mrug. I_). As a result of

the shortage of hygienists, Mrugowsky, in his capacity as head of the

only Hygiene Institute on the home front, was available also to the

Reich Physician for his medical duties concerned with all the branches

of the SS and for his scientific research tasks. As head of the Hygiene

Institute and as head of Office XVI concerned with questions of group

hygiene of the Waffen SS, Mrugowsky was subordinate to Genzken, not

however in his capacity as hygienic consultant to the Reich Physician.

In connection with these problems, to which belonged also the typhus

vaccine research, Mrugowsky was subordinate only to Reich Physician SS

Grawitz and not to Genzken. If, as the verdict presupposes, the

relationship of giving orders had really been the following:

Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding, then Genzken would have had to

take orders from Grawitz and would have been called for conferences with

Grawitz. This has not been established by the prosecution.

Through the examination of witnesses by prosecution and defense, it was

established that there were two separate institutions in Buchenwald: the

typhus research institute from December 1941 in Block 46 and the typhus

vaccine manufacturing station from the fall of 1943 in Block 50 (_see

page 35, Closing Brief of the Defense and Exhibit Genzken Exh. No. 5_).

The manufacturing station in Block 50, and Ding as its head, would have

been subordinate to Dr. Genzken as such if the manufacture of the new SS

typhus vaccine had been started before 1 September 1943. However, this

was definitely not the case; it was still in a preparatory state (_see

page 46, closing brief of the defense_). If on page 96 (German text) of

the verdict it is furthermore stated that the official channels were

arranged in this manner: _Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding_, then

this statement also is in obvious contradiction to the facts established

in a clear and conclusive manner by the examination of witnesses.

Because, as far as the channels of command for the typhus experimental

station are concerned, the following points prove that these channels of

command ran _Himmler-Grawitz-Ding_ for Block 46:

(1) Dr. Morgen states in his affidavit Mrugowsky Exh. 107 (_Doc. Mrug.

114, Doc. Book Mrug. Supplement II, p. 54_), that Grawitz gave written

and direct order to Ding to carry out the typhus research without

Genzken’s participation. Ding showed Morgen the written order from

Grawitz.

(2) The letterhead which Ding used before spring 1943, as head of the

experimental station for typhus and virus research, read as follows:

“Reich Fuehrer SS—Typhus-Experimental Station, Buchenwald” (_see Doc.

Genzken No. 2, Genzken Exh. 8_).

(3) The prosecution witness Kogon confirms the fact that all reports

went through Mrugowsky directly to Grawitz and not by way of Genzken.

(4) Genzken and Mrugowsky both testify under oath that Himmler and

Grawitz gave the order for the establishment of the experimental station

to Ding directly.

(5) In Exhibit 283 of the prosecution, Ding states “that Grawitz, in

agreement with the leading physician of the concentration camp Dr.

Lolling appointed Dr. Hoven as Ding’s deputy in Buchenwald”. The

appointment, therefore, did not take place by way of Genzken.

The order channel, Himmler-Grawitz-Genzken-Mrugowsky-Ding, as stated in

the verdict, is based exclusively on the affidavit of Dr. Hoven dated 24

October 1946, Prosecution Exh. No. 281. When he was interrogated, Hoven

stated under oath that this channel of command was correct only for the

manufacturing station in Block 50 and not for the research institute in

Block 46 (_see p. 9913 of the English record_). When Mrugowsky was

interrogated, he also stated under oath “that this command relationship

referred solely to the vaccine _manufacture_ in Block 50. This chain of

command did not refer to Block 46, and insofar as it is touched by it,

this channel of giving orders is not correct” (_see p. 46 closing brief

of the defense_).

From all this evidence it follows conclusively that Hoven’s statement

cannot be used as supporting evidence for a conviction against Genzken.

For he was not a station on this channel of giving orders and had never

had anything to do about giving orders concerning the carrying out of

the typhus experiments in Block 46 until 1 September 1943.

If, therefore, the verdict states that Genzken was responsible for the

carrying out of the typhus experiments, then the verdict does not take

into consideration the proven fact that not Genzken, but Grawitz was the

one who gave the order to carry out research experiments in the

concentration camp Buchenwald on concentration camp inmates. Only he who

gives the order to carry out an action and who was a party to it in some

other ways can be responsible for the act. Nothing of the sort has been

proved against Genzken. If, as established by Document Mrug. Exh. No.

107, Grawitz gave the order to carry out typhus experiments to Ding,

then it is impossible that Genzken too could have given such an order,

if for no other reason, because he was never the competent authority for

scientific research and projects. Furthermore on the basis of his

testimony as a witness, it has been established that he never received

an order to this effect by Grawitz, and that Grawitz purposely excluded

him from exerting any influence on the research projects in Block 46.

In Genzken Exhibit No. 3, Mrugowsky confirms “that Grawitz, in

conversations with him, frequently emphasized that he—Grawitz—was the

only one responsible for research and planning assignments within the

SS, and that Genzken had nothing to do with them.”

The assumption in the verdict is, therefore, not correct that Ding

undertook typhus research “for” the Hygiene Institute (_page 97, German

text of the verdict_). As already mentioned above and as proved beyond

doubt during the trial, Ding did not undertake these typhus experiments

for the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS, but exclusively for his

employer and commander, Grawitz.

Genzken, therefore, was not responsible for the carrying out of the

typhus experiments, since he neither commanded nor ordered those

experiments.

If furthermore the Tribunal is trying to construe incriminating evidence

against Genzken by claiming that Genzken provided the funds for Ding’s

expenses (_see page 97 and 99 of the German text_), this too is a

mistake. Genzken expressly said under oath that he never provided any

money for Ding’s experiments, but that only for Ding’s personal needs

had funds been transferred to the Waffen SS through the medical office.

In the Genzken Document No. 17, Genzken Exhibit No. 15, Rudolf Tonndorf

says “that he never paid or ordered payment for the upkeep or provided

other funds for scientific experiments or for institutions which served

such purposes, because such scientific research work was not the concern

of the medical office of the Waffen SS, but exclusively that of the

office of the Reich Physician of the SS and Police, Dr. Grawitz.”

In Genzken Exhibit No. 8, Barnewald states under oath “that the entire

administrative care for Block 46 was the concern of the Buchenwald camp

administration through the official channels via the patients’ building

of the concentration camp. The administration of the medical office of

the Waffen SS had officially nothing to do with administrative matters

concerning Block 46.”

On page 6 of the Ding diary—Prosecution Exhibit No. 287—it says that

Pohl, the Chief of the Main Administrative and Economic Office, gave the

order for the enlargement of a block of stone buildings. On page 9 of

that same document a conference between Ding and two representatives of

the Main Administrative and Economic Office is mentioned (Barnewald and

Schlesinger), who occupied themselves with the breeding of experimental

animals for the experimental department.

Not Genzken, but the authorities competent for the economic supply of

the concentration camps, namely, the Main Administrative and Economic

Office therefore carried through the financing of the typhus experiments

via the camp administration of the concentration camp Buchenwald.

_Genzken had no knowledge of the character and of the extent of

the experiments carried out in the field of typhus research

in Block 46_

The statement in the verdict (_page 105_) “that Genzken knew that the

prisoners were subjected to cruel medical experiments, in the course of

which deaths were occurring,” is not proved in any way.

The verdict itself (_page 98_) states that Genzken said “that he was

aware of the fact that concentration camp inmates were subjected to

experiments, and that he stated that he was not advised as to the

_methods_ of experimentation.” In the cross-examination, Genzken

emphasized that the number of the experimental persons, of the series of

experiments, the number of dead, the cultures for infections, and the

passages had only become clear to him through the trial, and that the

names “Block 46” and “Block 50” had been entirely unknown to him up to

the trial. As proved by the evidence it is clear, beyond doubt, that

Genzken was not informed either by Grawitz, nor by Ding, nor by

Mrugowsky about the details of the experiments. Grawitz who distrusted

Genzken, consciously never informed Genzken about a single case of his

many secret experiments upon human beings in which, according to the

documentary evidence he participated. The defense has given sufficient

evidence for this fact. Grawitz even prevented Mrugowsky from informing

Genzken (_Document Genzken, Exhibit No. 3_): “This is none of Genzken’s

business.”

It has also been made very clear by the defense that Ding had never

given any oral or written information about the details of the

experiments. The prosecution could not produce any evidence for such

information.

The verdict speaks about a “warm personal friendship between Genzken and

Ding” (_page 97_). Their relationship never was more than one of

official comradeship. They did not use the intimate “Du” in addressing

each other. Ding was never a guest at Genzken’s house. Once Ding was

presented to Frau Genzken. The two women did not know each other at all.

Ding’s scientific reports concerning his research went directly to

Grawitz via Mrugowsky. To the question whether it was not true that

reports concerning the typhus experiments in Block 46 went to the office

of the Reich Physician of the SS and of the Police Grawitz, the

prosecution witness Kogon answered by saying: “This is correct” (_see p.

1290 of the English Transcript_). Mrugowsky said in this connection:

“The reports were never presented to Genzken through me but in a new

envelope went directly to Grawitz” (_see p. 5366 of the English

Transcript_). Finally the witness Dumont in figure 7 of her affidavit

(_Document Mrugowsky, Exhibit 13, page 51, Document Book Mrug. I_)

declared: “The reports which Ding made concerning his experiments with

prisoners were directed to Grawitz via the Hygiene Institute.”

The verdict tries furthermore to base the fact that Genzken knew about

the typhus experiments via stating that once a report by Mrugowsky of 5

May 1942 went to him and that besides this, he had been personally

informed about everything by Mrugowsky. Both conclusions are also wrong

and are in direct contradiction to the evidence.

The only document of the prosecution which, according to the distributor

mentions the name of Genzken at all, is the report by Mrugowsky of 5 May

1942, mentioned in the verdict (_page 99 and following_). The

conclusions which the Tribunal feels compelled to have to draw from this

report to the prejudice of Genzken do not apply if only for the reason

that this report was _never_ made available to Dr. Genzken. Mrugowsky

said in this respect: “This report was not presented to Genzken himself

but was even later on, until the end, in the files of Amt XVI.” (_See

reply of the defense to the closing brief of the prosecution, p. 5_).

Genzken cannot be made responsible for something he, as has been proved,

never knew. If he never saw that report of Mrugowsky and if he never

knew of its existence, it cannot serve as an incriminating evidence

against him.

It is not correct, that before 1 September 1943 Mrugowsky gave

regularly, on the average once a week, oral or written reports

concerning the typhus experiments to Genzken. Mrugowsky only said that

about once a week he reported to Genzken on the hygiene of the troops at

the meeting of the Referenten[59] of the medical office. Mrugowsky did

this in his capacity as leading hygienist of the medical office

(Sanitaets-Amt). Mrugowsky never reported to Genzken about the typhus

experiments, on the occasion of these weekly reports and meetings of

Referenten (Heads of Referate, Departments in a Ministry), if only

because of the fact that these experiments did not fall within the scope

of the work of the medical office of the Waffen SS, and because, upon

Grawitz order, they were to be kept strictly secret. Written reports

were never made at all. The established fact that in the medical office

there was not the slightest information about, nor was there ever any

discussion of, typhus experiments or any other experiments upon human

beings in concentration camps, in itself shows that on Mrugowsky’s part,

no oral or written reports were submitted to the medical office of the

Waffen SS. Four participants in such meetings of the Referenten of the

medical office have borne witness to this fact (_see p. 52 of the

closing brief for the defense_).

The sole report of the spring of 1943 has been described in detail by

Mrugowsky. His explanations were incorporated into the verdict word for

word. The Tribunal thus considers them to be true and accurate.

Mrugowsky and Genzken both stated under oath that Genzken had not seen

that infection dates and incidents of death had been marked in the

charts which were submitted to him. Mrugowsky stated literally as

follows: “I had no cause to call his attention to these things expressly

because actually I made no report to him concerning Ding’s experimental

series, but merely wanted to give him factual information concerning the

protective effect of certain vaccines, which he as head of the medical

office had to know.”

On pages 25-26, the verdict states: “In Anglo-Saxon law, every defendant

in a criminal proceedings for a crime of which he is accused is

considered innocent until the prosecution has brought sound credible

proof of his guilt, excluding all reasonable doubt. This assumption

applies to the defendant throughout all the stages of the trial, until

such proof has been brought. ‘Reasonable doubt’ is, as the name implies,

doubt that is in keeping with reason, a doubt that a reasonable person

would entertain.”

These statements must be completely and entirely agreed to. But, when

applied to this very case of defendant Genzken and especially to his

alleged knowledge of the experiments, it can under no circumstances be

said that the evidence brought by the prosecution is sufficient to

provide the judge with a lasting conviction giving him the moral

certainty the accusation is true. For Genzken did not see Mrugowsky’s

report, and the single report made by Mrugowsky presents, according to

the latter’s statement, no sound and conclusive proof of Genzken’s

knowledge.

The verdict holds Genzken responsible (_p. 103_) “for having

nevertheless neglected to reassure himself that his experimental work

was being carried out within permissible legitimate limits.”

III

_Genzken had no official supervisory power and no chance

to intervene by giving orders and also no reason

at all to reassure himself_

As witness, Genzken himself stated that he had merely known that a new

typhus vaccine was to be produced in an institute at Buchenwald. Genzken

had no knowledge whatsoever in this specialized field of hygiene, as

well as no bacteriological training at all, and had never conducted

scientific research work. He had no reason at all to assume that, in

connection with this research, prisoners would be used in a criminal

manner. He was merely of the opinion that the prisoners were brought in

for purposes of checking the efficacy of the vaccine, in the form of

experimental series which were generally customary in medical research.

It was only during the course of the trial that he for the first time

learned of deliberate infections and that there had been many deaths

during the experimental series. He could not know anything about these

facts, especially because the assignment of the prisoners was, as a

concentration camp matter, completely outside of his sphere of duties.

When, on page 103 (German text), the verdict implies that Genzken had

undertaken no steps to reassure himself about the condition of the

experimental subjects or of the circumstances under which they had been

taken to the experimental block, this implication of the verdict is also

incorrect, because the prisoners were not assigned by the medical office

of the Waffen SS, but by the office in charge of the administration of

the concentration camp in collaboration with the Reich Criminal Police

Office. Until the trial, he had not even known that non-Germans were

called in as experimental subjects. This and the fact that all

experiments were kept strictly secret made it impossible for Genzken to

institute investigations or to undertake steps to reassure himself about

the condition of the experimental subjects. If, finally, on page 98 of

the verdict, reference is made to Ding’s diary in order to support the

judgment, it must above all be stated that there are grave doubts as to

the probative value of this document (_see p. 27 and the following of

the closing brief for the defense_). The verdict asserts that Kogon kept

the original diary. That is not in keeping with the facts; in any case

it would have been impossible for the period from December 1941 to June

1943, because Kogon only became Ding’s secretary on the latter date

(_see p. 1259 of the English Transcript_). On page 99 of the verdict,

the Tribunal itself makes the following statement in connection with the

entry for 9 January 1943 referred to in order to incriminate Genzken:

“if Ding’s proven attempts at self-glorification are taken into account,

one should not credulously accept this entry in its existing form.” Thus

in this connection the statements on page 25 and 26 of the verdict

regarding the Tribunal’s conviction apply in particular. If even the

Tribunal, and quite rightly so, feels considerable doubts as to the

correctness and significance of this entry, it is not permissible to use

it in order to the prejudice of the defendant. Besides, Genzken

expressly declared as also confirmed by Kogon (_see p. 1228 of English

Tr._) that he never expressed his approval with regard to the department

for typhus research, but that this entry would have to be interpreted as

his consent to the change of name of the vaccine _production_

laboratory. This intended change of name was not effected until after 1

September 1943, thus at a time when Genzken was no longer responsible.

(_See p. 32 and following of the closing brief for the defense._)

The verdict states at the end of the opinion for Genzken’s sentence that

he was responsible for the typhus experiments and that he assisted in

them and furthered them.

In the face of all this, the result of the case in chief is once again

to be summarized as follows:

Genzken had no responsibility, no authority to give orders, and

no official supervisory power regarding the Typhus Experimental

Station in Block 46 of the Buchenwald concentration camp. All

these were in the hands of Grawitz. The latter gave direct

orders for the experiments to be carried out to Ding who was his

immediate subordinate. Ding’s reports went directly through

Mrugowsky to Grawitz and never to Genzken. The latter had no

knowledge whatsoever of the criminal methods of the experiments.

Genzken had no responsibility, no official supervisory power,

and no possibility to interfere by an order; owing to his

ignorance of the facts, he had no cause to reassure himself of

the conditions under which the experiments took place. Therefore

a sentence in connection with counts two and three of the

indictment ought not to follow. I, therefore, ask that the

verdict should not be confirmed on these points, as Genzken is

not guilty of a war crime or of a crime against humanity as is

clearly proved by the evidence.

With regard to his membership in the SS, this fact alone is not

sufficient to bring about his conviction before the American

Military Tribunal. In addition, it would be necessary that his

knowledge of _criminal_ experiments should have been proved as

in the Poppendick case. However, in accordance with the above

statements this is not the case.

Only the competent German Denazification Board could convict the

defendant for his SS membership. I therefore propose that the

case be referred to the Denazification Board competent for his

home town Preetz/Holstein.

[Signature] DR. R. MERKEL,

_Attorney-at-Law_.

_FOR THE DEFENDANT RUDOLF BRANDT_

Dr. Kurt Kauffmann

Counsel for the Defense of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt

Nuernberg, 2 September 1947

To the Military Governor of the American Zone of Occupation in Germany.

Through the Secretary General at Military Tribunal No. I, Nuernberg.

As counsel for the defense of Rudolf Brandt, who has been sentenced to

death, I herewith petition that the judgment of the American Military

Tribunal No. I, dated 19-20 August 1947, not be confirmed.

It is perhaps the grandest task of a human being and counsel for the

defense to intercede on behalf of another person and to commend him to

the clemency of the mighty.

Clemency appeals to the understanding of the great for human weakness.

Clemency is the opposite of pure criticism and spiteful anger.

For this reason I remain quiet in the face of the sentence pronounced; I

do not raise any complaint because, in one point or another, the

decision of the Tribunal does not perhaps entirely agree with my opinion

of the course of events, of the position of the defendant at that time,

and of his character.

This petition for clemency wants once more to go into the depths of the

thoughts which basically were already the subject of my final plea.

One may well believe that at the beginning of the trial, after I had

studied the case of Rudolf Brandt, I recognized that this task was

hardly to be rewarded with success; nevertheless it seemed to me that it

was worth my efforts to take over the defense, since I believed—then as

well as now—that Rudolf Brandt is guilty to receive any kind of

punishment but not the death sentence.

Not a few of the statements made in my final plea serve this idea. I

must admit, however, that even I, as the counsel for his defense,

arrived at this conviction only on the strength of the characterization

of the personality of the defendant contained in my document book, as

well as on the strength of my own judgment of him, which sees in Brandt

a beast of burden which dragged on day and night without really

recognizing the contents of its burden; for the burden which it carried,

together with the weights, which make this trial such a terrible one,

were only a small fraction of the gigantic burden under which the bearer

himself was not visible any more.

This comparison can be drawn without difficulty from the evidence

presented by the defense.

I take the liberty—because it seems characteristic in this respect—to

refer to some pieces of evidence which have already been submitted to

the Tribunal, namely:

(1) the affidavit of Medizinalrat Felix Kersten of Stockholm

(_Document Book Rudolf Brandt, page 8_).

(2) two affidavits from Schellenberg and Dr. Stuckart (_Document

Book Rudolf Brandt, pp. 16-17 and pp. 23-24_).

(3) I once more refer to the final plea of Rudolf Brandt

(_English transcript, pages 11330-35_).

(4) I attached two letters of the World Jewish Congress in Paris

and Stockholm, addressed to the above-mentioned Felix Kersten,

which had been rejected by the Tribunal as unessential pieces of

evidence, which, however, throw a distinct light on the

personality of Felix Kersten, who, on his part, defends so

warmly Rudolf Brandt.

The fact that Rudolf Brandt did not make his own decisions but was under

the command of Himmler can be found a mitigating consideration according

to Law No. 10 of the Control Council, Article II 4 _b_.

I appeal to the generosity of the great to make use of this possibility

to mitigate the sentence.

A sentence of imprisonment is also a heavy expiation.

The counsel for the defense again and again feels tempted to regret that

these trials are too drawn out and through their long duration have a

negative effect on the broad masses of the German people. If it is to be

the goal of these trials to punish the main war criminals, these

procedures should be shortened. The people are not interested any more

in the course of these trials, apart from the trial against Goering and

others during its first stages; one reason for this is, of course, the

general plight; because the hunger of the people, the great mortality,

the problem of the prisoners of war who are not returned to their

families, the conditions in the East push everything else aside.

Furthermore, the long duration of the trials causes even the most lively

interest to slacken. But it also seems wrong to pronounce death

sentences after such a long duration of proceedings. In the case of the

trial of the International Military Tribunal, the people were still able

to connect the long duration of the proceedings with the sentences

pronounced, because each proceeding was an individual event. The

following trials, however, among them, therefore, the doctors’ trial,

are much too much drawn out with regard to German legal opinion. If such

a drawn-out procedure closes with a death sentence, that death

punishment seems hardly justified anymore. German trial procedure does

not know such long drawn-out proceedings, the final result of which is a

death sentence. The special peculiarities of the Anglo-American trial

procedures are the cause for such trials that last for months and

months. It has also to be remembered that the defendants in each case

have been in custody for almost or more than two years when the trial

finally began. Procedures ending with death sentences will have to be

carried through much faster. It is in contradiction to one’s reactions

that death sentences are pronounced against defendants with whom not

only counsel for the defense has worked together for many months, but

who also for many months appeared daily in court and were respected by

the court, since they are rightly considered innocent until their guilt

is finally established.

Neither should one forget that the defendants themselves, after having

been held in custody for inquiry for such a long time and having gone

through such long drawn-out procedures, have already atoned more for

their crimes than if there had been a quick procedure started

immediately after the collapse of Germany.

If I may impose on the instance for clemency I beg to read some parts of

my final plea; then, I don’t have to repeat myself here. (_Cf.

statements on page 14 V, 1_; _furthermore pages 18-20, 27, 43 C_).

[Signature] DR. KAUFFMANN.

_FOR THE DEFENDANT POPPENDICK_

Nuernberg, 1 September 1947

Georg Boehm, Attorney

Defense Counsel

Military Tribunal I

Nuernberg, 115 Zerzabelshofstrasse

The

Military Commander

of the U.S. Occupation Zone

Germany

Petition

of Attorney Georg Boehm, Defense Counsel at

Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg

for the defendant

Helmut Poppendick, at present in the courthouse prison at

Nuernberg, _concerning alteration of the sentence passed_

_by Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg_

The defendant Helmut Poppendick was acquitted of the charges of having

committed war crimes and crimes against humanity (counts two and three)

in the sentence of the Military Tribunal I at Nuernberg in Case I,

United States of America against Karl Brandt _et al._, on 19 August

1947, and found guilty only, as an SS member, of membership in an

organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal

(count four). On 20 August 1947, the defendant Helmut Poppendick was

sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment merely on account of membership in

the SS.

I. _The sentence exceeds the maximum penalty_

According to the recommendations of the International Military Tribunal

(_The Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military

Tribunal, Vol. I, p. 288_), inserted into the sentence of the Medical

Case, a maximum penalty is provided for the punishment of members of

organizations declared criminal. The IMT recommendation provides in

detail that “in no case is the penalty, imposed on the basis of Law No.

10 upon a member of an organization or group declared criminal by the

Tribunal, to be more severe than the one provided in the Denazification

Law”. The Denazification Law, dated 5 March 1946, valid for the U.S.

Occupation Zone of Germany, referred to as a standard for comparison,

provides the maximum penalty of 10 years in a labor camp. According to

present penal regulations, 10 years’ imprisonment is, however, a more

severe penalty than being sent to a labor camp for the same period. _10

years’ imprisonment_ _exceeds, therefore, the penalty provided in the

recommendation of the IMT._ The sentence against Poppendick does not

give any special reason for exceeding the maximum penalty.

II. _More lenient evaluation of the group of persons within the

SS who only knew about crimes without, however,

being involved in them_

The sentence of the International Military Tribunal declares punishable

in the sense of the statute “the group composed of those persons who

were officially admitted as members * * * in the SS, became or remained

members of the organization knowing that use was made of them for

committing acts declared punishable by Article 6 of the Statute, _or_

who were involved in committing such crimes as members of the

organization.” According to a reasonable interpretation of this

provision, if mere membership is punished, one has to differentiate

between those persons involved in committing such crimes and those

persons only knowing about the commission of such crimes within the SS.

According to a sound sense of justice, the provided maximum penalty for

membership in the SS cannot possibly be valid for both groups of

persons. On the contrary, the group having only knowledge has to be

punished more lightly than the group involved in crimes. A penalty

_inferior_ to the provided maximum penalty has, therefore, to be imposed

on the first mentioned persons among the SS members called to account.

The Tribunal clearly stated that the defendant Helmut Poppendick was not

involved in the crimes of the SS and, in this way, made it clear that

not even on account of his rank or official position was he able to

prevent crimes. The Tribunal only tried to impute knowledge on the part

of the defendant Poppendick of definite experiments specified in the

indictment. _For this reason the maximum penalty should not be imposed

in the case of the defendant Poppendick._

III. _Knowledge of the defendant Poppendick_

The Tribunal imputed to the defendant Poppendick, who was Oberfuehrer of

the Waffen SS and Obersturmbannfuehrer of the General SS: (1) knowledge

of freezing experiments; (2) sulfanilamide experiments; (3)

sterilization experiments; (4) incendiary bomb experiments; (5) phlegmon

experiments, without, however, being criminally involved in them.

(1) Knowledge of freezing experiments is imputed to the defendant

Poppendick because he was subsequently invited to participate in a

conference between Grawitz and Dr. Rascher in January 1943. As Rascher

was at that time an officer in the Luftwaffe and all his collaborators

were not members of the SS, this series of experiments (at least in

January 1943) cannot be interpreted as a series of experiments within

the SS and consequently as crimes of the SS. There is no proof of

knowledge of such experiments after January 1943.

(2) The defendant Poppendick knew as much about Professor Gebhardt’s

sulfanilamide experiments as Professor Rostock who was acquitted by the

same Tribunal, i.e., that prisoners sentenced to death were used for

these experiments.

(3) Knowledge of sterilization experiments is imputed to the defendant

Poppendick by means of a simple assumption, although the Tribunal

pointed out in several passages of the judgment that a mere assumption

of guilt, in our case of knowledge, is insufficient. Poppendick only

worked in the Race and Settlement Office as a doctor dealing with

hereditary questions for members of the SS and their families; as

medical superintendent he had to supervise this activity and the social

welfare doctors. These matters were purely internal SS affairs. If the

Race and Settlement Office occasionally dealt, amongst other measures,

with one of racial policy through its field offices, the doctors were

not involved in any case, and there is not the least indication that

Poppendick knew or ought to have known about such measures. Even the

judgment itself reveals to what extent the real sterilization

experiments were kept secret.

(4) On page 112 (German), the Tribunal points out, that in conferences

concerning sterilization experiments (Poppendick never took part in such

conferences) each participant had to undertake to maintain absolute

secrecy. Neither the defendant Poppendick’s statement nor the evidence

submitted reveal that Poppendick had any knowledge of sterilization

experiments, let alone of extermination measures.

(5) In the case of the phlegmon experiments it has not been proved that

Poppendick had any knowledge of them. Here, too, the assertion that he

had such knowledge is based on a mere assumption.

It has, however, nowhere been proved that defendant Helmut Poppendick

knew about the experiments in such a way as to necessitate his realizing

that non-Germans were being used for such experiments. In its verdict

the Tribunal has consistently followed the principle that it must be

proved that crimes were committed on non-German nationals (_see pp. 50,

51, 70, 91, 103, 131, 160, German text_). In contrast to this the

Tribunal left open the question as to how far the state is entitled to

carry out experiments on its own citizens; it stated when dealing with

the question of guilt: “* * * whatever right a state may have concerning

its own citizens” (_see pp. 114, 195, German_). The Tribunal, therefore,

in all essentials confined itself to the question of to what extent

crimes were committed on non-Germans. _No conclusive evidence has been

brought against defendant Helmut Poppendick in each single case to prove

his knowledge of experiments carried out on non-Germans._ In reality,

nothing is more suitable to explain under whatever point of view we have

to look at defendant Poppendick’s knowledge of experiments, than his

words at the end of the trial: “As to medical experiments on prisoners,

human experiments were nothing striking and nothing new to me. I knew

that experiments were being conducted in hospitals. I knew that the

triumphs of modern medicine had not been achieved without sacrifices. I

admit I cannot remember that in experiments in hospitals, the voluntary

participation of the experimental subjects had to be such an

indispensable and obvious prerequisite, as it appears to be according to

the argumentation heard in this trial. Furthermore, I know that some

scientific questions can only be solved by serial experiments in an

unchanging environment, and that, therefore, in all countries,

experiments are often conducted, particularly on soldiers in camps.

Under these circumstances I was not at all surprised that during the war

serial examinations and experiments were also carried out by scientists

in concentration camps. I had not the slightest reason to assume that

these scientists in the camps went beyond what was usual everywhere else

in the world of science. As far as I was concerned, what I knew about

medical experiments in the SS had just as little to do with criminal

acts as the experiments about which I knew from my internship before

1933.”

IV. _Consequences for future jurisdiction arising from the

penalties imposed by the sentence on Poppendick_

The sentence imposed on Helmut Poppendick for his membership in the SS

is altogether the first sentence in the American Zone against an SS

member of this kind. Therefore, it has to be regarded as a precedent for

all military tribunals and possibly, later on, for German courts, whose

task it will be to punish members of criminal organizations. To sum up

its consequences, the sentence creates a precedent, that—

1. Every SS leader with a rank higher than Poppendick’s, who

knew of SS crimes committed on Germans and non-Germans, can, on

principle, only be sentenced to the maximum penalty.

2. Every member of the SS involved in crimes can be sentenced up

to this maximum penalty again only on account of his SS

membership. What penalty can, for example, be inflicted on an SS

Obergruppenfuehrer who saw how the gas chambers were run at

Auschwitz, without, however, being otherwise involved in the

extermination of the Jews; a man thus having, so to speak, the

highest degree of knowledge derived from SS membership? _It is

obvious that such a sentence as the one passed on Poppendick

deprives future tribunals of all latitude of discretion,

transforms the maximum penalty into the average penalty, and in

this way renders the recommendation of the IMT absurd._

V. _Prevention of further possibilities of appeal_

The defendant Poppendick, whose domicile is in the British Zone, would

consequently under normal circumstances have to be tried by a tribunal

(Spruchgericht) set up in the meantime in consequence of the British

Ordinance No. 69. Because he has been sentenced by a Nuernberg Military

Tribunal as a member of an organization declared criminal _he loses the

two further appeals_ provided for by Ordinance No. 69 and its

implementation regulations for the British Zone. _Therefore this is the

only legal way still open to him to state his case._

VI. _Personal Conditions_

I make the following application for reduction of penalty with even

greater emphasis, because the defendant has already been amply punished

for his SS membership. His family has lost all its property and has not

a pfennig left. His wife must support her four little children aged 3 to

7 by the labor of her hands under the most primitive conditions, without

having a chance during her husband’s entire term of imprisonment to

obtain the slightest financial assistance for herself and her children.

The defendant used his considerable abilities as a physician to help

many people, both Germans and foreigners, during the long years of his

medical practice, without ever even mentioning this during the trial,

because it is a physician’s duty to help suffering humanity. The

defendant, who is not involved in the crimes dealt with by this

Tribunal, suffers sufficiently under his outward discrimination as an SS

member.

In view of all these circumstances and with the request for careful

examination of the case, I make in conclusion the

_Application_

1. _For the sentence of imprisonment for ten years inflicted on

defendant Helmut Poppendick to be reduced to a tolerable term of

imprisonment, perhaps to be commuted into a shorter term of confinement

in a labor camp, and at the same time_

2. _For the 2¼ years’ detention already served by the defendant to be

included in the then newly-determined term of imprisonment._

[Signature] G. BOEHM,

_Attorney-at-Law_.

-----

[59] According to German terminology a “Referent” (plural: “Referenten”)

is an official with expert knowledge of a specialized subject in a

government or private organization.

XIV. AFFIRMATION OF SENTENCES BY THE

MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE UNITED

STATES ZONE OF OCCUPATION

OFFICE OF MILITARY GOVERNMENT

FOR GERMANY (U. S.)

Office of the Military Governor

APO 742

Berlin, Germany

22 November 1947

AG 013. 3 (LD)

SUBJECT: Petitions for Review and for Habeas Corpus in the case of the

_United States of America_ v. _Karl Brandt et al._, Case 1,

Military Tribunal I, Nuernberg, Germany (Medical Case)

TO: Secretary General

Military Tribunals

APO 696-A, U.S. Army

1. Inclosed herewith you will find original orders denying petitions for

clemency submitted by the following persons convicted in Case Number 1

before Military Tribunal I:

Karl Brandt Siegfried Handloser

Oskar Schroeder Karl Genzken

Karl Gebhardt Rudolf Brandt

Joachim Mrugowsky Helmut Poppendick

Wolfram Sievers Gerhard Rose

Viktor Brack Hermann Becker-Freyseng

Waldemar Hoven Wilhelm Beiglboeck

Herta Oberheuser Fritz Fischer

2. Please formally advise the petitioners through their respective

attorneys of the action taken by the Military Governor upon these

petitions.

FOR THE MILITARY GOVERNOR:

[Signed] G. H. Garde

G. H. GARDE

Lieutenant Colonel, AGD

Adjutant General

Incls: a/s

Telephone BERLIN 42361

HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND

Office of the Commander-in-Chief

APO 742

Berlin, Germany

In the Case of Military Tribunal I

The United States of America Case No. 1

_vs._

Karl Brandt, et alii

_Order with Respect to Sentence of Karl Brandt_

In the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt et alii,

tried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1, Nuernberg,

Germany, the defendant, Karl Brandt, on 20 August 1947, was sentenced by

the Tribunal to death by hanging. A petition to modify the sentence,

filed on behalf of the defendant by Dr. R. Servatius, his defense

counsel, has been referred to me pursuant to the provision of Military

Government Ordinance No. 7. I have duly considered the petition and the

record of the trial and in accordance with Article XVII of said

Ordinance it is hereby ordered that:

1. The sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I upon Karl Brandt

be, and hereby is, in all respects, confirmed.

2. Pending action on petitions filed by the defendant with

authorities other than the Office of Military Government for

Germany, (U.S.), the execution of the death sentence be stayed

until further order by me.

3. The defendant be confined until further order in War Crimes

Prison No. 1, Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany.

[Signed] Lucius D. Clay

LUCIUS D. CLAY

General, U.S. Army

Commander-in-Chief, European Command

and Military Governor

HEADQUARTERS, EUROPEAN COMMAND

Office of the Commander-in-Chief

APO 742

In the Case of The

United States of America

_vs._

Karl Brandt, et alii

Military Tribunal I

Case No. 1

_Order with respect to sentence of Siegfried Handloser_[60]

In the case of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et

alii, tried by United States Military Tribunal I, Case No. 1, Nuernberg,

Germany, the defendant Siegfried Handloser, on 20 August 1947, was

sentenced by the Tribunal to life imprisonment. A petition to modify the

sentence, filed on behalf of the defendant by Dr. Otto Nelte, his

defense counsel, has been referred to me pursuant to the provisions of

Military Government Ordinance No. 7. I have duly considered the petition

and the record of the trial and in accordance with Article XVII of said

Ordinance, it is hereby ordered that:

_a._ the sentence imposed by Military Tribunal I, on Siegfried

Handloser be, and hereby is, in all respects confirmed;

_b._ the defendant be confined in War Crimes Prison No. 1,

Landsberg, Bavaria, Germany.

[Signed] Lucius D. Clay

LUCIUS D. CLAY

General, U.S.A.

Commander-in-Chief, European Command

and Military Governor

-----

[60] The sentences imposed upon the remaining 14 defendants were

confirmed in all respects by the Military Commander of the United States

Zone of Occupation by identical orders.

XV. ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Monday, 16 February 1948

No. 286, Misc. Karl Brandt, petitioner, _v._ The United States

of America;

No. 287, Misc. Viktor Brack, petitioner, _v._ The United States

of America;

No. 288, Misc. Rudolf Brandt, petitioner, _v._ The United States

of America;

No. 299, Misc. Wilhelm Bieglboeck, petitioner, _v._ The United States of

America. The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas

corpus and prohibition are denied. Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice

Murphy, and Mr. Justice Rutledge are of the opinion that the petitions

should be set for hearing on the question of the jurisdiction of this

Court. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision

of these applications.[61]

[The execution of death sentences imposed on Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt,

Karl Gebhardt, Joachim Mrugowsky, Viktor Brack, Wolfram Sievers, and

Waldemar Hoven were ordered on 14 May 1948 by the Military Governor.

Executions were carried out at Landsberg prison on 2 June 1948.]

-----

[61] The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus

and prohibition in the case of the other defendants were also denied.

APPENDIX

Table of Comparative Ranks

U. S. German U. S. Navy German Med. SS SA

Army Army Navy Svcs.(A)

2d Leutnant Ensign Leutnant Assistenza Untersturm Sturmfuehr

Lieuten zur See rzt fuehrer er.

ant

1st Oberleutn Lieutenant Oberleutna Oberarzt Obersturmf Obersturmf

Lieuten ant (junior nt zur uehrer uehrer.

ant grade) See

Captain Hauptmann Lieutenant Kapitaenle Stabsarzt Hauptsturm Hauptsturm

(senior utnant fuehrer fuehrer.

grade)

Major Major Lieutenant Korvettenk Oberstabsa Sturmbannf Sturmbannf

Commande apitaen rzt uehrer uehrer.

Lieutenan Oberstleu Commander Fregattenk Oberfeldar Obersturmb Obersturmb

t tnant apitaen zt annfuehrer annfuehrer

Colonel .

Colonel Oberst Captain Kapitaen Oberstarzt Standarten Standarten

zur See fuehrer fuehrer

Oberfuehre Oberfuehre

r (B) r (C).

Brigadier Generalma Commodore Konteradmi Generalarz Brigadefue Brigadefue

General jor ral t hrer hrer.

Major Generalle Rear Vizeadmira Generalsta Gruppenfue Gruppenfue

General utnant Admiral l bsarzt hrer hrer.

Lieutenan General Vice Admiral Generalobe Obergruppe Obergruppe

t der Admiral rstabsarzt nfuehrer nfuehrer.

General Infante

rie,

der

Artille

rie,

etc.

General Generalob Admiral Generaladm Oberstgrup

erst iral penfuehrer

General Generalfe Admiral of Grossadmir Reichsfueh Stabschef.

of the ldmarscha the al rer

Army ll Fleet

(A) Ranks for the Medical Service of the German Army and the German Air

Force are identical. Ranks for the Medical Service of the German Navy

differ somewhat but are for the most part immaterial here. Dr.

Fikentacher held the rank of Admiraloberstabsarzt which is equivalent to

that of Generaloberstabsarzt.

(B) Equivalent to a senior Colonel.

List of Witnesses in Case I

[Note.—All witnesses in this case appeared before the Tribunal.

Prosecution witnesses are designated by the letter “P”, defense

witnesses by the letter “D”, and the Tribunal witness by the

letter “T”. The names not preceded by any designation represent

defendants testifying in their own behalf. Extracts from

testimony in this case are listed in the index of documents and

testimony.]

│ │ │

│ │ │ Pages

│ Name │ Dates of testimony │ (mimeographed

│ │ │ transcript)

│ │ │

P│ALEXANDER, Dr. Leo │20 Dec 46 │805-814; 832-838;

│ │ │848-855; 864-869

│ │ │

D│AUGUSTINICK, Dr. │27, 28 Feb 47 │3701-3737

│ Herbert │ │

│ │ │

│BECKER-FREYSENG, │19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27,│7774-8243; 8255-8292

│ Hermann │28, 29 May 46 │

│ │ │

│BEIGLBOECK, Wilhelm │6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 │8666-9028; 9326-9328

│ │Jun 46 │

│ │ │

D│BLOCK, Maria Lotte │16, 17 Apr 47 │6002-6031

│ │ │

│BLOME, Kurt │13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20,│4450-4811

│ │21 Mar 47 │

│ │ │

D│BORKENAU, Franz │14, 15 Apr 47 │5890-5908

│ │ │

│BRACK, Viktor Hermann │12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19 │7413-7772

│ │May 47 │

│ │ │

│BRANDT, Karl │3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Feb 47 │2301-2661

│ │ │

│BRANDT, Rudolf │24, 25, 26 Mar 47 │4869-4994

│ │ │

P│BROEL-PLATER, Maria │19, 20 Dec 46 │785-804

│ │ │

P│BROERS, Constantyn │30 Jun 47 │10386-10406

│ Johan │ │

│ │ │

D│CHRISTENSEN, Heinz │24 Feb 47 │3430-3454

│ │ │

D│DORN, Paul Friedrich │5, 6 Jun 47 │8574-8665

│ │ │

P│DZIDO, Jadwiga │20 Dec 46 │838-848

│ │ │

P│EYER, Olga │15 Jan 47 │1755-1779

│ │ │

│FISCHER, Fritz │10, 11, 12 Mar 47 │4266-4384

│ │ │

│GEBHARDT, Karl │4, 5, 6, 7, 10 Mar 47 │3931-4256

│ │ │

│GENZKEN, Karl │28 Feb; 3 Mar 47 │3773-3891

│ │ │

P│GRANDJEAN, Henri-Jean │6 Jan 47 │1099-1105; 1119-1120

D│GUTZEIT, Kurt │7, 10 Feb 47 │2692-2764

│ │ │

D│HAAGEN, Eugen │17, 18, 19, 20 Jun 47 │9408-9712

│ │ │

P│HALL, Ferdinand │3 Jan 47 │1048-1073

│ │ │

│HANDLOSER, Siegfried │11, 12, 13, 18 Feb 47 │2815-3104

│ │ │

D│HARTLENBEN, Hans │19 Feb 47 │3189-3231

│ │ │

D│HEDERICH, Karl Heinz │8, 9 May 47 │7262-7291

│ │ │

P│HENRI PIERRE, Henri │18 Dec 46 │708-722

│ │ │

D│HIELSCHER, Friedrich │15, 16 Apr 47 │5926-5994

│ │ │

P│HIRTZ, Georg │8 Jan 47 │1291-1300

│ │ │

P│HOELLENRAINER, Karl │27 Jun 47; 1 Jul 47 │10229-10234; 10508-10544

│ │ │

D│HOERING, Felix │17 Apr 47 │6031-6078

│ │ │

D│HORN, Videslaw │31 Mar, 1 Apr 47 │5245-5333

│ │ │

│HOVEN, Waldemar │21, 23, 24 Jun 47 │9761-10004

│ │ │

P│IVY, Dr. Andrew Conway │12, 13, 14, 16 Jun 47 │9029-9324

│ │ │

D│JAEGER, Rolf │28 May 47 │8244-8255

│ │ │

D│JENTSCH, Werner │26 Feb 47 │3582-3602

│ │ │

D│JUNG, Friedrich │26 Jun 47 │10148-10154

│ │ │

D│KARLSTETTER, Maria │25 Feb 47 │3455-3461

│ │ │

P│KAROLEWSKA, Vladislava │20 Dec 46 │815-832

│ │ │

P│KIRCHHEIMER, Fritz │8, 9 Jan 47 │1321-1348

│ │ │

D│KOCH, Ernst │26 Jun 47 │10120-10144

│ │ │

P│KOGON, Dr. Eugen │6, 7, 8 Jan 47 │1150-1290

│ │ │

D│KOSMEHL, Dr. Herbert │12 Mar 47 │4387-4446

│ │ │

P│KUSMIERCZUK, Maria │20 Dec 46 │856-864

│ │ │

D│LAMMERS, Hans Heinrich │7 Feb 47 │2661-2692

P│LAUBINGER, Josef │27 Jun 47 │10198-10229

│ │ │

P│LEIBBRANDT, Werner │27 Jan 47 │1961-2028

│ │ │

P│LEVY, Robert │17 Dec 46 │550-561

│ │ │

P│LUTZ, Wolfgang │12 Dec 46 │266-308

│ │ │

P│MACZKA, Sofia │10 Jan 47 │1430-1462

│ │ │

D│MAY, Eduard │14 Apr 47 │5869-5889

│ │ │

D│MEINE, August │21, 24 Mar 47 │4831-4867

│ │ │

D│METTBACH, Ernst │21 Jun 47 │9714-9757

│ │ │

P│MENNECKE, Fritz │16, 17 Jan 47 │1866-1946

│ │ │

P│MICHALOWSKI, Father Leo│21 Dec 46 │871-886

│ │ │

│MRUGOWSKY, Joachim │26, 27, 28, 31 Mar 47; │5000-5244; 5334-5464

│ │1, 2, 3 Apr 47 │

│ │ │

P│NALES, Gerrid Hendrick │30 Jun 47 │10409-10471

│ │ │

T│NEFF, Walter │17, 18 Dec 46 │595-695

│ │ │

│OBERHEUSER, Herta │3, 8 Apr 47 │5478-5528

│ │ │

D│PFANNMUELLER, Hermann │9, 12 May 47 │7291-7412

│ │ │

D│PIECK, Henry │20 Mar 47 │4722-4755

│ │ │

│POKORNY, Adolf │25, 26 Jun 47 │10007-10109

│ │ │

│POPPENDICK, Helmut │8, 9 Apr 47 │5530-5651

│ │ │

P│ROEMHILD, Ferdinand │14 Jan 47 │1627-1664

│ │ │

│ROMBERG, Hans Wolfgang │1, 2, 5, 6 May 47 │6764-7032A

│ │ │

│ROSE, Gerhard │18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 │6081-6484

│ │Apr 47 │

│ │ │

│ROSTOCK, Paul │20, 21, 24 Feb 47 │3258-3430

│ │ │

│RUFF, Siegfried │25, 28, 29, 30 Apr 47 │6490-6739

│ │ │

│SIEVERS, Wolfram │9, 10, 11, 14 Apr 47 │5656-5869

│SCHAEFER, Konrad │2, 4 Jun 47 │8349-8399; 8494-8571

│ │ │

D│SCHMIDT, Bernhard │19 Feb 47 │3144-3188

│ │ │

P│SCHMIDT, Edith │9 Jan 47 │1364-1383

│ │ │

P│SCHMIDT, Walter Eugen │16 Jan 47 │1816-1863

│ │ │

│SCHROEDER, Oskar │25, 26, 27 Feb 47 │3469-3582; 3602-3700

│ │ │

P│STOEHR, Heinrich │17 Dec 46 │574-594

│ Wilhelm │ │

│ │ │

D│TOPF, Erwin │15 Apr 47 │5908-5924

│ │ │

D│TRUX, Rudolf │26 Jun 47 │10110-10120

│ │ │

P│TSCHOFENIG, Joseph │17 Jun 47 │9329-9363

│ │ │

P│VIEWEG, August Heinrich│13, 16 Dec 46 │418-468

│ │ │

D│VOLLHARDT, Franz │3 Jun 47 │8400-8490

│ │ │

P│VORLICEK, Joseph │17 Jun 47 │9383-9407

│ │ │

│WELTZ, Georg August │6, 7, 8 May 47 │7035-7254

│ │ │

D│WITT, Fritz │28 Feb 47 │3740-3753

│ │ │

D│WUERFLER, Paul │18, 19 Feb 47 │3104-3144

INDEX OF DOCUMENTS AND TESTIMONY

Document No. Exhibit No. Description Vol-Page

NO-005 Pros. Ex. 279 Letter from Grawitz to I-344

Himmler, 22 November 1944,

requesting prisoners for

experiments.

NO-011 Pros. Ex. 188 Note from Himmler to Grawitz, I-504

16 June 1943, concerning

epidemic jaundice

experiments at

concentration camp

Sachsenhausen.

NO-018 Pros. Ex. 404 Letter from Himmler to Brack, I-856

19 December 1940,

requesting that euthanasia

station Grafeneck be

discontinued and that

motion pictures be shown to

dispel rumors.

NO-035 Pros. Ex. 142 Letter from Pokorny to I-713

Himmler, October 1941,

concerning a sterilization

drug to be used against

Germany’s enemies.

NO-036 Pros. Ex. 143 Letter from Himmler, 10 March I-714

1942, to Pohl (initialed by

Rudolf Brandt) concerning a

sterilization drug and

suggesting further research

on criminals.

NO-038 Pros. Ex. 147 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-715

Pohl, June 1942,

transmitting an inquiry by

Himmler as to the progress

made with experiments for

medical sterilization.

NO-039 Pros. Ex. 153 Letter from Gund to Himmler, I-717

24 August 1942, concerning

research in medical

sterilization and

development of

sterilization drugs.

NO-046a Pros. Ex. 148 Letter from Pohl to Himmler, I-716

3 June 1942, concerning the

development of a

sterilization drug by the

firm of Dr. Madaus and Co.

NO-046b Pros. Ex. 149 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-717

Pohl, 11 June 1942, asking

him on behalf of Himmler to

set up a large hothouse for

the development of a

sterilization drug.

NO-080 Pros. Ex. 5 Fuehrer Decree, 28 July 1942, I-81

concerning the Medical and

Health Services.

NO-081 Pros. Ex. 6 Second Fuehrer Decree, 5 I-83

September 1943, concerning

the Medical and Health

Services, 1943.

NO-082 Pros. Ex. 7 Fuehrer Decree, 25 August I-83

1944, concerning the

appointment of a Reich

Commissioner for Medical

and Health Services, 1944.

NO-085 Pros. Ex. 175 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-784

Brandt, 9 February 1942,

and report by Hirt

concerning the acquisition

of skulls of

Jewish-Bolshevik

Commissars.

NO-086 Pros. Ex. 177 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-750

Brandt, 2 November 1942,

requesting with Himmler’s

approval, 150 skeletons.

NO-087 Pros. Ex. 181 Letter from Sievers to I-751

Eichmann, (copy to Rudolf

Brandt), 21 June 1943,

concerning selection of

subjects for a skeleton

collection.

NO-098 Pros. Ex. 263 Memorandum from Sievers to I-337

Rudolf Brandt, 3 November

1942, concerning research

in the Natzweiler

concentration camp.

NO-099 Pros. Ex. 268 Report by Hirt and Wimmer on I-341

the proposed treatment of

poisoning caused by Lost

gas.

NO-121 Pros. Ex. 293 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, I-578

15 November 1943,

concerning prisoners to be

used as experimental

subjects for tests with

typhus vaccine.

NO-122 Pros. Ex. 298 Letter dictated by Rose, I-579

addressed to Haagen, 13

December 1943, concerning

experimental subjects for

vaccine experiments.

NO-123 Pros. Ex. 303 Letter from Haagen to Hirt, 9 I-580

March 1944, concerning

experiments conducted with

typhus vaccine and

requesting experimental

subjects.

NO-125 Pros. Ex. 194 Letter from Haagen to I-506

Gutzeit, 27 June 1944,

concerning epidemic

jaundice experiments on

human beings.

NO-139 Pros. Ex. 317 Letter from Dr. Grunske to I-581

Haagen, 7 March 1944,

concerning reports on

yellow fever virus

experiments requested by a

Japanese medical officer.

NO-158 Pros. Ex. 410 Letter from Hirche, I-858

administrator of the Mental

Institution Bernburg, to

camp commandant of the

Gross-Rosen concentration

camp, 19 March 1942, with

list of inmates transferred

from the concentration camp

to Bernburg.

NO-177 Pros. Ex. 133 Minutes of conference at the I-448

Reich Ministry of Aviation,

20 May 1944, concerning

methods for making sea

water potable.

NO-182 Pros. Ex. 137 Letter from Sievers to I-454

Grawitz, 24 July 1944,

concerning experiments of

the potability of sea

water.

NO-183 Pros. Ex. 136 Teletype from Rudolf Brandt I-453

to Grawitz, undated,

concerning experimental

subjects.

NO-184 Pros. Ex. 132 Letter from the Technical I-447

Office of the Reich

Minister of Aviation

(Goering) to Himmler’s

office, 15 May 1944,

concerning methods to

render sea water potable.

NO-185 Pros. Ex. 134 Letter from Schroeder to I-452

Himmler and Grawitz, 7 June

1944, requesting subjects

for sea-water experiments.

NO-193 Pros. Ex. 264 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-340

Brandt, 22 April 1943,

regarding prevention of Dr.

Wimmer’s transfer to active

duty with the air force.

NO-201 Pros. Ex. 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the I-635

Criminological Institute,

12 September 1944,

concerning experiments with

aconitine nitrate

projectiles.

NO-203 Pros. Ex. 161 Covering letter from Brack to I-719

Himmler, 28 March 1941,

with report on experiments

concerning sterilization

and castration by X-rays.

NO-205 Pros. Ex. 163 Letter from Brack to Himmler, I-721

23 June 1942, proposing

sterilization of two to

three million Jews.

NO-206 Pros. Ex. 164 Letter from Himmler I-722

(counter-signed by Rudolf

Brandt), 11 August 1942,

addressed to Brack,

concerning Himmler’s

interest in sterilization

experiments.

NO-208 Pros. Ex. 166 Letter from Blankenburg to I-723

Himmler, 29 April 1944,

regarding employment of Dr.

Horst Schumann on

experiments concerning the

influence of X-rays on

human genital glands in

connection with similar

experiments conducted at

concentration camp

Auschwitz.

NO-211 Pros. Ex. 169 Letter from Professor I-724

Clauberg to Himmler, 30 May

1942 (referring to a letter

from Rudolf Brandt),

concerning the urgency of

research into biological

propagation and

sterilization without

operation, and draft of a

“Research Institute for

Biological Propagation”.

NO-212 Pros. Ex. 173 Letter from Professor I-730

Clauberg to Himmler, 7 June

1943, reporting on research

in connection with the

sterilization of women.

NO-213 Pros. Ex. 171 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-729

Clauberg, 10 July 1942,

transmitting instructions

of Himmler to perform

sterilizations on Jewesses

at concentration camp

Ravensbrueck.

NO-216 Pros. Ex. 170 Memorandum of Rudolf Brandt, I-728

July 1942, on a discussion

between Himmler, Gebhardt,

Gluecks, and Clauberg

concerning sterilization

experiments conducted on

Jewesses.

NO-218 Pros. Ex. 56 Letter from Rascher to I-150

Himmler, 16 April 1942,

reporting on high-altitude

experiments with fatal

results and on experiments

conducted together with

Romberg.

NO-220 Pros. Ex. 61 Letter from Rascher to I-152

Himmler, 11 May 1942, and

secret report concerning

high-altitude experiments.

NO-224 Pros. Ex. 76 Note by Romberg on showing of I-174

film in office of State

Secretary Milch, and

proposed report to Milch,

11 September 1942.

NO-227 Pros. Ex. 11 Fuehrer Decree of 7 August I-84

1944 concerning the

reorganization of the

Medical Services of the

Wehrmacht.

NO-228 Pros. Ex. 206 Affidavit of defendant I-371

Fischer, 19 November 1946,

concerning sulfanilamide

experiments conducted in

the concentration camp

Ravensbrueck.

NO-231 Pros. Ex. 116 Letter from Rascher to I-255

Sievers, 17 May 1943,

concerning a conference

with Gebhardt on freezing

experiments.

NO-234 Pros. Ex. 83 Letter from Rascher to I-219

Himmler, 10 September 1942,

transmitting intermediate

report on freezing

experiments (_1618-PS_).

NO-244 Pros. Ex. 201 Letter from Himmler (signed I-770

by Rudolf Brandt) to

Greiser, 27 June 1942,

concerning the

extermination of tubercular

Poles.

NO-246 Pros. Ex. 196 Letter from Greiser to I-776

Himmler 1 May 1942,

concerning the plan for

mass extermination of

tubercular Poles.

NO-247 Pros. Ex. 197 Letter from Koppe to Rudolf I-769

Brandt, 3 May 1942,

concerning the killing of

tubercular Poles.

NO-250 Pros. Ex. 203 Letter from Blome to Greiser, I-771

18 November 1942,

concerning the mass

extermination of tubercular

Poles.

NO-257 Pros. Ex. 283 Extract from the affidavit of I-572

Dr. Erwin Schuler, 20 July

1945, concerning typhus

experiments.

NO-257 Pros. Ex. 283 Extract from a sworn I-686

statement by Dr. Erwin

Schuler (Ding), 20 July

1945, concerning euthanasia

with phenol injection.

NO-264 Pros. Ex. 60 File note for SS I-151

Obersturmfuehrer

Schnitzler, 28 April 1942.

NO-265 Pros. Ex. 287 Diary of the Division for I-557

Typhus and Virus Research

at the Institute of Hygiene

of the Waffen SS (Ding

diary) 1941 to 1945.

NO-268 Pros. Ex. 106 Letter from Hippke to I-252

Himmler, 19 February 1943,

on freezing experiments in

Dachau.

NO-285 Pros. Ex. 86 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf I-221

Brandt, 3 October 1942,

stating that Sievers would

obtain four gypsy women for

rewarming through body

warmth.

NO-286 Pros. Ex. 88 Letter from Goering’s office I-223

to Himmler, 8 October 1942,

with attached invitation to

the conference on “Medical

Problems Arising from

Hardships of Sea and

Winter.”

NO-289 Pros. Ex. 72 Letter from Hippke to I-173

Himmler, 8 October 1942,

thanking the latter for his

assistance in high-altitude

experiments in Dachau.

NO-292 Pros. Ex. 111 Letter from Rascher to Rudolf I-253

Brandt, 4 April 1943,

reporting on dry-freezing

experiments in Dachau.

NO-299 Pros. Ex. 190 Letter from Haagen to I-505

Schreiber, 12 June 1944,

concerning epidemic

jaundice experiments.

NO-303 Pros. Ex. 32 Table of organization of the I-88

“Ahnenerbe” from the files

of the Ahnenerbe Society.

NO-320 Pros. Ex. 103 Letter from Sievers to I-246

Brandt, 28 January 1943,

and Rascher’s report on his

discussions with Grawitz

and Poppendick.

NO-322 Pros. Ex. 114 Letter from Rascher to I-254

Keindl, 28 April 1943,

about previous freezing

experiments conducted at

Sachsenhausen.

NO-323 Pros. Ex. 94 Memorandum of Rascher on I-245

women used for rewarming in

freezing experiments, 5

November 1942.

NO-365 Pros. Ex. 507 Unsigned draft letter from I-870

Dr. Wetzel to Rosenberg, 25

October 1941, dealing with

Brack’s collaboration in

the construction of gas

chambers for the

extermination of Jews.

NO-371 Pros. Ex. 186 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf I-503

Brandt, 14 October 1946,

concerning experiments to

determine the cause of

epidemic jaundice.

NO-402 Pros. Ex. 66 Letter, 29 September 1942, I-155

and report, 28 July 1942,

from Romberg and Ruff to

Himmler concerning

experiments on rescue from

high altitudes.

NO-409 Pros. Ex. 249 Report from Grawitz to I-657

Himmler, 29 August 1942,

concerning experiments with

biochemical remedies

conducted at the Dachau and

Auschwitz concentration

camps.

NO-422 Pros. Ex. 33 Letter from Himmler to I-89

Sievers, 7 July 1942,

concerning the

establishment of an

“Institute for Military

Scientific Research” within

the Ahnenerbe Society.

NO-426 Pros. Ex. 160 Extract from the affidavit of I-842

defendant Brack, 14 October

1946, describing

administrative details and

procedure of the Euthanasia

Program.

NO-428 Pros. Ex. 91 Report of 10 October 1942, on I-226

cooling experiments on

human beings.

NO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extract from the affidavit of I-555

defendant Hoven, 24 October

1946, concerning typhus and

virus experiments.

NO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extracts from the affidavit I-685

of Waldemar Hoven, 24

October 1946, concerning

the killing of inmates by

phenol and other means.

NO-429 Pros. Ex. 281 Extract from the affidavit of I-847

defendant Hoven, 24 October

1946, concerning the

transfer of concentration

camp inmates to euthanasia

stations for extermination.

NO-432 Pros. Ex. 119 Letter from Rascher to Neff, I-258

21 October 1943, concerning

dry-freezing experiments.

NO-438 Pros. Ex. 240 Report from the Institute for I-678

Military Scientific

Research, (Department Dr.

Rascher) on “Polygal 10”.

NO-441 Pros. Ex. 205 Affidavit of defendant Rudolf I-775

Brandt, 24 October 1946,

concerning the plan to

exterminate tubercular

Polish Nationals.

NO-472 Pros. Ex. 234 Affidavit of the defendant I-376

Fischer, 21 October 1946,

supplementing his affidavit

concerning sulfanilamide

experiments.

NO-520 Pros. Ex. 374 Letter from the chief of the I-854

Institution for

feeble-minded in Stetten to

Dr. Frank, 6 September

1940, requesting that

euthanasia be carried out

only after legal basis was

created.

NO-571 Pros. Ex. 285 1943 Work Report for I-573

Department for Typhus and

Virus Research.

NO-579 Pros. Ex. 288 Extract from a report on the I-644

Findings of 2 January 1944,

on a skin ointment—R 17—for

phosphorus burns.

NO-610 Pros. Ex. 41 Inmates of the Dachau I-898-900

concentration camp in

different stages of

simulated altitude in the

low-pressure chamber;

postmortem dissections of

high altitude experimental

subjects showing air

bubbles in blood vessels in

subarachnoid space of brain

and under pleura of

anterior chest wall. (_See_

selections from

photographic evidence of

the prosecution.)

NO-645 Pros. Ex. 3 Table of organization of the I-91

Reich Commissioner for

Health and Medical

Services, drawn by the

defendant Karl Brandt.

NO-656 Pros. Ex. 247 Memorandum by SS I-680

Obersturmbannfuerer Wolff,

8 May 1944; letters from

Dr. Kahr to Rascher, 10 and

16 December 1943.

NO-660 Pros. Ex. 377 Note by Sellmer, 6 December I-855

1940, describing the method

of selection for

euthanasia.

NO-690 Pros. Ex. 120 List of research projects I-259

from the files of the Reich

Research Council.

NO-794 Pros. Ex. 259 Letter from Sievers to Rudolf I-336

Brandt, 27 June 1942,

concerning mustard gas and

its effect on human beings.

NO-807 Pros. Ex. 185 Tank containing formaldehyde I-905-908

for the preservation of

corpses; corpses assembled

in tanks prior to

dissection; corpse showing

incisions in preparation

for dissection. (_See_

selections from

photographic evidence of

the prosecution.)

NO-842 Pros. Ex. 405 Letter from Brack to Dr. I-857

Schlegelberger, 18 April

1941, forwarding forms for

euthanasia and suggesting

that death notifications

should not follow a

stereotyped form.

NO-856 Pros. Ex. 125 Extracts from the review of I-289

the proceedings of the

general military court in

the case of the United

States _vs._ Weiss,

Ruppert, _et al._, held at

Dachau, Germany.

NO-861 Pros. Ex. 232 Affidavit of Sofia Maczka, 16 I-402

April 1946, concerning

experimental operations on

inmates of the Ravensbrueck

concentration camp.

NO-875 Pros. Ex. 230 Affidavit of Mrs. Zdenka I-400

Nedvedova-Nejedla, M.D., of

Prague, concerning

experimental operations

conducted on fellow inmates

in Ravensbrueck

concentration camp.

NO-891 Pros. Ex. 414 Directive of the Reich I-863

Minister of the Interior, 6

September 1944, ordering

euthanasia extended to

insane Eastern workers.

NO-894 Pros. Ex. 38 Fuehrer Decree, 9 June 1942, I-90

concerning the Reich

Research Council.

NO-907 Pros. Ex. 412 Extract from letter from Dr. I-861

Fritz Mennecke to his wife,

25 November 1941,

concerning his activities

as physician selecting

inmates of concentration

camp Buchenwald for

euthanasia.

NO-978 Pros. Ex. 480 Letter from Sievers to I-349

Gluecks, 11 September 1942,

concerning military

scientific research work to

be conducted at Natzweiler

concentration camp.

NO-1007 Pros. Ex. 413 Circular from Gluecks to I-862

concentration camp

commandants, 27 April 1943,

stating that in the future

only insane prisoners

should be used for Action

“14 f 13” (euthanasia).

NO-1080 A, E, F Pros. Ex. 219 Exposures of the witness I-901-902

A, E, F Maria Kusmierczuk who

underwent sulfanilamide and

bone experiments while an

inmate of the Ravensbrueck

concentration camp. (_See_

selections from

photographic evidence of

the prosecution.)

NO-1082 A, C Pros. Ex. 214 Exposures of the witness I-903

A, C Jadwiga Dzido who underwent

sulfanilamide and bone

experiments while an inmate

of the Ravensbrueck

concentration camp. (_See_

selections from

photographic evidence of

the prosecution.)

NO-1135 Pros. Ex. 334 Confirmation, 30 August 1940, I-848

of the transfer of mental

patients with list of

transferred patients

attached.

NO-1424 Pros. Ex. 462 Affidavit of Fritz Friedrich I-676

Karl Rascher, M.D., 31

December 1946, concerning

the life and activities of

Dr. Sigmund Rascher.

NO-1852 Pros. Ex. 456 Extract from report on I-345

medical experiments

addressed to Karl Brandt.

NO-2734 Pros. Ex. 473 Extracts of letter from I-660

Grawitz to Himmler, 7

September 1942, and report

on gas gangrene

experiments.

NO-3963 Pros. Ex. 528 Extracts from affidavit of I-710

Karl Wilhelm Friedrich

Tauboeck, 18 June 1947,

concerning the development

of, and experiments with

sterilization drugs.

343-A-PS Pros. Ex. 62 Letter from Milch to Wolff, I-172

20 May 1942, regarding

continuation of

experiments.

343-B-PS Pros. Ex. 70 Letter from Milch to Himmler, I-172

31 August 1942,

acknowledging receipt of

reports by Rascher and

Romberg on high-altitude

experiments.

615-PS Pros. Ex. 246 Letter from Dr. Hilfrich, I-845

Bishop of Limburg, to the

Reich Minister of Justice,

13 August 1941, protesting

against the killing of

mentally ill people.

630-PS Pros. Ex. 330 Letter from Hitler to Karl I-848

Brandt and Bouhler, 1

September 1939, charging

them with the execution of

euthanasia.

1553-PS Pros. Ex. 428 Extract from the field I-865

interrogation of Kurt

Gerstein, 26 April 1945,

describing the mass gassing

of Jews and other

“undesirables”.

1580-PS Pros. Ex. 107 Letter from Himmler to I-253

Rascher, 26 February 1943,

on freezing experiments in

the concentration camps

Auschwitz and Lublin.

1581-A-PS Pros. Ex. 48 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-144

Sievers, 21 March 1942,

concerning Rascher’s

participation in

high-altitude experiments.

1582-PS Pros. Ex. 45 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-143

Rascher, undated, informing

him that prisoners would be

made available for

high-altitude research.

1602-PS Pros. Ex. 44 Letter from Rascher to I-141

Himmler, 15 May 1941,

concerning high-altitude

experiments on human

beings.

1609-PS Pros. Ex. 92 Letter from Himmler to I-244

Rascher, 24 October 1942,

and note by Rudolf Brandt.

1611-PS Pros. Ex. 85 Letter from Himmler to I-221

Rascher and Sievers, 22

September 1942, ordering

rewarming in freezing

experiments through

physical warmth.

1612-PS Pros. Ex. 79 Letter from Rudolf Brandt to I-176

Rascher, 13 December 1942,

and Himmler’s order

assigning Rascher to

high-altitude experiments.

Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II · 第 6 / 18 章

Article XV of Ordinance No. 7 of Military Government for Germany (US)