VOLUME II

NUERNBERG OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. — Price $2.75 (Buckram)

CONTENTS

_The Medical Case_

(Introductory material and basic directives under which trials were conducted together with Chapters I-VIII-E of Medical Case are printed in Volume I.)

Page VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case (cont’d) 1 F. Necessity 1 G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties 44 H. Usefulness of the Experiments 61 I. Medical Ethics 70 1. General Principles 70 2. German Medical Profession 86 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries 90 IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment 122 X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius 123 XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 138 XII. Judgment 171 The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 172 The Charge 173 Count One 173 Count Two and Three 174 Count Four 180 The Proof as to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity 181 Permissible Medical Experiments 181 The Medical Service in Germany 184 The Ahnenerbe Society 188 Karl Brandt 189 Handloser 198 Rostock 208 Schroeder 210 Genzken 217 Gebhardt 223 Blome 228 Rudolf Brandt 235 Mrugowsky 241 Poppendick 248 Sievers 253 Rose 264 Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz 272 Brack 277 Becker-Freyseng 281 Schaefer 285 Hoven 286 Beiglboeck 290 Pokorny 292 Oberheuser 294 Fischer 296 Sentences 298 XIII. Petitions 301 XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation 327 XV. Order of the United States Supreme Court Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 330 Appendix 331 Table of Comparative Ranks 331 List of Witnesses in Case 1 332 Index of Documents and Testimony 336

_The Milch Case_

Introduction 355 Order Constituting Tribunal 357 Members of Military Tribunal II 359 Prosecution Counsel 359 Defense Counsel 359 I. Indictment 360 II. Arraignment 365 III. Opening Statements 366 A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution 366 B. Opening Statement for the Defense 377 IV. Selections from the Documents and Testimony of Witnesses of Prosecution and Defense 385 A. Slave Labor 385 1. General Slave Labor Program in Germany 385 2. The Central Planning Board 444 3. The Jaegerstab 524 4. Generalluftzeugmeister 596 B. Medical Experiments 623 C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony of the Defendant Milch 633 V. Closing Statements 690 A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution 690 B. Closing Statement of the Defense 730 VI. Final Statement of the Defendant, 25 March 1947 772 VII. Judgment 773 A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II 773 B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno 797 C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips 860 VIII. Petitions 879 A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military Governor of United States Zone of Occupation 879 B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for Writ of Habeas Corpus 883 IX. Affirmation of Sentence by the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation 887 X. Order of the United States Supreme Court, 20 October 1947, Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 888 Appendix 889 List of Witnesses in Case 2 889 Index of Documents and Testimony 891

VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE—Continued

F. Necessity

a. Introduction

The defense generally argued that the medical experiments took place because of military necessity or the national emergency presented by war. The defendant Sievers argued that his participation in various experiments was a necessary part of his participation in a resistance movement in Germany. The defendant Hoven argued that the concentration camp inmates, who were killed by him or with his approval and knowledge, were selected by the camp leadership which had been formed by the political inmates themselves. Hoven also argued that the inmates killed were all dangerous criminals who collaborated voluntarily with the SS, and if they would not have been removed, the political inmates would have been exterminated by these criminals and by the SS. He concluded that it was therefore necessary, in order to prevent greater harm, either to kill these “stool pigeons” personally or to give his approval for their extermination.

On the argument of military necessity and national emergency, extracts from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt are included on pages 5 to 12. On the general question of necessity, extracts are included from the examination of the defendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring on pages 29 to 30, and from the cross-examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy on pages 42 to 44. The prosecution discussed the general question of necessity in its opening statement.

The argument of the defendant Sievers that his participation was necessary in connection with resistance to the Nazi leadership appears in his final plea, an extract from which is given on pages 13 to 25. From the evidence supporting the claim of Sievers, extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich Hielscher are included on pages 30 to 41. The prosecution’s reply to Sievers’ special defense was made, in part, in the prosecution’s closing statement, an extract of which appears on pages 4 to 5. The argument of the defendant Hoven that the killing of concentration camp inmates, of which he was accused, was justifiable homicide appears in his final plea, an extract of which is set forth on pages 25 to 28. The prosecution’s reply to this special defense is set forth in the closing brief against the defendant Hoven, an extract of which will be found on pages 2 to 4.

b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HOVEN_

* * * * *

(Hoven) tried to justify the killings [of concentration camp inmates] by stating that these inmates were informers, spies, and stool pigeons of the SS and therefore had to be exterminated. He said that if they had been permitted to carry on with their activities, the illegal camp management would have been wiped out and the criminal inmates in the camp would have gained the upper hand. Hoven’s attempt at justification for the killing of inmates of concentration camps is, of course, no defense. It may well be true that Hoven sympathized and even collaborated with the illegal camp management. It may also be true that some of his victims may have been killed by him on the basis of suggestions put forward by this illegal camp management. But it goes without saying that these political prisoners, who instigated the murder of their opponents, were in no position to judge whether it was really necessary to kill them for the sake of the camp community. They only judged this emergency from their own point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the benefit of themselves. Hoven himself had no judgment at all in this respect and simply made himself the willing and bought tool of a small clique in the camp, who undoubtedly often tried to eliminate not only persons whose activities were considered detrimental to the well-being of their fellow inmates, but also personal opponents and enemies. That Hoven was corrupted by the inmates and paid for his murders is proved by the testimony of several witnesses.

Kogon testified:

“I can only conclude that both motives, the political motive and the motive of corruption, were active in the case of Dr. Hoven. _If Dr. Hoven expressed any desire—and he expressed many desires—then these wishes were always filled._” (_Tr. p. 1213._)

“_He himself expressed many wishes constantly and all possible advantages were given him by such people whom he had saved._” (_Tr. p. 1214._)

Kirchheimer testified to the same effect. (_Tr. p. 1346._) The defense witness Pieck painted pictures for Hoven and his family, and the defense witness Horn in his affidavit stated that Hoven was very corrupt. The prisoners knew it and they corrupted him in every possible manner and made him gifts of furniture, underwear, and food. There were periods in which complete workshops were erected for Hoven in which thirty or more inmates were working.

Pieter Schalker testified before the Dutch Bureau for the Investigation of War Crimes in Amsterdam that Hoven played an exceptionally evil role and had innumerable deaths on his conscience owing to completely inadequate medical attention. In later years, when it became obvious that Germany would be defeated, he changed his attitude towards the inmates. (_NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328._) When Schalker was interrogated by the commissioner of the Tribunal on the motion of defense counsel, he amplified his statement by saying that Hoven stole the food which was furnished for the experimental subjects in Block 46 and also obtained other items such as shoes, toys, and women’s clothing.

The testimony of the affiant Ackermann, who was an inmate in the pathological department under Hoven, proves that Hoven participated in the customary brutal crimes in concentration camps. He said—

“Dr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of the pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known to me, who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr. Hoven said to me: ‘I want to see the skull of this prisoner on my writing desk by tomorrow evening.’ The prisoner was ordered to report to the medical section, after the physician had noted down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was delivered on the same day to the dissection room. The postmortem examination showed that the prisoner had been killed by injections. The skull was prepared as ordered and delivered to Dr. Hoven.” (_NO-2631, Pros. Ex. 522._)

Hoven also approved the beating of concentration camp inmates. (_NO-2313, Pros. Ex. 523_; _NO-2312, Pros. Ex. 524._) One of these inmates died.

On 20 August 1942, Hoven suggested to the camp commander of Buchenwald that the reporting of deaths of Russian political prisoners be discontinued in order to save paper. He said—

“It is requested that the question should be examined whether it is necessary to issue reports of the death of political Russians. According to a direction issued last week, an issue of only one form was required. This may effect a saving of paper, but as political Russians are for the greatest number among the dead prisoners at the present time, more time and paper could be saved if these death reports were dropped. Notifications of death could be made as before, as for the Russian prisoners of war.” (_NO-2148, Pros. Ex. 570._)

The proof has shown that beside the sixty inmates who were admittedly killed by him, Hoven participated in the killing of many other inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp who suffered from malnutrition and exhaustion. He selected the victims for the transports who were later killed in the Bernburg Euthanasia Station. His defense that all his activities were done only for the benefit of the political inmates in the concentration camp is clearly ridiculous and without foundation.

It is interesting to note that Hoven’s defense that he killed for idealistic motives is the same he used in the proceedings against him in 1944, only then his alleged idealistic motive was “to prevent a scandal in the interest of the SS and the Wehrmacht.” (_NO-2380, Pros. Ex. 527_; see also, _NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526_.)

* * * * *

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION_[1]

* * * * *

In Sievers we have an unresisting member of a so-called resistance movement. He asks the Tribunal to free him from guilt for his bloody crimes on the ground that he was really working as an anti-Nazi resistance agent. Nor was he a latecomer to the resistance movement; according to him, he has been resisting since 1933. Yet in those 14 years, yes to this very day, he has not performed one overt act against the men who ran the system he now professes to have always detested. He joined the Nazi Party as early as 1929 and the SS in 1935. He stayed with Himmler’s gang until the last days of the collapse. He came to Nuernberg in 1946, not to give evidence of the horrible crimes of which he had first-hand knowledge, but to testify in defense of the SS. During his testimony before the International Military Tribunal, he consistently denied any knowledge of, or connection with, crimes committed by the Ahnenerbe of the SS. It was left to the cross-examination of Mr. Elwyn Jones to prove him the murderer and perjurer that he is. Nor did he show any signs of resistance in this trial except to the manifold crimes with which he is charged. Not one new fact did he reveal to this Tribunal, although specifically asked to tell all he knew. If asked today, he will assure one and all that there is not a guilty man in the dock, and least of all himself. But, for purposes of argument, let us concede the truth of his many lies. It does not harm our case. It is not the law that a resistance worker can commit no crime and, least of all, against the people he is supposed to be protecting. It is not the law that an undercover agent, even an FBI agent, can join a gang of murderers, lay the plans with them, execute the killings, share the loot, and go his merry way. Many are the policemen who have been convicted for taking part in crimes they were entrusted to prevent. No, the sad thing is that this collector of living Jews for transformation into skeletons has only one life with which to pay for his many crimes.

* * * * *