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_.)

The necessity to carry out experiments increased in Germany, particularly during World War II, as all nations were eagerly engaged in the manufacture of “Lost” gas. The need became imperative in 1944 when reliable sources reported that the enemy was getting chemical-warfare agents ready. (_Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 12, Karl Brandt Ex. 11_.)

2. _N-substance._ Reasons for and aim of the experiments are unknown. N-substance is the name for “normal” substance. It is not a chemical warfare agent but a fuel substance, intended to be used for ignition. This N-substance is not to be mistaken for N-“Lost”, that is, nitrogen-Lost. (_Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Ex. 36_; _Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42_.)

_IV. Participation in the performance of the experiments._

1. _Drug F 1001._ The experiments were carried out exclusively at SS offices on the orders of the Reich Leader SS. They were performed before the defendant Karl Brandt received his first official appointment.

2. _“Lost”._ The experiments were made by Hirt and Wimmer in the SS Institute for Military Scientific Research in Strasbourg. According to Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5788_) the defendant Karl Brandt did not have any influence on these institutions. The “Lost” chemical warfare agent does not act like gas, but in a dried form injures the skin. Ordinarily, experiments are made by all nations by applying small drops of “Lost” to the skin. They cause injuries to the tissue, which are treated with healing drugs. This procedure is demonstrated in Holl’s testimony. (_Tr. p. 1052._)

3. _N-substance._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5738_) shows that the experiments were not carried out due to a laboratory experiment of Professor Thyssen and an expert opinion sent to Himmler.

_V. The experimental subjects._

_A. Number of experimental subjects._

1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement.

2. _“Lost”._ The statements made by the witness Holl about the number of persons experimented upon must be treated with caution, since they do not originate with Holl, but were stated by the prosecution and merely confirmed by Holl. The testimony of Nales about experiments cannot refer to “Lost”.

3. _N-substance._ Since there were no experiments, no statement is made.

_B. Consent of the experimental subjects._

1. _Drug F 1001._ No statement.

2. _“Lost”._ Sievers’ testimony (_Tr. p. 5732_) shows that Hirt said that the experimental subjects had volunteered, following a lecture by Hirt. This testimony seems to be quite trustworthy, as it was usual to make similar experiments on officer candidates of the Academy of Military Medicine in Berlin. Testimony of Becker-Freyseng (_Tr. p. 8072_) as well as testimony of Sievers (_Tr. pp. 5730-31_); also testimony of the witness Nales (_Tr. pp. 10409-10471_).

3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement.

_C. Type of experimental subjects._

1. _F 1001._ The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the experimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case were foreigners used.

2. _“Lost”._ According to Sievers’ testimony, the persons used in the experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that the nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no significance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is no basis to judge the true state of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt’s testimony (_Tr. pp. 4930-34_) shows that he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements are conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the interrogators.

3. _N-substance._ No experiments, no statement.

_D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects._

1. _Drug F 1001 and “Lost”._ The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments, applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (_Tr. p. 1052_) do not entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (_Tr. p. 1050 ff._) and the affidavit of Wagner (_NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280_) also, to a certain degree, contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments, an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost” experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a committee. Sievers’ statement (_Tr. p. 5732_) reports a visit to Wimmer at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general condition was not impaired. (_NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253._) In contrast to this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the duration of the experiments.

2. _N-substance._ The experiments were not carried out. Over and above that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm.

_VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl Brandt._

1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders.

2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits: (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 5_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 6_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_; _Karl Brandt 4_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 5_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 89_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 37_). They show that this decree does not refer to an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and their research, but that it represents a production order referring to defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders (see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts with Himmler). (_Also Karl Brandt 120_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 35_.) The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_) is refuted by Karl Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf Brandt. (_Tr. pp. 4930-34._) As a matter of fact the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide this from the enemy. (_Karl Brandt 103_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 42_; _Karl Brandt 101_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 41_; _Karl Brandt 11_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 10_.)

3. Karl Brandt’s efforts not to experiment on human beings are proved by the fact that he had animal material, i. e., man-like apes, brought from Spain and Africa by the Luftwaffe at great expense. Had he been predominantly inclined to experiment on human beings, to be had free of cost, he would hardly have gone to such expense. (_Karl Brandt 12_, _Karl Brandt Ex. 11._) The exhaustive enumeration of parties engaged on work with N-gas (_NO-005, Pros. Ex. 279_) proves that the defendant Karl Brandt did not participate. The N-gas problems belong to a very different sphere, as shown by the Documents Karl Brandt 88, Karl Brandt Exhibit 36, and Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Exhibit 42. This is further confirmed by Sievers’ letter to Hirt of 9 April 1942. (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) In it, reference is made to the possibility of advancing experiments by “single possibilities”.

NO-422, Prosecution Exhibit 33, contains an order by Himmler of 7 July 1942 to Sievers and the SS Institute Ahnenerbe to support Hirt’s researches in every possible way.

4. The codefendant Rudolf Brandt does not know the contents of the decree of 1 March 1944, though he distinctly alludes to it in his affidavit, (_NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252_; _Tr. pp. 4941-42_.)

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT SIEVERS_

* * * * *

1. Lost gas experiments were carried out from November 1942 on by Professor Dr. Hirt in the Natzweiler concentration camp.

2. According to the statement of the witness Nales in the session of 30 April 1947, three experimental persons died. Other experimental persons are supposed to have suffered from severe burns.

3. Sievers did not personally participate in these experiments. The prosecution has submitted the following evidence to prove Sievers’ participation in the Lost gas experiments:

Letter of Sievers to Dr. Hirt of 17 January 1942 (_NO-791, Pros. Ex. 256_) concerning experiments with insecticides.

Letter of Dr. Hirt to the Ahnenerbe of 20 January 1942 (_NO-792, Pros. Ex. 257_) concerning answer to Sievers’ letter.

Sievers’ letter to Dr. Hirt of 9 April 1942 (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s treatises on intravital microscopy and Lost experiments.

Sievers’ letter to Dr. Brandt of 27 August 1942 (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259_) concerning the passing on of a message of Dr. Hirt on the results of Lost experiments.

Letter of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 2 June 1942 (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_) concerning Dr. Hirt’s report on Lost wounds. Experiments on human beings could not be made as Hirt was at the front.

Note of the Reich Business Manager of 3 November 1942 (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263_).

Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. R. Brandt of 22 April 1943—concerning release of Staff Physician Dr. Wimmer from the air force so that he can do further work with Dr. Hirt on Lost experiments. (_NO-193, Pros. Ex. 264._)

Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to Ministerial Councillor Dr. Goernert, of 9 June 1943—concerning Dr. Wimmer’s transfer. (_NO-195, Pros. Ex. 266._)

Certificate of the Institute for Military Scientific Research of 8 November 1943—concerning the sending of special rations of food to Dr. Wimmer and Frl. Schmitt. (_492-PS, Pros. Ex. 267._)

Proposed treatment of poison-gas injuries through Lost. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._)

Letter of the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe to Dr. Brandt of 9 February 1942—concerning forwarding Dr. Hirt’s report on his medicinal experiments and a microscope, which enables one to observe a living tissue. (_NO-085, Pros. Ex. 269._)

Letter of the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS to the Ahnenerbe of 10 March 1944—concerning the transmission of a Fuehrer Decree of 1 March 1944. (_NO-013, Pros. Ex. 272._) The Fuehrer Decree mentioned—of 1 March 1944—has not been submitted.

Letter of the Office “A” to Dr. R. Brandt of 11 April 1944 concerning Sievers’ report to SS Brigadefuehrer Prof. Dr. Brandt on the research work of Dr. Hirt. (_NO-015, Pros. Ex. 275._)

Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 11 September 1942 (_NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_) concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp.

Letter of Sievers to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks of 27 August 1942 concerning military scientific research in connection with the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481._)

Sievers’ memorandum concerning the carrying out of military scientific research in the Natzweiler concentration camp of 17 September 1942. (_NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482._)

The defense refers to the following evidence:

Lost experiments were carried out at the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. The experimental persons were cadets studying at this Academy. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260_; _Tr. p. 5679_; _Tr. pp. 8071-72_.) Professor Dr. Hirt, later Director of the Anatomical Institute at the University of Strasbourg, took part in carrying out these experiments. (_Tr. p. 5731._) Professor Hirt also carried out Lost experiments on himself. (_Tr. p. 5733._) Hitler then decreed that experiments were no longer to be carried out on cadets, as they were more important as soldiers. Himmler gave Dr. Hirt orders to carry out a few practical experiments on human beings in addition to his animal experiments. Then on 9 April 1942 Himmler asked Sievers, who in his discussion with him at Easter 1942 had also mentioned the research done by Professor Hirt, to ask the latter in writing to submit a secret report on his Lost experiments. (_NO-793, Pros. Ex. 258._) Hirt then gave this report to the Ahnenerbe, from where it was forwarded, with a letter on 2 June 1942 to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS. (_NO-097, Pros. Ex. 260._) The heading of this letter is remarkable: “Report on the Lost experiments carried out by order of the Wehrmacht.” Dr. Hirt mentions further on page four of the report that he submitted the written report on the results of his Lost experiments to the surgeon general who was his superior at that time. From this report, it is quite clear that experiments on human beings, with the exception of cadets, had not yet been carried out by Hirt. However, Dr. Hirt made a further short report, which the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe forwarded to the personal staff of the Reich Leader SS on 27 August 1942. (_NO-794, Pros. Ex. 259._)

In a letter of 13 July 1942 the Reich Leader SS ordered that Dr. Hirt should carry out the research work assigned to him in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._) Sievers set out for Natzweiler with Dr. Hirt at the end of August 1942 in order to ascertain whether the prerequisites existed. As is shown in Dr. Hirt’s report of 19 October 1942, nothing had yet happened besides the drafting of Oberscharfuehrer Walbert, the animal-keeper. The extension of the laboratories and stables had not yet begun. And now Dr. Hirt’s report continues:

“We were further informed that prisoners, who are later to be experimented on, would have to be paid by us while they are subjected to the experiment. For the prisoners in the L-experiment we propose that they are put on full diet (guards’ diet), so that the experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as would prevail with the troops in an actual case. To begin with we intend to take 10 prisoners for the experiment.” (_NO-098, Pros. Ex. 263._)

As Hirt reported in addition that the assignment of a second physician to the Natzweiler concentration camp would be difficult, Sievers was asked to participate in the efforts to obtain the release of Dr. Wimmer, surgeon captain of the air force, in order to make him assistant to Dr. Hirt, especially as the Reich Leader SS expressly wished that Dr. Wimmer’s transfer should take place as soon as possible. (_NO-194, Pros. Ex. 265._)

It was the duty of Sievers to deal with questions of billets, laboratory finance and similar matters. Therefore, in August and September 1942 he wrote to SS Brigadefuehrer Gluecks, who was responsible for the administration of the concentration camps. (_NO-935, Pros. Ex. 481_; _NO-977, Pros. Ex. 482_; _NO-978, Pros. Ex. 480_.) They contain only administrative matters.

How little Sievers knew about concentration camps is seen from Document NO-935. Sievers asks to be sent the exact address of the camp and of the commandant of Natzweiler. This letter is particularly worthy of notice.

As for the question whether and to what extent Sievers had knowledge of the performance of Lost experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp, the following can be stated:

Ferdinand Holl, witness for the prosecution, when giving evidence on 3 January 1947, said nothing about Sievers’ taking part in any way in the performance of the Lost experiments at the Natzweiler concentration camp. The experimenters were Dr. Hirt and officers of the Luftwaffe. The witness Holl did not mention Sievers at all. If Sievers, who wore SS uniform, had become known at all in connection with the Lost experiments, this witness would certainly have made some such statement, especially as he was dispensary assistant [Revierkapo] and prisoners’ guard in the so-called Ahnenerbe block in the Natzweiler concentration camp. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._)

The witness Grandjean too, who was at the Natzweiler concentration camp hospital as medical assistant from April 1944 on, knows nothing of Sievers’ presence at the Natzweiler concentration camp or of any connection between Sievers and the Lost experiments. (_Tr. p. 1099 ff._)

Sievers was in Natzweiler concentration camp on 25 January 1943 and also visited the barracks where the experimental persons for the Lost experiments were housed. Dr. Wimmer showed Sievers some of the experimental persons with their forearms in bandages. There were about 10 persons altogether who gave the impression of being quite lively. One of the experimental subjects was just having his bandage changed, and Sievers saw that the place being treated on the arm was covered with a scab. Dr. Wimmer reported nothing about fatal incidents. On the other hand, by questioning the experimental subjects himself, Sievers found that they volunteered for those experiments after a lecture by Professor Hirt. Sievers also learned that from Dr. Hirt himself, who at the end of the experiments confirmed that he had sent to the camp commandant a report on the good behavior of the prisoners with a recommendation for their release. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The lecture which Hirt had previously delivered to the experimental persons is also confirmed by the witness Holl. (_German Tr. pp. 1051-1059._) This was the only visit Sievers paid to the experimental subjects of the Lost experiments. After 25 January 1943 Sievers never went to Natzweiler again. This is already known from his diary entries.

Sievers attached a certain danger to the experiments, but, not being a physician, he was in no position to judge exactly from the experiments and the way in which they were carried out whether there was reason to be prepared for fatal results. In March 1943 Sievers asked Dr. Hirt whether any experimental subjects had died. Hirt admitted two deaths which, he remarked, however, had no connection with the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._)

The statement of the witness Nales, heard in the session of 30 April 1947, deserves special attention. This witness confirmed that the experimental subjects who had reported for the “Burning Experiments” were _volunteers_. The witness thereby confirmed Sievers’ statement of 10 April 1947. (_German Tr. pp. 5732-33._) The witness admitted under cross-examination that Professor Dr. Hirt, as well as the SS camp physician, explained to the experimental subjects the nature of the planned experiments. It may be that the SS camp physician did not precisely state the actual danger of the experiments. But it may certainly be supposed that Dr. Hirt described the nature of the planned experiments more closely in his instructions, which are also confirmed by the witness Holl. Here Sievers had just as little to do with the choice of experimental subjects as in all the other cases. He was present neither at the lecture of the camp physician nor at that of Dr. Hirt. He could and had to rely on what Dr. Hirt told him concerning the question of volunteering.

4. In the case in question, Sievers was again not in a position to give instructions or orders on the carrying out of the Lost experiments. Neither did he do so. In as far as he came into contact with the Lost experiments, he only forwarded correspondence and did subordinate administrative work, which had no decisive or important influence on the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt.

5. The knowledge that the experiments could exceed certain limits or become inhuman existed neither before they began nor in the course of the experiments.

We still have to examine whether Sievers did not receive, through some report or other, more exact knowledge of the course of the experiments. As a result of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and Dr. Wimmer, the “Proposed Treatment of Poison-Gas Injuries Caused by Lost” was produced. (_NO-099, Pros. Ex. 268._) From this report nothing at all is to be learned of the course of the experiments in its effect on the experimental subjects. Since no further report exists, the correctness of Sievers’ statement must be accepted, according to which he knew no more of the Lost experiments than what he had seen and heard himself at Natzweiler. There was nothing in that to make him believe in criminal experiments.

This must also form the basis for the judging of Documents NO-195 and NO-015, Prosecution Exhibits 266 and 275. Sievers could only give information on what he knew. By virtue of his own observation of the information which he had received from Dr. Hirt and the correspondence submitted here, Sievers could only give information on the subject of the experiments carried out by Dr. Hirt and the circumstances under which they were carried out. It is also quite absurd to suppose that anyone who himself had detailed knowledge of the course of the experiments would have been used to pass on information. In his letter to Dr. Rudolf Brandt of 11 April 1944, Sievers further stated that on 31 March he had given a report to SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt on the research work of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Professor Dr. Hirt. The contents of this so-called report were reproduced by Dr. Karl Brandt in his examination on 4 November 1947. According to that, Sievers only stated that he had been commissioned by order of Himmler to hand over to him the final report on Lost by Dr. Hirt. But Sievers said nothing about being commissioned to discuss the contents with Dr. Karl Brandt. No discussion took place between Dr. Karl Brandt and Sievers on the performance of the experiments. This was the “report” from which the prosecution believes it can draw the conclusion that Sievers had detailed knowledge of the Lost experiments. (_German Tr. pp. 2365-66._)

The question still arises, whether Sievers, as a result of the report made by Hirt on 8 March 1944 to the Reich Leader SS, was not aware of deaths in connection with the Lost experiments. Hirt’s report did not disclose anything from which one could conclude that a special endangering of the experimental subjects was involved. Moreover Hirt declared that he could arrive at further results only through experiments on animals. (_German Tr. p. 5734._)

Finally, an opinion is expressed in regard to the possible assertion of the prosecution that the application of intravital microscopy constituted a crime against humanity. The intravital microscope used by Dr. Hirt could only be used on animals. (_Tr. p. 5734._) Letter from the firm of Zeiss of 13 January 1947. (_Sievers 9, Sievers Ex. 10_; _Tr. p. 5879_; _Sievers 55, Sievers Ex. 51_.) That intravital microscopic experiments were carried out on human beings by Dr. Hirt was not testified to by any of the witnesses and also cannot be seen from any document. If this had been the case, it certainly would have become known to third parties through experimental subjects or records.

6. Sievers had neither the power nor the opportunity to prevent the Lost experiments or to stop them. Sievers could in no way hinder the course of experiments against Himmler’s order.

7. Under these circumstances Sievers could not have become guilty of criminal negligence either.

* * * * *