Chapter VII: Extracts From Argumentation and Evidence of Prosecution and Defense (11)

A. The biggest proportion, approximately two hundred patients, used for the malaria experiments were Germans, a large proportion were Polish priests, and the rest were partly Russians, some Yugoslavs, and some Poles.

Q. Were any prisoners of war used in these experiments?

A. Of the Russians, many were prisoners of war.

Q. What was the total number of people used in these malaria experiments from your knowledge?

A. According to my knowledge, 1,084 experimental subjects were used for the malaria experiments.

Q. Will you kindly tell us, Witness, how many of these subjects used in the malaria experiments died as a result of the experiments?

A. According to my knowledge seven or eight died at the malaria station, either directly or because of the treatment with drugs. I can describe the details if you like. The first case was an Austrian who afterwards became ill because of these malaria experiments. The assistant at that time, Dr. Brachtel, who was at the same time the deputy physician at the hospital, made a liver puncture and the patient bled to death.

Q. Witness, then you state from your knowledge that seven or eight died from the experiments. Of that number who died, did the deaths occur in the malaria station itself?

A. This was the number of dead who were not transferred by us to another department, but who died at our station or a few hours after they had been transferred to another station.

Q. Have you any knowledge as to what happened to some of the other patients who were transferred to some other station after they were experimented on? That is, did some others die after they were experimented on?

A. Of our patients, during the years after they came to us for observation, I can recollect that another 60 patients died. I cannot say for certain they died of malaria or other results of the experiments.

* * * * *

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

DR. FRITZ: I have a few questions to ask the witness. Witness, on Friday you seemed to be fairly well acquainted with certain malaria questions, obviously on the basis of knowledge gained with Professor Schilling. I would now like to ask you the following questions concerning some very important details: During your examination by the prosecuting counsel you spoke of certain regrettable incidents. A number of deaths had occurred during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by Professor Schilling. At the time you mentioned about seven cases, but you only described one in detail. The patient had yellow fever in addition to malaria and then bled to death because the liver was punctured. I now ask you to tell me something about the reasons for the other six deaths.

WITNESS VIEWEG: The other six patients were the so-called “medicament death” cases. One patient died as a result of the salvarsan drug. The other one died as a result of the so-called “periphery” experiment, and the last four died as the result of a pyramidon experiment.

Q. Were the patients who, after being released from the station of Schilling, suffered relapses sent back to Professor Schilling’s station?

A. If they reported back to us, they were taken back to the station.

Q. In that case did any patients die in Professor Schilling’s department who later on had malaria or relapses?

A. Patients who were in danger of death were transferred to another station.

Q. Do you remember whether malaria tertiana is a fatal illness?

A. As far as I know nobody with us died of malaria tertiana. The deaths were a result of the secondary diseases which appeared because of the drugs used in the malaria experiments.

Q. Did Professor Schilling say anything to you about these fatal cases which were under his responsibility and observation, and if so, what?

A. The first two cases, the patient who died as a result of the punctured liver and the one who died because of the salvarsan injection, Dr. Schilling regretted very deeply. He tried to prevent such happenings as much as possible. In the last four cases, concerning the pyramidon experiment, he was told that the patients were in a very bad condition. Nevertheless, he insisted that they continue to receive the pyramidon drugs—I think it was 3 grams per day—and when these patients arrived at the delirium stage, they were transferred from our ward shortly before their death.

Q. And now something else. On Friday you testified that Dachau received anopheles from Dr. Rose’s institute and that there was an exchange of correspondence about the difficulties you had in breeding these eggs. Do you know where Dr. Rose worked, in which institute?

A. I think these letters were addressed to the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin.

Q. Do you know from this correspondence whether these replies came from Dr. Rose personally or from his assistant?

A. That I cannot state from memory. I recall one reply from a lady who was in charge of the breeding of these eggs in Berlin.

Q. That was probably an assistant who had worked with Rose for many years?

A. Yes, but I think Professor Schilling first turned to Professor Rose, and probably the replies primarily came from Professor Rose.

Q. Can you remember the name of the lady?

A. No.

Q. Do you know with whom Dr. Schilling had dealings and correspondence in addition to Dr. Grawitz and Dr. Rose?

A. I cannot remember. I know that he corresponded with an institution in Duesseldorf called Graefenrad or something like that, and he requested the breeding of these eggs there, and they sent us flies, live flies.

Q. Did you have the name “Rose” in mind, or did you only recall his name when you were first examined?

A. No. The name “Rose” remained in my recollection because I, myself, was infected with the malaria called “Rose”. He had these various immunization groups, the so-called malaria stock, which had various different names, and I was with a group which was infected with a so-called Rose Culture.

Q. You have testified before that you received eggs from Rome. You could not however remember the name. Was it perhaps Professor Vissireli, Dr. Rosni, or Dr. Raphaeli?

A. I think it was Vissireli.

Q. Did you also receive these eggs from Hamburg?

A. We received no eggs from the Tropical Institute in Hamburg, but Professor Schilling corresponded with that Institute.

Q. Can you remember in which year you received these eggs from the Robert Koch Institute, or rather from Professor Rose?

A. It was in the summer of 1942.

Q. You have told us about a number of these flies which you had to breed in the vicinity of Dachau. Were you present?

A. There was one special detachment for this purpose, including an SS man and one or two inmates. That was in the swamps surrounding Dachau during the summer months. Various water tests were made, and according to the degree of heat of the swamps, Dr. Schilling ordered the waters to be infected with a mixture of pig food. This special detachment went around the cellars of the Dachau camp during the winter months and worked on that matter. Our laboratories then examined these anopheles flies, and used them for breeding purposes.

Q. Can you state anything about the quantities caught?

A. It varied in the winter—sometimes they brought 10, sometimes 30 to 50, and sometimes 60.

Q. Did your department in Dachau deliver any such eggs to other departments?

A. We delivered such eggs on one occasion, but I cannot remember where.

Q. I now come to the question of malaria culture. From where did Professor Schilling receive his malaria cultures?

A. I cannot say exactly. I know that he received malaria cultures from Essen and from Berlin. But this was in February 1942, when I had not yet arrived at the ward. I remember we had 12 different malaria cultures. I know that Professor Schilling used one, and another man used one—I think his name was Flugg—in order to give one such culture the name of “Flugg.”

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT ROSE[38]

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

* * * * *

MR. MCHANEY: Let’s go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941?

DEFENDANT ROSE: During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling’s malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian Government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior; then, either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942, I gave an opinion, a written opinion, on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling personally in 1941. I am not certain whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can’t deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was 6 years ago.

Q. Did you supply him with any material while he was working in Italy?

A. No, nothing.

Q. Who was Fraeulein von Falkenberg?

A. You mean Fraeulein von Falkenhayn?

Q. No, I mean Fraeulein von Falkenberg.

A. I don’t know any Fraeulein von Falkenberg.

Q. You are sure you didn’t supply Schilling with any material in 1941?

A. I cannot remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I did not learn of it until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge.

Q. Well, it is not terribly important, but let us let you have a look at Document NO-1756. In the meantime, when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau?

A. I beg your pardon, I didn’t understand your question.

Q. When did you give Schilling material, after he had gone to Dachau?

A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, von Falkenhayn, and my secretary, Block. My secretary, Block, testified here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Fraeulein von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely.

Q. Document NO-1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification.

Q. Isn’t there a Fraeulein von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February 1941?

A. No. In the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraeulein von Falkenhayn.

Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation.

A. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called Henry reaction; that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction also the spleen of dead persons is used. Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I, as head of the tropical medical department, was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner-Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter, my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked that if such an autopsy should occur there, the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.

Q. Did you ever supply any to him?

A. As far as I can recall, in the course of several months, one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I cannot say for certain today.

Q. Well, you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941; isn’t that right?

A. I beg your pardon. I didn’t understand the question.

Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments ago, before you saw the letter, to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now, after having seen the letter, state you did in fact give him some.

A. Yes. I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes. I did not think of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin.

Q. Let’s go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block said that the malaria eggs were supplied to Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?

A. Yes. That is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of malaria eggs you mean anopheles eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs.

Q. Yes, that is right.

A. I am inclined to agree that von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942.

Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent?

A. I cannot remember it. I don’t believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, after I had been given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau.

Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling; is that right?

A. I did not issue a precise order. I said that since we ourselves were using so many mosquitoes I didn’t want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But Fraeulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraeulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can’t clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can’t answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn’t know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn’t know that at the time. I learned it only a short time ago from Fraeulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some objections and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it.

Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?

A. No. As I said on direct examination, the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn’t have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don’t know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don’t think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraeulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain was sent—that is quite sufficient—no matter whether it is called Rose or some other name.

Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?

A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can’t answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work. Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don’t know, since I don’t have my files. Concerning any information about such infrequent correspondence and whether he wrote a certain letter 5 or 6 years ago, he says, “I would like to look that up in my files.” Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enough, if you have copies of such a letter, to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 1941. That was in the same filing cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting on 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of the Interior.

Q. You overestimate the prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn’t dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments? You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it?

A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably.

Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down?

* * * * *

A. I don’t know. Fraeulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don’t know when. She didn’t mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.

Q. Let’s look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor?

A. “Prof. Claus Schilling

“Dachau, 4 April 1942
“3 K, Hospital for Inmates

“To Prof. Dr. Rose
“Berlin, Fohrerstrasse 2
“Robert Koch Institute

“Dear Colleague:

“I inoculated a person intracutaneously with sporocoides from
the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the
second inoculation I do not have the sporocoides material
because I do not possess the Strain Rose in the anopheles yet.
If you could find it possible to send me a few anopheles
infected with Strain Rose during the next few days (in the last
consignment 2 out of 10 mosquitoes were infected), I would be
able to continue this experiment and I would naturally be very
grateful to you for this new support of my work.

“The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding
satisfactorily; I am working now on six tertiary strains. I
remain with hearty greetings and

“Heil Hitler!
“Yours truly
“[Signed] CLAUS SCHILLING”

Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a “Strain Rose.”

A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that.

Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, “L. g. RO 17/4”?

A. Yes, that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note “Settled EVF.” That is Erna von Falkenhayn on 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department, Fraeulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old chief although she denies it now; but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraeulein von Falkenhayn did even if she did not tell me about it.

Q. Well, you saw the letter of 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?

A. I cannot tell you now. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Frau Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with 10 days before, you can see that such letters were opened by my secretary.

Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn’t seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn’t corresponded with Schilling during these years.

Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?

A. Yes. Those are a type of anopheles eggs which he got from us. As a type of anopheles I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus in my laboratory.

Q. Suppose I put Document NO-1753 to you. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 488 for identification. This is another letter from Schilling. This one is dated a year later—5 July 1943, acknowledging, “with appreciation the receipt of your letter of 30 June and the consignment of atroparvus eggs.”

I would also like to direct your attention, Professor, to the last paragraph of the letter where it says: “Please give Fraeulein Lange, who apparently takes care of her breed with greater skill and better success than the prisoner August, my best thanks for her troubles.”

Do you remember the Christian name of the witness Vieweg?

A. No, I am sorry I do not remember the name of this man.

Q. If you search the record I think you will find his forename was August.

Now, Doctor, apparently they completely ignored your orders of the year previous not to send any more material to Schilling. Apparently you had a change of heart yourself. Isn’t that right?

A. I have already stated expressly that my orders not to send any more material to Schilling meant that we did not have too much material ourselves. It did not mean that I had any misgivings about the way in which Schilling was carrying out his work. It is quite possible that when we again had plenty of mosquito eggs we gave some to Schilling again. I am in a very difficult position. It is difficult for me to testify anything from memory. You see here again that this matter was apparently dealt with by Fraeulein Lange and Schilling himself wrote to me again.

Q. Well, I didn’t read it that way, Professor. The first line acknowledges your letter of June 30th.

A. Well, then it’s possible that I wrote to Schilling.

Q. Frau Block suffered from bad memory about your correspondence with Schilling in 1943 as well as 1942, didn’t she?

A. Yes, I am rather astonished because one would assume that a secretary remembers such things better, but it is, of course, possible to make mistakes if one doesn’t have access to the files. I have told you that I cannot testify with any certainty to the details of such correspondence because I had too much correspondence.

Q. Well, isn’t it possible you supplied material to him in 1944?

A. I consider that quite impossible. We have the testimony of Fraeulein von Falkenhayn that the department for fever therapy never gave them any material and, at that time, I no longer had an office in Berlin. However, I must again rely on Fraeulein von Falkenhayn’s testimony. I myself was at Pfaffenrode once a month at the most, and I called up once or twice over long distance.

Q. I put in Document NO-1755. This will be marked “Prosecution Exhibit 489” for identification. This is a reply from you to Schilling, dated 27 July 1943. This letter speaks about shipping eggs to Schilling, doesn’t it?

A. Yes, apparently. There must have been plenty of mosquito eggs, so that we could give up some of them.

Q. There wasn’t as big a shortage as you thought; is that right?

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I ask that the photostat be shown to the defendant Rose. It is not impossible that it was written by an assistant and initialed “R.” I know the signature of Professor Rose, and I think the “R” looks a little different. Perhaps he might be shown the photostat.

PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Let the photostat be shown to the witness.

DEFENDANT ROSE: I must say I do not understand this signature at all. When I signed a letter I signed my name, but I don’t think it’s very important.

* * * * *

-----

[34] All “R” references in Document NO-856 are to pages of the Record of the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[35] “Pros. Ex.” references in this document are to prosecution exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[36] “Def. Ex.” references in this document are to defense exhibits in the case of the United States _vs._ Weiss, Ruppert, et al.

[37] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 13 and 16 December 1946, pp. 418-468.

[38] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 24, 25 April 1947, pp. 6410-6484.

4. LOST (MUSTARD) GAS EXPERIMENTS

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving mustard gas experiment (indictment, par. 6 (D)). On this charge the defendants Karl Brandt, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted and the defendants Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, and Blome were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the Lost (mustard) gas experiments is contained in its final briefs against the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. Extracts from these briefs are set forth below on pages 315 to 324. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs for the defendants Karl Brandt and Sievers. It appears below on pages 324 to 334. This argumentation is followed by selection from the evidence on pages 336 to 354.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT KARL BRANDT_

* * * * *

_Gas Experiments_

The treatment of wounds caused by chemical warfare agents was of considerable interest to military medical circles of Germany. On 1 March 1944, the Fuehrer gave Karl Brandt broad powers in the field of chemical warfare. (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270._) The decree itself is not available, but there is no dispute that Brandt’s jurisdiction extended to pharmaceutical products to treat gas wounds. So much he admits. (_Tr. p. 2629._) This necessarily involved a determination of the most effective method of treatment. That the decree included medical research on gas wounds can also be concluded from the fact that copies of the decree which Brandt sent to Himmler (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_) were forwarded to Grawitz and Sievers who had previously worked on this problem. (_NO-013a, Pros. Ex. 271_; _NO-013b Pros. Ex. 272._)

In any event, on 31 March 1944, Sievers reported to Brandt about the research activities of Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Hirt had been experimenting on inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp since November 1942. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) For a detailed description of Hirt’s experiments, see the brief against Sievers (p. 318 ff). Brandt admitted that Sievers gave him the written report by Hirt, which was introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 268 (_NO-099_) and that this report shows on its face that experiments on human beings were performed by him. (_Tr. p. 2626._) It is significant to note that the report speaks of heavy, medium, and light wounds caused by Lost. Moreover, Brandt admitted he talked to Hirt in Strasbourg in April after the meeting with Sievers. (_Tr. p. 2610._) Approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationality were experimented on with gas, of whom about 50 died. They did not volunteer. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._) Hirt continued his gas experiments at Natzweiler during the summer of 1944. (_Tr. p. 1058._) His gas research was classified “urgent” by Rostock in August 1944. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._)

In addition to his participation in the gas experiments of Hirt, Karl Brandt personally furthered the criminal experimentation of Otto Bickenbach. Brandt testified that the gas experiments of Bickenbach came to his attention in the fall of 1943 on the occasion of a visit to Strasbourg to see a cyclotron; that later he helped him to arrange a laboratory; that he assisted him in obtaining experimental animals; that Bickenbach did not conduct experiments on human beings; that he helped him in 1944 after he had established this laboratory. (_Tr. pp. 2619, 2620._)

The Sievers’ diary for 1944 contains the following entry under 2 February:

“Met Professor Bickenbach in Karlsruhe and he advises that he
has put his research work under the control of General
Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt.

“Discussion with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hirt: 1. Professor Dr.
Bickenbach, without instructions from Hirt and Professor Stein,
contacted General Commissioner Professor Dr. Brandt concerning
the phosgene experiments that were [and was] in Natzweiler with
him. Commission is to be withdrawn; for our part Natzweiler is
to be closed.” (_3546-PS, Pros. Ex. 123._)

Phosgene is a chemical warfare agent. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Brandt admits he was in Natzweiler, but insists that only animal experiments were conducted. This is in direct contradiction to statements contained in an official war crimes report of the Government of the Netherlands. (_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) Josef Kramer, former camp commander at Natzweiler, also stated that Bickenbach experimented on prisoners. (_NO-807, Pros. Ex. 185._)

Brandt testified that he later assisted Bickenbach in establishing a laboratory in Fort Franzeky, which is near Strasbourg, and that he saw animal experiments there. (_Tr. p. 2630._) Bickenbach was a professor at the University of Strasbourg with Hirt and Haagen. (_Tr. p. 2631._)

The Bickenbach reports sent to Karl Brandt not only prove that Bickenbach and his collaborators Helmut Ruehl and Fritz Letz carried out phosgene experiments on 40 Russian prisoners of war, but that four of the subjects were killed as a result. (_NO-1852, Pros. Ex. 456._) This document completely destroys the credibility of the defendant Brandt.

These reports on the phosgene experiments are designated top military secret and are numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. They are all addressed to Plenipotentiary General Brandt. These reports obviously cover the same series of experiments which culminated in experiments on 40 prisoners detailed in the 7th report. They were found in the apartment of Professor Bickenbach by French authorities. The purpose of these experiments was to determine the effectiveness of a drug called hexamethylentetramine against phosgene poisoning. Certain preliminary studies are detailed in the 4th report, dated 11 August 1944, and mention is made of tests carried out on a “nervous Russian prisoner of war, who could not be calmed down because of language difficulties * * *”.

The 7th report, which is undated, concerns experiments carried out shortly after 11 August 1944 (the date of the 4th report) as Strasbourg was overrun by the Allies a few months later. These experiments were performed on “40 prisoners on the prophylactic effect of hexamethylentetramine in cases of phosgene poisoning. Twelve of those were protected orally, twenty intravenously and eight were used as controls.” On the basis of the 4th report, it can only be concluded that the 40 prisoners referred to were Russian prisoners of war. The experimental subjects are further described as being “persons of middle age, almost all in a weak and underfed condition. On principle, the healthier ones were used as controls, only control number 39 (J. Rei) and the orally protected experimental subject No. 37 (A. Rei) had a localized cirrhotic productive tuberculosis of the lungs. With the others, no pulmonary disease could be found.” (_1852-PS, Pros. Ex. 456._)

The experimental persons were subjected to phosgene poisoning with resulting death to no less than four subjects. (_Tr. p. 3404._) Other subjects suffered severe lung oedema.

Defense counsel for Karl Brandt urged the possibility that this report was not received by him. Assuming _arguendo_ that the report was not mailed to Brandt, and, if received, not read, the fact remains that the experiments were performed by Bickenbach and his collaborators, whose work was directly controlled by Brandt. (_Supra._) Were there no other evidence on this point, the circumstances of the report having been addressed to Karl Brandt are sufficient proof of his responsibility. Moreover, the research of both Bickenbach and Hirt was classified urgent by Brandt’s Office for Science and Research under Rostock. (_NO-692, Pros. Ex. 457._)

The continued interest of Brandt in research on chemical warfare agents and his knowledge of experiments on concentration camp inmates are shown by the report dated 31 March 1945 concerning experiments at the Neuengamme concentration camp. (_NO-154, Pros. Ex. 446._) Water decontamination experiments were carried out there on inmates. The report states that the “third series of experiments was carried out with an agent of the Lost group, the asphyxiating gas Lost; in accordance with the suggestion made by Oberstarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference on 4 December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Brandt.”

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT SIEVERS_

* * * * *

_Lost (Mustard) Gas Experiments_

From the winter of 1942 until the summer of 1944, experiments to determine the most effective treatment for wounds caused by Lost (mustard) gas were conducted in the Natzweiler concentration camp under the supervision of Professor Hirt of the Reich University of Strasbourg. The experiments were ordered by Himmler and the Luftwaffe, and sponsored by the Reich Research Council. The Ahnenerbe Society and the defendant Sievers supported this research on behalf of the SS. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._) The arrangement for the payment of the research subsidies of the Ahnenerbe was made by Sievers. (_NO-3819, Pros. Ex. 550._)

The defendant Sievers participated in these experiments by actively collaborating with the defendants Karl Brandt and Rudolf Brandt, and with Hirt and his principal assistant, Dr. Wimmer.

The record shows that Sievers was in correspondence with Hirt at least as early as 1942, and that he established contact between Himmler and Hirt. (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_; _NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_.)

On 9 April 1942 Sievers wrote to Hirt that Himmler wanted detailed information from Hirt on his Lost experiments. Sievers went on to say:

“We are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the
furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection
with special secret experiments which we are at present
conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief
secret report for the Reich Leader SS on your Lost experiments?

“But you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being,
especially since the Reich Leader SS is staying permanently at
the Fuehrer’s Headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a
visit at Strasbourg as soon as possible. But perhaps it would be
easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the
opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for
Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our
secret experiments at Dachau.” (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._)

The wording of the letter makes it apparent that it was Sievers himself who brought Hirt’s research activities concerning Lost gas to Himmler’s attention. This is also proved by the fact that on 9 February 1942, he had already submitted to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Hirt’s report concerning the creation of a skeleton collection and research in the field of intravital microscopy. The latter experimentation involved the effect of Lost on the living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 175._) Brandt informed Himmler about Hirt’s report on 27 February, and directed Sievers to report again on Hirt’s work. (_NO-090, Pros. Ex. 176._) It was thus Sievers’ report on Hirt’s research activities which prompted Himmler to take an interest in Hirt’s Lost experiments.

On 27 June 1942 Sievers forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt the information of Hirt concerning the use of mustard gas on combatting rats. In this letter he mentioned that he would have another conference with Hirt on this subject. According to Sievers, Hirt had voiced his expert opinion that Lost even “in a dilution of 1-100 is dangerous for man if it contacts the body in an adequate amount.” (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._) It was Sievers who forwarded on 2 June 1942 Hirt’s report on his experiments in treating gas wounds by vitamins. In his covering letter to this report, Sievers informed the defendant Rudolf Brandt that he was to meet Hirt “in order to discuss with him a more intensive application, continuation, and promotion of his research work”. In the report itself, Hirt stated that he had not been able to conduct experiments with Lost gas on human beings because of the offensive against France, but suggested such experiments particularly in order to determine the protective effect of vitamin treatment. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._)

In a memorandum of 26 June 1942 concerning support by the Ahnenerbe of the research work of Hirt on mustard gas, Sievers proposed that an Institute for Military Scientific Research be established within the Ahnenerbe to bring together Hirt’s and similar research and thus facilitate the organizational and technical execution of the experiments. He proposed appointing Hirt as an active member of the new institute as chief of Department H (Hirt). He also stated that Rascher, who was then performing high-altitude experiments in collaboration with Ruff and Romberg, should be appointed as chief of Department R (Rascher). He stated that the necessary supplies for the new institute would be easier to explain and more reasonable than if applied for under the name of Ahnenerbe alone. (_NO-2210, Pros. Ex. 483._)

As a result of this suggestion by the defendant Sievers, Himmler directed the establishment of the Institute for Military Scientific Research within the Ahnenerbe in July 1942. In his letter to Sievers, Himmler requested that the new institute “support in every possible way the research carried out by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt and promote all corresponding research and undertakings; to make available the required apparatus, equipment, accessories and assistants, or to procure them * * *.” (_NO-422, Pros. Ex. 33._)

Sievers proceeded to make all the necessary arrangements for carrying out the Lost gas experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. On 27 August 1942 in a letter to Gluecks of the WVHA, he stated that in connection with a visit to Hirt in Strasbourg he would like to take Hirt with him to Natzweiler on 31 August 1942 and he asked Gluecks to make the necessary arrangements with the commander of the camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._) In a file note dated 17 September 1942 Sievers stated that the conference mentioned in his letter to Gluecks had been held in Natzweiler on 31 August 1942, and that the working conditions there for the proposed experiments were favorable. Professor Hirt, Stabsarzt Dr. Wimmer, and Dr. Kieselbach would require automobile transport for part of the trip from Strasbourg to Natzweiler in order to perform their work there, and accordingly 20 liters of gasoline would have to be made available to the camp authorities each month. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._) In a letter of 11 September 1942 to Gluecks, Sievers stated that the necessary conditions existed in Natzweiler “for carrying out our military scientific research work * * *”. He requested that Gluecks issue the necessary authorization for Hirt, Wimmer, and Kieselbach to enter Natzweiler, and that provision be made for their accommodation and board. He also stated that:

“The experiments which are to be performed on prisoners are to
be carried out in four rooms of an already existing medical
barrack. Only slight changes in the construction of the building
are required, in particular the installation of the hood which
can be produced with very little material. In accordance with
attached plan of the construction management at Natzweiler, I
request that necessary orders be issued to same to carry out the
reconstruction. All the expenses arising out of our activity at
Natzweiler will be covered by this office * * *.” (_NO-978,
Pros. Ex. 480._)

In a memorandum on 3 November 1942 to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Sievers complained about certain difficulties which had arisen in Natzweiler because of the lack of cooperation from the camp officials. Sievers was particularly outraged by the fact that the camp officials were asking that the experimental prisoners be paid for. He said that:

“When I think of our military research work conducted at the
concentration camp Dachau, I must praise and call special
attention to the generous and understanding way in which our
work was furthered there and to the cooperation we were given.
Payment of [for] prisoners was never discussed. It seems as if
at Natzweiler they are trying to make as much money as possible
out of this matter. We are not conducting these experiments, as
a matter of fact, for the sake of some fixed scientific idea,
but to be of practical help to the armed forces and beyond that
to the German people in a possible emergency.” (_NO-098, Pros.
Ex. 263._)

Brandt was requested to give his help in a comradely fashion in setting up the necessary conditions at Natzweiler. The defendant Rudolf Brandt replied to this memorandum on 3 December 1942, and told Sievers that he had had occasion to speak to Pohl concerning these difficulties, and that he had reported that they would be remedied. (_NO-092, Pros. Ex 180._)

The witness Holl gave in his testimony an accurate and detailed description of the manner in which the Lost gas experiments were carried out. The execution of the experiments was supervised by Hirt in the experimental station Ahnenerbe in the Natzweiler concentration camp. In the middle of October 1942 the preparation for these experiments was finished and the actual experimentation began sometime in October or November, after the experimental subjects were given the same food as the SS guards for approximately 14 days. The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt on 30 experimental subjects with a liquid gas substance. (_Tr. p. 1051._) In spite of the fact that Hirt, before selecting these experimental subjects, had promised them that he would intervene with Himmler in order that they should be released as a reward if they would volunteer for the experiments, none of the experimental subjects of all the experiments carried out by Hirt volunteered. Political prisoners, Russians, Poles, Czechs, and also some German nationals were among the experimental subjects used. (_Tr. p. 1052._)

The first series of experiments was carried out by Hirt and an officer of the Luftwaffe in the following manner: One drop of the liquid was applied to the lower arm of the experimental subject. Approximately 10 hours later burns began to appear and spread over the whole body in every place where drops of the fluid contacted the skin. Some of the experimental subjects became partially blind. The victims of these experiments suffered terrible pain. Photographic pictures of the burns were taken daily. After the fifth or sixth day of the experiment, the first fatality occurred. The corpse of the victim was dissected and the autopsy showed that the greater parts of the lungs and other organs had been destroyed. On the following day, that is, on the seventh day of the experiment, another seven of the experimental subjects died. The remaining 22 were sent to another concentration camp after approximately 2 months when they had recovered sufficiently and became fit for transport. (_Tr. pp. 1052-3._) Other experiments on concentration camp inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp were carried out in the gas chamber approximately 500 meters distant from the camp. The experimental subjects had to enter this gas chamber two by two. They had to smash small ampules which contained the liquid. This liquid evaporated and the experimental subject then had to inhale the resulting vapor. Usually the experimental subjects became unconscious and were returned to the Ahnenerbe station for further observation of the results of the experiments. (_Tr. pp. 1053-4._) These results were approximately the same as those observed in the first series. The breathing organs of the experimental subjects were likewise destroyed. Their lungs had been eaten away by the gas. About 150 concentration camp inmates were experimented upon in this manner. (_Tr. pp. 1034-5._) Approximately the same percentage as in the first series died as a result of this type of experimentation. (_Tr. p. 1056._)

Other Lost gas experiments were carried out by means of injection. These experiments were carried out in a special room adjoining the crematorium. The victims of these experiments died without exception. (_Tr. p. 1056._) Another type of experiment was carried out on the experimental subjects, who had to take the liquid orally. As Holl was transferred before Christmas 1943 to an outside camp, he was not able to give information on the results of this type of experiment. (_Tr. p. 1056._) He, however, returned once a month to the Natzweiler concentration camp and was therefore able to observe that the Lost gas experiments continued until autumn 1944, when the Natzweiler concentration camp was liberated by the Allies. (_Tr. pp. 1057-8._)

From Holl’s testimony it is proved that approximately 220 inmates of Russian, Polish, Czech, and German nationalities were experimented upon with gas by Hirt and his collaborators. About 50 of them died. None of the experimental subjects volunteered. (_Tr. pp. 1052, 1057._)

On 7 April 1943, when the Lost experiments were well under way (_supra_), Himmler ordered an intensification of Lost research. At about this time the progress of Hirt’s Lost research was threatened by the transfer of Hirt’s assistant, Wimmer, a medical officer of the Luftwaffe. Since personnel matters fell within the scope of Sievers’ duties, he wrote to Rudolf Brandt protesting the proposed transfer of Wimmer and stating that if Wimmer left the Institute for Military Scientific Research, the Lost experiments would have to end. Sievers then outlined the proper procedure for securing the future services of Wimmer at the Ahnenerbe Institute. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)

Again, on 3 November 1943, Sievers, in order to further the Lost experiments and assure their continuation, made a certificate which enabled two of Hirt’s research assistants to obtain increased food rations. Sievers stated that the research activities in which these persons were engaged with Department H (Hirt), Strasbourg, of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe involved health-damaging poisons which had caused injuries to their health. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)

The evidence clearly indicated that during the entire period covered by the Lost experiments, Hirt was associated with the Ahnenerbe Society. In early 1944 Hirt and Wimmer summarized their findings from the Lost experiments in a report entitled “Proposed Treatment of Poisoning caused by Lost”. The report was described as from the Institute for Military Scientific Research, Department H of the Ahnenerbe, located at the Strasbourg Anatomical Institute. Light, medium, and heavy injuries due to Lost gas are mentioned. Sievers received several copies of this report. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) On 31 March 1944, after Karl Brandt had received a Fuehrer Decree giving him broad powers in the field of chemical warfare (_NO-012, Pros. Ex. 270_), Sievers informed Brandt about Hirt’s work and gave him a copy of the report. This is proved by Sievers’ letter to Rudolf Brandt on 11 April 1944. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._) Karl Brandt admitted that the wording of the report made it clear that experiments had been conducted on human beings. (_Tr. p. 2626._)

The proof has also shown that in October 1943 the defendant Blome, in his capacity as a Plenipotentiary in the Reich Research Council, issued a research assignment for Hirt in support of his gas experiments. This is proved by the file index card on Blome’s research assignment in the Reich Research Council, where the assignment to Hirt by Blome is listed under SS priority number 0329. (_NO-690, Pros. Ex. 120._) Sievers admitted that a Reich research assignment to Hirt “on the behavior of Lost gas in living organisms” was made. (_Tr. p. 5817._) He further admitted that at a conference in April 1942, Himmler told him that Hirt should make Lost experiments on human beings other than volunteer military cadets. (_Tr. p. 5679._)

Sievers testified that on 25 January 1943, he went to Natzweiler concentration camp and consulted with the camp authorities concerning the arrangements to be made for Hirt’s Lost experiments. These arrangements included the obtaining of laboratories and experimental subjects. (_Tr. pp. 5842-43._) Sievers testified that the Lost experiments were harmful. (_Tr. p. 5810._) On the visit of 25 January 1943, Sievers saw ten persons who had been subjected to Lost experiments and watched Hirt change the bandages on one of the persons. Sievers said that the experimental subjects told him that they were volunteers and Hirt confirmed this to Sievers. (_Tr. p. 5732._) The testimony of Sievers was contradictory as to his knowledge that the Lost experiments caused deaths. Sievers testified that in March 1943 he asked Hirt whether any of the experimental subjects had suffered harm from the experiments and was told by Hirt that two of the experimental subjects had died due to other causes. (_Tr. p. 5733._) On the other hand, Sievers seemed to be referring to Lost experiments when he stated that he knew of one condemned criminal who had died from the experiments. (_Tr. p. 5810._) As to the nationality of the experimental subjects, Sievers was of the opinion, in view of their manner of speech, that the test persons were Germans. (_Tr. p. 5812._) The proof, however, clearly shows that Sievers already, as early as January 1942, had knowledge that nonvolunteers were to be used for the Lost experiments of Hirt. In his letter of 3 January 1942, Sievers requested Hirt to submit comprehensive research reports to him in order that he might forward them to Himmler. Sievers assured Hirt that Himmler would permit Hirt to conduct experiments of any kind “on prisoners and real criminals who would never be released anyhow and on persons scheduled for execution.” (_NO-3629, Pros. Ex. 547._)

Sievers’ diary entries indicate that his primary concern was making the necessary arrangements for the carrying out of the Lost experiments. On 25 January 1943 Sievers visited Natzweiler and consulted with the camp administration; on 28 January 1943 Sievers consulted with Pohl concerning the continuation of the Lost experiments and undoubtedly arranged for the allocation of test persons, although he testified that his conversation related to obtaining space for animals. (_Tr. p. 5736._) On 24 and 25 January Sievers received reports from Hirt on Lost experiments and on 17 March 1943 Sievers attended a conference at the Institute for Military Scientific Research where Lost experiments were reported. (_NO-538, Pros. Ex. 122._)

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
KARL BRANDT_

* * * * *

_I. Experiments performed._ Counsel for the defense does not wish to make a statement in this connection.

_II. Order to carry out the experiments._ The defendant Karl Brandt is not mentioned in connection with the order to carry out these experiments.

1. _Drug F 1001._ NO-199, Prosecution Exhibit 253, and NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, show that the order to carry out these experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp was given by Himmler or Reich Physician SS Grawitz in 1939. This is confirmed by the fact that the reports on the concluded experiments were submitted to Grawitz or Himmler.

2. _“Lost” experiments._ According to NO-098, Prosecution Exhibit 263, the order to Hirt was given on 13 July 1942 as shown in the letter dated 3 November 1942, which contains a research commission of the SS Institute for Applied Military Scientific Research of the Ahnenerbe. According to 492-PS, Prosecution Exhibit 267, the order to carry out experiments was given by Himmler or Goering.

In accordance with Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. pp. 5733-34_) Himmler, on 8 March 1944, ordered Hirt to carry out human experiments despite the latter’s arguments that only animal experiments could achieve further results. The issuing of this order is supported by the fact that the reports were sent to Reich Physician SS Grawitz to be passed on to Reich Leader SS Himmler. NO-085, Prosecution Exhibit 269, contains a preliminary final report made by Hirt of the year 1941; NO-097, Prosecution Exhibit 260, Hirt’s final report of 2 June 1942 to be submitted to the Reich Leader SS; also NO-099, Prosecution Exhibit 268, Hirt’s 1944 proposals for treatment. This is also supported by the correspondence between Sievers and Hirt. NO-793, Prosecution Exhibit 258, reports on a conference with Himmler.

3. _N-substance._ The order to carry out the experiments was issued by Reich Physician SS Grawitz in connection with Schwab and after Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Panzinger had been heard. Reference is made to an instruction from Hitler and an order from Himmler of 15 May.

_III. Reason for and aim of the experiments._ Statement of the defendant Karl Brandt. (_Tr. p. 2383._)

1. _“Lost” and Drug F 1001._ Research work on a healing drug for injuries, not poisoning, caused by “Lost”. Experiments of this kind have been carried out by all nations since World War I, England being the leading nation in these experiments on human beings. The general need for experiments on human beings, and only those are relevant here, has been recognized by all nations as a military necessity. (_Karl Brandt 106, Karl Brandt Ex. 49_; _Karl Brandt 107, Karl Brandt Ex. 50_.)