Chapter D: V. L., Berlin-Adlershof (12)

DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: It was pointed out frequently that no infection can be taken so seriously in the surgical field as the infection by gas gangrene, since the mortality cases of these injuries were very high. In concentration camps, as Noeling told me, we often had cases of gas gangrene. Therefore, the Asid Works suggested that vaccine should be used in the same manner as in the case of diphtheria. This was done in these works sometimes in cases of tetanus. Such vaccine against gas gangrene was produced by the Behring Works and was tested on students at Marburg University at first, about which a publication is available. I received a small part of this gas gangrene toxin in order to protect people in danger. This gas gangrene toxin I gave to Noeling and he used it at Buchenwald. The chart is available concerning persons on whom this vaccine was used. It becomes evident from that that there is even an increase in temperature following that vaccination, and that we are here concerned with a completely harmless project which has nothing at all to do with an infection.

Q. Dr. Ding in an affidavit (_NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283_) stated that at the Military Medical Academy a conference took place on the question of gas gangrene serum. What do you know about that?

A. It is correct that such a conference actually took place. Whenever gas gangrene occurred a large amount of gas gangrene serum had to be used for treatment in order to insure success. It was not a mere ten or fifteen cubic centimeters, but 400 to 800 cubic centimeters which was given to the patient in the course of a few days. In Germany all serums which are obtained from animals, mostly horses, are mixed with 0.5 percent of phenol and carbolic acid—in order to preserve them—i. e., to 400 cubic centimeters I added a concentration of two cubic centimeters of phenol acid. This amount is, of course, far above the tolerance of human beings. Carbolic acid is one of the strongest acids we possess. When treating people with gas gangrene serums a number of deaths occurred. We discussed whether we were dealing with cases of serum death, resulting from the serum, or whether death was caused by the phenol added. Ding and I participated in that conference with others.

* * * * *

Q. Did you give Dr. Ding an assignment on the basis of this discussion to test this phenol question?

A. Yes, I told him to study the literature and to make use of the libraries of the pharmacological and forensic medicine institute in Jena. He was in touch with those institutes.

Q. Did you give him the assignment to participate in euthanasia with phenol?

A. No. I never heard anything about his having carried out such euthanasia, or of such killings having been carried out. I could not, therefore, have given him any such order.

Q. You are aware that in an affidavit of your codefendant Hoven it is stated that Ding himself carried out killings in Buchenwald with phenol. Had you given him instructions to that effect?

A. No. I did not give him any such instructions, and there was no occasion to do so because death by phenol is well known in literature; simply reading works on the subject would have sufficed.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I submit Document Mrugowsky 28. I should like to submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit 46. It is an affidavit of Professor Killian, who is a university professor at Halle/Saale. He says:

“In 1941-1943 I was consulting surgeon with the 16th Army in the
East. We had experienced numerous cases of death and injury to
the circulatory system due to the effects of gas gangrene serum.
In my opinion, these bad effects cannot only be attributed to
the inoculation of great quantities of unrelated serums, but
also to the addition of one-half percent phenol, as is
prescribed by law. Since up to 150 cc. of gas gangrene
serum—sometimes even more than that—was given intravenously to
wounded in the field, in my opinion the total quantity of phenol
added then approached becoming a danger. This became obvious
after four of my collaborators had had themselves injected
intravenously with a phenol common salt solution of 0.5 percent
density. All of them showed typical signs of phenol poisoning to
a different degree. In a letter to the medical inspectorate I
called their attention to the disappointing effects of the gas
gangrene serum and to the detrimental effect of phenol, and made
proposals for a change. Consequently, I was officially ordered
to report during my stay in Berlin to Oberstarzt Professor
Schreiber, who was a specialist on this matter. Present at this
conference were Professor Mrugowsky and a junior physician whose
name I no longer remember. I did not know any of the three
gentlemen; I saw and spoke to them then for the first time.
Apart from a few general questions concerning bacteriology, we
discussed mainly the gas gangrene serum problem. I had to give
an exact report on what took place at the front and on the
symptoms of poisoning. The discussion then took two directions.
First, the question whether it was possible for industry to
substitute a harmless disinfectant for the dangerous phenol, and
which one of the many substances would be suitable for this
purpose.”

Number two is not important. And I can skip the next paragraph too. I come to the last paragraph:

“I well remember the substance of the discussions and declare
that no mention was made of any experiments in a concentration
camp, or of effecting euthanasia by injecting phenol. Such
considerations never even came up for discussion, let alone an
order in my presence by one of the medical officers. This would
certainly have remained in my memory. I may add that a reason
for such experiments did not exist since the symptoms of phenol
poisoning are well known and may be found in any book on
pharmacology. Apart from this, the question had been
sufficiently settled by the above-mentioned experiments which
the physicians had carried out on themselves. I am convinced
that Dr. Ding’s statements are not true.” [Signed by Professor
Killian, and certified.]

On the basis of instructions that he was to inform himself from literature about phenol poisoning—instructions which you gave to him—what did Ding report? Was the question of gangrene serum, and the deaths resulting from it, settled?

DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: Ding made a report. I waited for it for some time and when it did not come I myself read up on this question. Then I was no longer interested in his report.

Q. On page 20 of the Ding diary (_NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_) it says that a special experiment on four persons was carried out on behalf of Gruppenfuehrer Nebe. What do you know about that?

A. I have already mentioned the case of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler, who was at the hospital at Weimar, who died from poisoning. Inaccurate statements were given about his death and autopsy. It was said that they occurred in the Buchenwald concentration camp—which is not true. At the discussion of the autopsy findings in the Reich Criminal Police Office, the opinion had been expressed that this death might have resulted from pervitin together with a narcotic drug. I participated in this discussion.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I have already submitted the affidavit by Dr. Konrad Morgen. (_Mrugowsky 29, Mrugowsky Ex. 36._) When I submitted it I read the first one and one-half pages. I should now like to read the following portion:

“Professor Dr. Timm”—that is, the forensic medical expert from
Vienna who performed the autopsy on Koehler—“came to the
opinion that there were two possibilities: first, that a South
American poison had been used which was totally unknown to us
and which dissolves completely in the human body; second, that a
combination of drugs had been used. One drug had excited the
circulation to the point of exhaustion, the other drug had acted
as an antidote. Professor Dr. Timm spoke of the possibility that
pervitin had been used together with a soporific. The idea that
a South American poison had been used was rejected from a
criminological point of view. From a technical point of view the
second possibility would have been quite possible.

“I had to report the case to the Reich Security Main Office.
Subsequently, a conference took place in the Reich Security Main
Office at which quite a number of persons were present. The
chief of the Reich Security Main Office [sic], Gruppenfuehrer
Mueller, presided. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe of the Reich Criminal
Police was also present, as well as Professor Dr. Mrugowsky. At
the conference various persons, among others also Dr. Mrugowsky,
pointed out that pervitin was not a poison, that it could be
obtained without a prescription. One of the gentlemen present
pointed out that in America experiments were carried out where
up to 100 tablets of pervitin were administered and the effects
were not fatal. But no one present could answer the question of
whether a combination of pervitin and a soporific would be
harmless, or whether it would lead to an increased reaction to
any one direction. The latter appeared improbable to the
experts. In order to settle this question Gruppenfuehrer Mueller
ordered that an experiment be conducted. He ordered that Dr.
Ding, whom he knew, should conduct this experiment in
Buchenwald.

“It was ruled that in this experiment, which was to settle the
purely criminal side of the question, only minute quantities of
pervitin and soporific should be used, since it would be
impossible to give large quantities of pervitin and a soporific
unobtrusively to the prospective victim. Moreover, larger
quantities of these drugs would have been found in any case by
means of a chemical analysis. The scientific theoretical problem
concerning the harmfulness or even deadliness of maximum doses
did not interest anyone.

“I was present at the experiments at Buchenwald.

“Five persons were presented to us for testing, because
Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had ordered experiments to be conducted
on five persons. I checked the papers of the persons to be
experimented on prior to the experiment. They were Russians who
had deserted, or workers, who had formed a gang, stolen, and
plundered, and had even been charged with murder. They had all
been sentenced to death before a special court in Pomerania.
Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had already previously been given the
order for their execution.

“I had agreed with Dr. Ding that a preliminary experiment should
be made on three persons to see the kind of reaction this
combination had in the organism. Some of the condemned could
speak German. They were told that the experiments were neither
dangerous nor painful, and that by taking part they would at
least put off their execution. Thereupon they all volunteered.
Dr. Ding chose three of them. They were transferred to Block 46.
There they were given a dose of pervitin and a subcutaneous
injection of a soporific. Then they had to go to bed. They fell
asleep. Their sleep was very restless. One of them slept for 20
hours. The others awoke a little earlier * * *.”

Then he says that none of them showed the symptoms which Koehler had shown, and that the experiment was considered completed. In the last sentence of the next paragraph he says, “Therefore, I told Dr. Ding that he should not make any more experiments, and I reported this to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.” I shall read the last paragraph in another connection.

According to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, Mueller ordered Ding to carry out the experiment at Buchenwald. Did you receive a report on this experiment?

A. No, I did not receive a report on it.

* * * * *

_CROSS-EXAMINATION_

MR. HARDY: Prior to the afternoon recess, Doctor, we were discussing the phenol problem. Now, in this connection, did you at any time propose experiments to be conducted at Buchenwald concerning the tolerance of serum or sera containing phenol? That is, did you propose that in 1942 or 1943 at any time?

DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: No. No such suggestions were made and they were not necessary, because in Germany every serum contains phenol. In the German serum industry there is no serum produced without phenol. I am speaking of the sera for therapeutic purposes, not vaccines.

Q. Then at no time did you even propose that experiments be conducted to determine the tolerance of sera containing phenol; is that what you say?

A. No. I never suggested that.

Q. Are you sure, Doctor?

A. Yes.

MR. HARDY: At this time, your Honor, I offer Document NO-1198 as Prosecution Exhibit 466, for identification. This is a letter dated Berlin, 24 August 1944. Subject: Service of experiments. It has reference-file indexes, addressed to the chief hygienist on the staff of the Reich Physician SS and Police, Berlin-Zehlendorf:

“Dear Mrugowsky,

“I am able to inform you that the Reich Leader SS has approved
today the series of experiments proposed by you.

“1. Specific therapy with typhus.

“2. Tolerance of sera containing phenol.

“I agree that both series of experiments in the department for
typhus and virus research of the Hygienic Institute of the
Waffen SS in Weimar-Buchenwald should be carried out, and
request that I be informed of the course of the findings,
perhaps through intermediary reports.”

“By order of Grawitz.”

The signature is “NICOLAI”.

Q. Now this states that the Reich Leader SS has approved a series of experiments proposed by you and the experiments may be carried out in Buchenwald. You stated that you never proposed experiments to determine the tolerance of sera containing phenol. Now do you maintain, Doctor, that you never initiated any experimentation to determine the tolerance of sera containing phenol?

A. Yes. The connection here is something quite different. I shall discuss point two first.

I have already said that in Germany there were no sera without phenol. In connection with this phenol question in German serum, I informed Grawitz about the question which is being discussed here—Killian and Schreiber were present—and I told him that industry should try to produce sera without phenol, as the French serum industry had been doing for some time. I knew that suggestions to that effect had been sent to the industry, but that the German serum industry had refused, during the war, to effect any such basic change in its production because it was not in a position to obtain the necessary special apparatus, filters, etc. I therefore told Grawitz that in serum therapy for ordinary diseases—I was thinking primarily of diphtheria, where large quantities of serum were used at the time in the therapy against diphtheria once it had broken out, because the highly concentrated serum was no longer available in necessary quantities—I told him that in the case of such diseases one should watch to see whether injury from phenol might result. I told him also that it would be desirable to know whether serum without phenol would definitely prevent such shock. I also remember that this point too had connection with the fact that we had negotiated with the Behring Works for the production of serum frequently in small quantities in order to use it, and to compare it with other serum. If I remember correctly this involved diphtheria serum, that is the serum which is used most in Germany. The comparison was to be made of symptoms following the administration of the usual antidiphtheria serum containing phenol on children, and it was to be noted whether the symptoms would appear; and the symptoms following the administration of serum free of phenol were also to be noted. This was what Grawitz meant here, and he called that a series of experiments. I might point out that this expressed series of experiments in this case cannot refer to artificial infection, because it is not possible to have a human being artificially infected with diphtheria serum.

Q. Doctor, after receiving this confirmation of your proposals to perform experiments as outlined in this letter, you must have issued orders in that regard. Now to whom did you issue those orders?

A. No. I did not issue any orders. In my opinion this concerns activities of some civilian hospitals; for among the troops, and in concentration camps, we did not have any diphtheria patients.

Q. Just a moment, Doctor. But it is said in this letter that Grawitz agrees that these experiments can be carried out in the Department for Typhus and Virus Research of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS in Weimar-Buchenwald. Did you or did you not carry out these experiments in Weimar-Buchenwald?

A. No.

Q. Never issued any orders to carry out such experiments to Ding, for instance?

A. I have already explained what this series of experiments means. It is possible that I suggested, for example, that he was to vaccinate one child with one kind of serum and another child with another serum. That is possible; I don’t remember about that. But to try out serum containing phenol on human beings, that I did not order. * * *

-----

[80] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 27, 28, 31 Mar and 2, 3 Apr 1947, pp. 5000-5244, 5334-5464.

15. EXPERIMENTS FOR MASS STERILIZATION

a. Introduction

The defendants Karl Brandt, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Brack, Pokorny, and Oberheuser were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving sterilization experiments (par. 6 (I) of the indictment). In the course of the trial the prosecution withdrew this charge in the case of the defendants Mrugowsky and Oberheuser. On this charge the defendants Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and Brack were convicted, and the defendants Karl Brandt, Poppendick, and Pokorny were acquitted.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments for mass sterilization is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Rudolf Brandt. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 695 to 702. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt and closing brief for the defendant Pokorny. It appears below on pages 702 to 708. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 710 to 738.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT
RUDOLF BRANDT_

_Sterilization Experiments_

By 1941 it was the accepted policy of the Third Reich to exterminate the Jewish population of Germany and the occupied countries.[81] Because of the pressing need for laborers, sterilization of Jews able to work was considered as an alternative to outright extermination. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._)

In order to ascertain cheap and fast working methods for sterilization, experimentation on concentration camp inmates by means of drugs (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_), injection of an irritating solution (_NO-212, Pros. Ex. 173_) and X-rays and surgical operation (_Tr. pp. 556-9_) were carried out on a large scale. Brandt not only had full knowledge of these experiments, but collaborated actively in all of them.

The purpose of the sterilization experiments is well described by Brandt in his own affidavit:

“Himmler was extremely interested in the development of a cheap
and rapid sterilization method which could be used against
enemies of Germany, such as the Russians, Poles, and Jews. One
hoped thereby not only to defeat the enemy but to exterminate
him. The capacity for work of the sterilized persons could be
exploited by Germany, while the danger of propagation would be
eliminated. As this mass sterilization was part of Himmler’s
racial theory, particular time and care were devoted to these
sterilization experiments. Surgical sterilization was of course
known in Germany and applied; this included castration. For mass
application, however, this procedure was considered as too slow
and too expensive. It was further desired that a procedure be
found which would result in sterilization that was not
immediately noticeable.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)

Sterilization experiments in order to ascertain the efficacy of a drug known as caladium seguinum (Schweigrohr) were suggested to Himmler by the defendant Pokorny in October 1941. Pokorny reported that Dr. Madaus had found, as a result of his research on medical sterilization of animals, that caladium seguinum produced sterility in animals when administered orally or by injection. Pokorny further stated in his letter that:

“* * * the immense importance of this drug in the present fight
of our people occurred to me. _If, on the basis, of this
research, it were possible to produce a drug which after a
relatively short time effects an imperceptible sterilization on
human beings, then we would have a new powerful weapon at our
disposal._ The thought alone that the 3 million Bolsheviks, at
present German prisoners, could be sterilized so that they could
be used as laborers but be prevented from reproduction, opens
the most far reaching perspectives.”

He therefore advocated immediate research on human beings in order to determine the dose and length of treatment, the cultivation of the plant caladium seguinum in hothouses, and chemical research in order to produce the drug synthetically on a large scale. (_NO-035, Pros. Ex. 142._)

Himmler agreed to Pokorny’s suggestions and requested Pohl, on 10 March 1942, to contact Dr. Madaus and to “offer him possibilities for doing research in cooperation with the Reich Physician SS (Grawitz) on criminals who would have to be sterilized in any case.” He further ordered that the intended plan of research should be submitted to him. It was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who forwarded a copy of this letter to Grawitz (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_) and furnished him, on 20 April, with a copy of Pokorny’s report and information on the publications of Madaus concerning medicinal sterilization of animals. (_NO-037, Pros. Ex. 146._)

Brandt’s office submitted Madaus’ report on the studies of experiments on animals to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, Chief of the Security Police and SD. The letter of transmittal, dated 23 April 1942, bears the same file number as Himmler’s letter to Pohl (752/5) and refers expressly to “the question of sterilization by medicine.” (_NO-047, Pros. Ex. 145._)

In June 1942 Brandt requested a report from Pohl, Chief of the WVHA, as to the progress of the preparation for experiments. (_NO-038, Pros. Ex. 147._) Pohl reported on 3 June 1942 that since “Schweigrohr,” from which caladium seguinum was derived, grew only in North America and could not be exported in adequate quantities, attempts to grow the plant from seed cultivated in hothouses had been made by Dr. Koch of the Biological Institute of the Madaus Works. These attempts had been successful, but the process of growing the plant and developing the drug was not speedy enough and the yield not sufficient to permit experimentation on a _large scale_. In order to remove these difficulties, he said that it would be necessary to build a larger hothouse. (_NO-046a, Pros. Ex. 148._) On 11 June, Brandt advised Pohl that he had informed Himmler of his letter and that Himmler wanted Pohl to see to it that a large hothouse was placed at Dr. Koch’s disposal as soon as possible as Himmler considered the experiments extremely important. Brandt also asked Pohl for further reports in the matter. (_NO-046b, Pros. Ex. 149._) Only eight days later Brandt himself had a conference with Pohl in which, among other things, he informed Pohl of Himmler’s request to have the ingredients of caladium seguinum thoroughly investigated to determine whether equally effective ingredients could be found in plants more easily accessible. Brandt requested that the work of Dr. Koch should be carried out to the fullest extent. He informed Pohl that experiments should be conducted in concentration camps with the amount of the drug then available. Pohl agreed to take the necessary steps at once. (_NO-044, Pros, Ex. 150._) Department IV-B-4 of the Reich Security Main Office, the agency which was in charge of the solution of the Jewish question[82] was informed by a subordinate of Brandt about Madaus’ research work and requested to collaborate closely with Pohl in this matter. (_NO-050, Pros. Ex. 151._) A copy of this letter was forwarded to the defendant Rudolf Brandt. (_NO-051, Pros. Ex. 152._)

The Deputy Gauleiter of Gau Lower Danube (Lower Austria), SS Obergruppenfuehrer Gerland, informed Himmler on 24 August 1942 that the Director of the Office for Racial Policy in that province, Dr. Fehringer, had examined the question of mass sterilization and, in this connection, had come across Dr. Madaus’ studies on medicinal sterilization with caladium seguinum. For reasons similar to those suggested by the defendant Pokorny (_NO-035, Pros. Ex. 142_), Gerland advocated experimentation on inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach in Gau Lower Danube. Gerland pointed out that if these experiments were successful, as was expected, it would be possible to sterilize practically unlimited numbers of people in the shortest time and in the simplest way conceivable. (_NO-039, Pros. Ex. 153._)

It was the defendant Rudolf Brandt who took the matter up and informed Gerland on 29 August of the steps which had already been taken in respect to experiments with caladium seguinum. From Brandt’s letter, it is apparent that Himmler was not present at that time. Brandt took care of this matter on his own initiative and informed Gerland that Pohl and Grawitz were in charge of the experiments. He requested information from Gerland whether Dr. Fehringer had caladium seguinum available and what means for the procurement of this plant the latter would suggest. (_NO-040, Pros. Ex. 154._) Copies of Gerland’s letter were forwarded by Brandt to Pohl and Grawitz. On 7 September 1942, Pohl gave Gerland further details and informed him that he and Dr. Lolling were personally supervising the experiments. Pohl, in turn, sent copies of this letter to Rudolf Brandt and Grawitz. In the covering letter to Brandt, Pohl informed him that he had been to the Madaus Works to convince himself of the progress of the experiments and that Dr. Lolling would cooperate in them. An agreement had been reached with Madaus “to transfer the experiments to our concentration camps as soon as possible.” (_NO-041, Pros. Ex. 156._)

On 14 October 1942, Gerland wrote to Rudolf Brandt and informed him of the letter he had received from Pohl. He stated that he considered Dr. Fehringer’s suggestion to use inmates of the gypsy camp of Lackenbach as obsolete, as Pohl had informed him that Lolling was already collaborating with the Biological Institute of Madaus. He further advised Brandt that Fehringer was of the opinion that it was quite possible to produce caladium seguinum chemically or have the plant cultivated in hothouses to an extent which would be sufficient for experimental purposes. He also suggested collaboration between Lolling and Fehringer. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Brandt’s reply of 25 October reveals that he, on his own initiative in Himmler’s absence, agreed to the collaboration between Fehringer and Lolling. (_NO-049, Pros. Ex. 159._) Brandt sent copies of Gerland’s letter of 14 October (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157_) and his reply (_NO-049, Pros. Ex. 159_) to Pohl. In his covering letter to Pohl he expressed the conviction that in spite of the fact that he could not consult Himmler, he was convinced that the latter would certainly welcome experiments to produce caladium seguinum synthetically. He asked Pohl to arrange for a contact between Lolling and Fehringer. (_NO-048, Pros. Ex. 158._)

There is no reasonable doubt that the sterilization experiments with caladium seguinum were, in fact, carried out on concentration camp inmates. Himmler, who was the highest authority to decide such questions, not only gave his consent to these experiments (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143_) but considered them “extremely important” (_NO-046b, Pros. Ex. 149_) and requested that they should be carried out in the concentration camps _in any case_. (_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) Pohl, who was in charge of the administration of the concentration camps, agreed upon the request of Brandt to take the necessary steps immediately. (_NO-044, Pros. Ex. 150._) There can be no doubt that Department IV-B-4 of the Reich Security Main Office, which was charged with the solution of the Jewish question, was informed about Madaus’ research work for the purpose of furnishing the necessary Jewish victims for the experiments. The collaboration of Dr. Lolling, who was the doctor in charge of all concentration camps, can only be explained in connection with experimentation in these camps. This is also clear from Gerland’s letter to Brandt:

“SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has informed me that _the doctor of
his Main Office_ is already collaborating with the Madaus
Biological Institute for research on the effects of caladium
seguinum, so that the suggestion of my District Main Office
Leader, Dr. Fehringer, _becomes obsolete_.” [Emphasis added.]
(_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._)

It can only be concluded that Pohl and Lolling carried out the experiments in concentration camps as was agreed upon between them, Himmler, Brandt, and Madaus. (_NO-043, Pros. Ex. 157._) Moreover, Brandt himself admitted in his affidavit that experiments with caladium seguinum on human beings were performed in concentration camps:

“As result of Pokorny’s suggestion experiments were conducted
upon concentration camp prisoners in order to test the effect of
the drug. Simultaneously all efforts were made to cultivate the
plant in large quantities. Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic
and Administrative Main Office, took a personal interest in this
matter. Hothouses were used, with a certain amount of success,
to cultivate this plant, and the experiments were continued.”
(_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)

On 30 May 1942, Dr. Clauberg wrote to Himmler asking his support on sterilization experiments on female concentration camp inmates. (_NO-211, Pros. Ex. 169._) On 4 June the defendant Poppendick forwarded to Rudolf Brandt a list of doctors who were authorized to carry out sterilization. Clauberg is listed among these doctors. (_NO-214, Pros. Ex. 168._) On 7 and 8 July, a conference took place between Himmler, Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Clauberg. The topic of discussion was the sterilization of Jewesses. Clauberg was promised by Himmler that the Auschwitz concentration camp would be placed at his disposal for experiments on human beings. He was assigned the task of performing experiments to test a method of sterilizing persons without their knowledge. He was ordered to report on this matter as soon as possible so that measures could be taken “for the practical realization of the sterilizations on a larger scale”. It was suggested that Hohlfelder be consulted on the sterilization of men by X-rays. The participants in the conference were admonished that these experiments were a matter of utmost secrecy. Rudolf Brandt denied having been present at this conference. Be that as it may, one of the two file memoranda which reveal complete knowledge of all details discussed in this conference was dictated by Brandt (_NO-215, Pros. Ex. 172_), and the other was signed by him. (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170._)

On 10 July 1942, Rudolf Brandt wrote a letter to Clauberg in which he informed him of the details of his assignment and the plans for the execution of the experiments. Clauberg was ordered to report to Himmler on how long it would take to sterilize, a thousand Jewesses by his method. It was suggested that Clauberg should contact Pohl and a camp physician of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp in order to perform there his sterilization experiments. Brandt stated further:

“Thorough experiments should be conducted to investigate the
effect of the sterilization, largely in a way that you could
find out after a certain time, which would have to be _fixed,
perhaps by X-rays_, what kind of changes have taken place. In
some cases a practical experiment might be arranged by locking
up a Jewess and a Jew together for a certain period and then
seeing what results are achieved.

“I ask you _to let me know your opinion about my letter for the
information of the Reich Leader SS_.” [Emphasis added.]
(_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._)

Copies of this letter were sent by Brandt to Pohl, Grawitz, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Koegel of the Economic and Administrative Main Office, and to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller of the Reich Security Main Office. On 7 June 1943, Clauberg was able to report, on the basis of his experiments, that it would be possible to sterilize several hundred, if not a thousand, per day by his methods. He stated that sterilization could be “performed by a single injection made from the entrance of the uterus in the course of the usual customary gynecological examination”. (_NO-212, Pros. Ex. 173._)

The sterilization experiments of Clauberg were, in fact, carried out in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Brandt communicated with Clauberg on this matter again on 19 June and 22 July 1943. While these two letters are not available, it is clear from Clauberg’s reply to Brandt, dated 6 August, that these communications were reminders to Clauberg to expedite his experimentation. In his reply, Clauberg stated:

“I really do need the _second X-ray installation—I can give you
the explanation only by word of mouth—at any rate the
probability exists that even more of the installations will be
needed later on_ (_it depends on, the application of my results
the moment these are determined_). For I can get the
installation without further difficulties, that is, it is
‘_waiting_’ for me—_really I have got it already_!

“I had an opportunity _to acquire one myself_ and I quickly laid
hands on it, and the installation has been set up for some
weeks. But what I care for is the following:

“_I urgently need this installation here in Koenigshuette for my
contrary (positive) research. But I cannot spare it in Auschwitz
until I get a second installation from the Waffen SS._ If I may
tell you something between ourselves—the fact is that I will
_be able to replace my own existing installation provided the
Reich Leader SS will give me his approval_. I would not bother
either him or you with this _unless it were really necessary_.”
(_NO-210, Pros. Ex. 174._)

Brandt himself admitted in his affidavit that Clauberg did carry out sterilization experiments in the Auschwitz concentration camp on a large scale. He stated:

“Dr. Clauberg developed further a method for the sterilization
of women. This method was based upon the injection of an
irritating solution into the uterus. Clauberg conducted
widespread experiments on Jewish women and gypsies in the
Auschwitz concentration camp. Several thousand women were
sterilized by Clauberg in Auschwitz.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)

Sterilization of Jews by means of X-rays was suggested to Himmler by the defendant Brack in the spring of 1941. (_NO-426, Pros. Ex. 160._) Himmler requested Brack to investigate with some of the physicians who were active in the euthanasia program, the possibility of sterilization which would keep the victims unaware of their terrible fate. (_Tr. p. 7484._) On 28 March 1941, Brack forwarded to Himmler a report of the results of experiments concerning X-ray castrations in which he stated that mass sterilization by means of X-rays could be carried out without difficulty. Brack estimated that with twenty X-ray installations, sterilization of 3,000 to 4,000 victims could be carried out daily. (_NO-203, Pros. Ex. 161._) On 12 May 1941 a subordinate of Brandt, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Tiefenbacher, acknowledged receipt of Brack’s report and sent a copy to the Chief of the Security Police and SD, Heydrich. (_NO-204, Pros. Ex. 162._)

The invasion of Russia began in the summer of 1941 and Brack’s proposal was not acted on immediately, but on 23 June 1942, when Germany appeared to be on the verge of victory, Brack again wrote to Himmler suggesting the sterilization of Jews who were able to work. Jews unable to work were being exterminated. (_NO-205, Pros. Ex. 163._) Himmler wrote to Brack on 11 August 1942 that further experiments to ascertain the effectiveness of X-ray sterilization should be carried out on concentration camp inmates by expert physicians who were to be furnished by Brack’s chief, Bouhler. Rudolf Brandt sent copies of this letter to Pohl and Grawitz in order to put Himmler’s decision into effect. (_NO-206, Pros. Ex. 164._) Brack ordered his deputy, Blankenburg, to contact the chiefs of the concentration camps for this purpose. Blankenburg’s letter, which communicated this fact to Himmler, was received by Brandt’s office on 15 August 1942. (_NO-207, Pros. Ex. 165._) As a result, experiments on inmates in the Auschwitz concentration camp were carried out by Dr. Schumann. (_NO-208, Pros. Ex. 166._) One of the victims of these atrocious experiments who, after having been subjected to severe doses of X-ray in the genital area, was castrated by operation in order to determine the effects of the X-ray. (_Tr. p. 541._) At least 100 involuntary experimental subjects—Poles, Russians, French, and prisoners of war—were used for these experiments. Only young, well-built inmates, in the best of health, were selected for them. (_Tr. pp. 556-7._) Nearly all the victims of these experiments were exterminated as the severe X-ray burns made them incapable of working. (_Tr. p. 557; Tr. p. 543._) Brandt admitted in his pretrial affidavit that “sterilization experiments were likewise conducted with X-rays. Dr. Schumann applied this procedure in Auschwitz and sterilized a number of men.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._)

* * * * *

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
GEBHARDT_[83]

* * * * *

_The Sterilization Experiments_

The defendant Gebhardt is also accused of special responsibility for these experiments and of participation in them. The evidence, however, proved that this contention of the indictment is not true. First of all it should be pointed out that the life work of the defendant Gebhardt as a physician was based on the principle of helping the physically and mentally affected and to find cures for restoring them as fully qualified members of human society. That was the reason for the establishment of the training camp Hohenaschau in the lower Alps of Bavaria, which was repeatedly mentioned in the evidence. He also made this principle the finding principle of his work as chief physician of the hospital at Hohenlychen. The defendant Gebhardt did not hold the opinion that a sound population policy could be realized by negative measures only; on the contrary, he was convinced that the faculties of physically and mentally handicapped patients ought to be improved by new methods of treatment and their efficiency thus increased. He applied these principles not only in his rehabilitation surgery dealing with injuries but also in the cure of hereditary physical defects. I am here referring to the affidavits of Professor Dr. Iseling, Professor Dr. Buerkle de la Camp, and of the Generalarzt, Dr. von Heuss. (_Gebhardt 7, Gebhardt Ex. 1_; _Gebhardt 8, Gebhardt Ex. 2_; _Gebhardt 9, Gebhardt Ex. 3_.) I further refer to the affidavits presented in court as exhibits in volume II of my document books. All these witnesses’ affidavits in connection with the defendant’s own statements make it obvious that his medical attitude was not based on the principle of negative selection and the destruction of unworthy lives or the prevention of propagation of such human beings but, on the contrary, that he was led by the conviction that these human beings must be helped insofar as medical science was able to help them at all. In their presentation of evidence, the prosecution presented documents concerned with the sterilization experiments. It is obvious from these documents that three different methods of quick and simple sterilization had been considered.

The first experiments were supposed to be carried out with caladium seguinum. The documents presented in this connection proved clearly that the defendant Gebhardt had nothing to do with this matter and that he apparently had no knowledge of it. May I, as a matter of precaution, point out the following: to start with, I wish to refer to the letter of Reich Leader SS Himmler to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl of 10 March 1942, which proves that the experiments with caladium seguinum were supposed to be carried out on criminals whose sterilization had been ordered before that anyway. (_NO-036, Pros. Ex. 143._) In this connection I should like to point out that the German Penal Code expressly provides in certain cases for compulsory sterilization and castration of certain types of criminals. The experiments in themselves, therefore, need not be contrary to the law. From the other documents presented by the prosecution it is, however, to be seen that the plans to carry out sterilizations with caladium seguinum were dropped. It turned out that a cultivation of this plant, or at least of a quantity adequate for experimental purposes was impossible. From the evidence presented by the prosecution it is obvious that it only came to preparatory measures which, according to generally acknowledged principles, cannot be considered punishable.

The second part of the documents deals with sterilization by X-rays. The prosecution presented no evidence from which it can be concluded that the defendant Gebhardt had knowledge of this matter.

Finally, the third part of the documents deals with sterilization experiments conforming with the methods of Professor Dr. Clauberg. From Professor Dr. Clauberg’s letter to the Reich Leader SS Himmler dated 30 May 1942 presented by the prosecution as evidence, it is obvious that the initiative for these experiments and the methods used originated exclusively with Professor Clauberg himself. In this connection, it must be pointed out that it was quite obvious that Professor Clauberg’s intention was not only to develop the simplest possible method of sterilization, but that he aimed at the establishment of an all-inclusive “Research Institute for Propagation Biology” with due consideration for the demands of a positive population policy. This is demonstrated among other things by the content of Document NO-211, Prosecution Exhibit 169, and the plan for this research institute attached to that document.

In the course of evidence and referring to the sterilization experiments, the prosecution has submitted two file notes of the defendant Rudolf Brandt (_NO-216, Pros. Ex. 170_; _NO-215, Pros. Ex. 172_) which refer to a discussion with the Reich Leader SS on 7 July 1942 and 8 July 1942, in which the defendant Gebhardt had participated. The evidence has shown that these are two file notes which refer to the same discussion. The evidence, however, has further demonstrated that this was the very discussion during which the conditions were established under which the sulfanilamide experiments were to be carried out. This was the reason why the defendant Gebhardt took part in this discussion at all. The defendant Rudolf Brandt who had written these file notes did not participate in the discussion, and obviously the file notes were made due to some remarks made by Reich Leader SS Himmler to the defendant Brandt following the discussion.

The fact that the defendant Gebhardt had nothing whatsoever to do with these sterilization experiments is also demonstrated by another document which was also introduced as evidence by the prosecution. I refer in this connection to the letter which the defendant Brandt by order of the Reich Leader SS sent to Professor Clauberg on 10 July 1942, that is, a few days after the discussion mentioned. This letter has been submitted to the Tribunal by the prosecution. (_NO-213, Pros. Ex. 171._) Copies of this letter were sent to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl, to SS Gruppenfuehrer Grawitz in his capacity as Reich Physician SS and to two other offices, but not to the defendant Gebhardt. There can be no doubt that a copy of this letter would have been sent to this defendant, too, if his participation in Clauberg’s experiments would have been decided upon or even considered in any form. This seems to be the more impossible, apart from the reasons already given, since the defendant Gebhardt at no time concerned himself with sterilization problems. In this connection it is necessary to refer briefly to the affidavit of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, of 19 October 1946, which has been introduced by the prosecution and in which it is asserted among other things that “Dr. Karl Gebhardt apparently performed surgical sterilization at the Ravensbrueck camp.” (_NO-440, Pros. Ex. 141._) By the wording of this affidavit it is already demonstrated that here only an assumption is stated. The defendant Rudolf Brandt could not state any facts on which he could base this assumption. In view of the other result of the evidence, and above all because of Rudolf Brandt’s own statements, no substantial value can be attached to this affidavit. In these circumstances it will be useless to discuss this question any further, especially also in view of the fact that surgical sterilization offers no problems and that it is difficult to understand what reasons the defendant Gebhardt could have had to work on this field which was quite foreign to him.

* * * * *

_EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT
POKORNY_

* * * * *

Sterilization with caladium seguinum is impossible as is shown by the following opinions:

1. Opinion of Dr. August Wilhelm Forst of the University of Munich. (_Pokorny 20, Pokorny Ex. 28._) This opinion states:

“Apart from all these restrictions it appears to me that the
whole idea cannot claim to have any actual significance, since
it would hardly have been possible to import tropical plants in
large numbers to Europe during the war and to work out a
rational method for production of the effective substance as
well as the initiation of animal experiments on a broad basis.
This would have required disproportionally more time than was
available up to the time when the war was lost.”

2. Opinion of Professor Dr. Helmuth Weese, Director of the Pharmacological Institute of the Medical Academy in Duesseldorf. (_Pokorny 19, Pokorny Ex. 27._) This opinion states:

“Asked whether it can be assumed that after studying the work of
G. Madaus and Dr. E. Koch, ‘Studies in Animal Experiments
concerning Medical Sterilization by Caladium Seguinum’ in the
Journal of Experimental Medicine, page 68, 1941, a doctor can
come to the conclusion that he can sterilize human beings with
caladium seguinum, I have the following comment:

“In the research mentioned it was proved that the authors
managed to sterilize rats by feeding them with the juice of
caladium seguinum. The proof is not only given by pairing
experiments but by anatomical examinations. In order to achieve
this sterilization of female as well as of male rats weighing
150-180 grams, daily doses of ½ cubic centimeter for each rat
had to be administered 30-50 times and 40-90 times,
respectively, without assuring a certain result. Applied to a
human being weighing 70 kilograms this would mean that 200 grams
of juice would have to be administered daily.

“It is also proved in these examinations that a large number of
the animals treated died from the poisonous effects of the
caladium juice. The juice has therefore no specific action on
the reproductive system. It is still completely unknown if these
injurious complications are caused by the main substance of the
juice or any other ingredients.

“Such nonspecific damage to the reproductive system in similar
ways but with different substances is also observed in human
beings, for example as result of serious abuse of nicotine,
morphine, etc., where it also occurs only together with most
severe harm to other functions.

“The question arises for every doctor if these experiments on
rats can be applied to human beings at all. Madaus and Koch
reject them on principle because they merely want to determine
if the layman’s belief about sterilizing men with large amounts
of the caladium extract can be proved in animal experiments.

“A prerequisite for the use of the caladium extract on human
beings in our countries would be the cultivation in central
Europe of the South American caladium. This appears extremely
improbable to any student of natural science with the least
experience. Even if it could be cultivated, this would not prove
that it would produce the same effective substances in
sufficient quantities in our moderate climate.

“Because of the uncertain effect of the caladium extract, its
high toxicity, the doubts as to its successful cultivation and
use in our moderate climate, I consider it extremely improbable
that even a doctor with only average intelligence could in
seriousness embark on an experiment to sterilize human beings
with caladium extract. No other convincing foundation on which
the problem under discussion might be based besides the work of
Madaus and Koch is known to me.”

3. Opinion of Dr. Friedrich Jung, lecturer at the Pharmacological Institute of Wuerzburg University. (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30._) This opinion states:

“Summary: The findings of Madaus and Koch in their work ‘Studies
in Animal Experiments concerning Medical Sterilization by
Caladium Seguinum’ are certainly valid, but they do not prove
anything with regard to a specific sterilizing effect of
caladium seguinum; they are rather to be accepted as part of the
general poisonous effect of the caladium extract. One can
therefore sterilize with caladium or achieve the effect of
castration, but not more and not less than one can sterilize by
hunger, vitamin deficiency, infections, psychic insults, etc.
The experiments of Madaus and Koch are in no way conclusive with
regard to human beings. The symptoms on the sexual glands of the
experimental animals are only a reversible partial symptom of a
long lasting, almost fatal, serious injury to the entire
organism, and have no connection with an actual sterilization or
castration. Dr. Pokorny’s proposals based upon certain
completely unfounded conclusions drawn from Madaus’ work can be
recognized even by slightly educated men as quite apparently
utopian.”

4. The expert witness of the prosecution, Dr. Friedrich Scheiffart, writes (_NO-3347, Pros. Ex. 546_):

“The experimental sterilization by caladium seguinum is a
scientifically interesting but, in practice, an unimportant
addition to the group of pharmacological methods of
sterilization, which without exception in their totality have
not gone beyond a certain theoretical interest.”

The prosecution itself states (_Tr. p. 525_):

“The prosecution admits openly that it cannot prove that
sterilization was actually brought about through this drug. We
have not been able to find anybody who has been actually
sterilized by it. But we maintain that it is nevertheless a
crime. We strongly hope that no permanent sterilization has been
caused in any case with this drug. However it is fortunate that
the plants from which this substance was received could not be
cultivated to a greater extent.”

_Final Summary of the Defense_:

Nothing could or did occur with the caladium plant as the prosecution admits and as has completely been proved by the expert opinions.

In an affidavit by Karl Tauboeck (_NO-3963, Pros. Ex. 528_) the prosecution referred to the idea that sterilization with caladium seguinum is not an ideal one, but a matter which lies well within the bounds of possibility.

The defense on the other hand contends that this affidavit is lacking in credibility because of the expert opinions. The expert witness of the defense, university lecturer Dr. Friedrich Jung, in his enclosure to the expert opinion (_Pokorny 30, Pokorny Ex. 30_) comments as follows on Karl Tauboeck’s affidavit:

“Concerning the person—

“Dr. Tauboeck is, according to his education, a natural
scientist with additional specialized studies in plant
chemistry. His medical education is confined to histology,
physiology, physiological chemistry, immunology, and
pharmacology. By virtue of his education, he calls himself ‘a
specialist in this field’, i. e., in the field of medicamental
sterilization. I should like to stress the fact that the title
‘specialist’ in the field of sterilization presupposes
considerable medical and in particular gynecological knowledge,
which generally may be acquired only in a complete study of
medicine or a penetrating study over several years in the
_materia medica_.

“The affidavit of Dr. Tauboeck in several places lacks that
critical attitude which is so necessary in scientific questions,
especially if they are discussed under oath. Dr. Tauboeck
states, for example, under point 5, that caladium seguinum was
used as a means of sterilization by the natives of Brazil. He
calls this assertion of the Indians, which has been reported in
literature, a fact. Under point 6 he calls the reports from
Brazil vague, only to assert literally several lines further on
that ‘the Brazilian natives have already reached castration
effects with an arrow wound, i. e., with an intramuscular
injection’. This assertion is not proved, and is therefore, in
my opinion, out of place in an affidavit. Furthermore Dr.
Tauboeck makes a large number of apodictic assertions, for which
he brings no direct proof whatever and which he tries to
strengthen with the help of absolutely impermissible
generalizations of the examples listed under points 7 a-d. Such
analogical conclusions are not permissible in a serious
scientific explanation, the more so since also the examples
brought by him are by no means unobjectionable. Moreover, Dr.
Tauboeck, under point 8, draws a conclusion from the experiments
by Madaus and Koch, which can only be based on an insufficient
knowledge of these experiments. He writes literally: ‘This
bitter substance was lacking in the plants of the firm Madaus,
the use of the pressed juice for feeding was accomplished there
without any irritation of the pharyngeal mucous membranes or the
tongue.’ According to the evidence on hand, Madaus and Koch
administered the pressed juice through probing, no doubt in
order to avoid this very irritation.

“These findings may be further enlarged upon by attentive
reading of Dr. Tauboeck’s statement. I, therefore, do not
consider Dr. Tauboeck to be qualified as a scientific expert in
this question.”

* * * * *

_Conclusion of the Defense_:

The affidavit of Karl Tauboeck produced at the end of the case-in-chief cannot alter the fact that it is impossible to sterilize or castrate human beings with caladium seguinum.

d. Evidence