Out of all rapport with their environment and the human community, utterly incapable of moral thinking, they stand at an intellectual level that animals often achieve. Dependent on outside help, even in the most primitive everyday matters, they are divorced from the human community by the nature and consequences of their affliction, with no prospects of improvement, to say nothing of cure.
The concept of redeeming these empty human shells from their misery is not a modern one.
As early as 1516 the English Lord Chancellor, the Renaissance philisopher, Thomas More, inbued with the spirit of Humanism, made in his book "Utopia" proposals for Christian reform of State and society which, although limited by his ago, were nevertheless meant very seriously. Among them were also proposals for a gentle mercy death which the church and State could grant the insane person for humane reasons.
Philosophers, legal scholars, doctors, and theologians have since then concerned themselves with this problem which is known today under the name "euthanasia". The have thrown light on the question of the justification in destroying so-called "life unworthy of being lived" from the most diverse points of view, have affirmed that justification and denied it.
Not only in Germany but also in Franco, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, England and America, liberal socialists and free masonry circles the concept has found further and further dissemination.
Long before the advent of National Socialism, German literature produced a number of books with a positive orientation toward applying euthanasia to the incurably insane.
Let me draw your attention to the writings on monistic ethics in the period before the First World War and to Exhibit 496, which the prosecution itself termed the standard work, the book of one of the most renowned German scholars on criminal law of the last century, Binding, and of the highly esteemed Professor of Psychiatry at Freiburg University, Hoche: The title is "The Admissibility of Destroying Life Unworthy ob Being Lived."
2) From these few references it can be seen that the question of euthanasia for the incurably insane has been discussed and propagated for quite awhile by men whose human and liberal attitude and whose juridical and Christian orientation cannot in any way be doubted. It cannot be wondered at that the Catholic Church has opposed euthanasia. It holds unswervingly to the principle that the State cannot permit itself such an action without offending the precepts of religion. But for it characteristically enough it is not the question of humanity but the viewpoint of the sanctity of life that is decisive. It is a fact that needs no proof that the church and the State have frequently come into conflict over such problems and that the church, although still struggling against the laws of the State, has finally yielded, and this not only in Germany.
The history of this problem has also sufficiently proved that the question of euthanasia has been passionately affirmed by its adherents for ethical reasons, and has been denied fanatically by its opponents, likewise for ethical reasons. Both, adherents and opponents, cite in their behalf the precepts of humanity.
The antiethical reasons adduced by the two sides are the perfectly understandable consequence of the various attitudes on the part of men, States, and peoples to the question of Humanity as has been demonstrated to us not only in wartime, but equally, in the post-war period.
"Humanity" does not arise in us as Heraclitus portrays it in his philosophy, from the "koinos kai theies loges" of which everyone has a part in his sould a priori, through his contact with the absolute world. Even today the concept has not yet been clearly defined in positive law as the final deposit of an absolute legal idea -- this is particularly true in international law-- and such a definition would probably also bo lacking in the future.
3) The prosecution discussed most exhaustively all the individual directives and measures within the framework of ehtenasia.
In the course of presentation of evidence -- I refer to the testimony of the witness Schmidt -- it was ascertained that Brack had nothing to do with the working of the Reich Commitee for Children with Heredity and Constitutional Afflictions. I can therefore dispense with discussing this point, the more so since the same points of view are here valid, perhaps to an even greater extent, as in the question of euthanasia for the incurably insane.
On page 30 I go on about this point.
As regards the latter, Brack has not denied his participation.
4) The treatment of this matter during the presentation of evidence was only necessary in order to refute the prosecution's charge that Brack was the loading man in the euthanasia program. The defense has brought proof to the contrary.
Reichsleiter Bouhler, according to Hitler's decree, was responsible for carrying out euthenasia. There is documentary proof of this responsibility in Karl-BrandtExhibit 4 a and 4 b. Everything that Brack did he did only as Bouhler's deputy, whose orders he carried out.
His position in the euthanasia program did not even correspond to that of an assistant and was loss important than that of a general secretary who is the administrative official in a government office. Brack's position was altogether subordinate. He had no right to make any independent decisions. He was not the liaison man for the T 4, as the prosecution claimed. Brack's position, which was described by the prosecution as so important, must not bo over-estimated, even though outsiders have sometimes judged it incorrectly; Rather it must bo placed in its proper proportion on the basis of the true facts as determined during the presentation of evidence.
5) Euthenasia, your Honor, is a question of conscience Every official activity achieves its inner moaning only through the philisophic idea that informs it. The essential ethical attitude of a person can only be recognized and adjudged on a metaphysical basis. Brack's motives that induced him to participate in the euthenasia program for the incurably insane was deepest pity for these most wretched human creatures, whose delivery from suffering is a desirable thing from a humane point of view, as the witness Leibrand could not deny.
So, and only in this way, can and must Brack's activity in euthanasia and his acceptance of it to be evaluated. He did not accept it lightheartedly but only after the most thorough study of literature on the question and after personally seeing mental institutions and their unfortunate inmates.
Brack's actions were not determined by social theories or considerations of expediency such as were ascribed to him with the purely fictitious phrase about "doing away with useless eaters. He was guided by purely ethical considerations which provided his conscience, after careful security, with objectively valid norms. Brack has stated them comprehensively in his final remarks on the euthanasia problem, and submitted his theories to the verdict of public opinion in the film "I accuse".
6) However many as the grounds may be delege ferenda for the justification of euthanasia for the incurably insane, reference to such grounds would still, for lack of legal basis, be of no importance de lege late. The premeditated and deliberate killing of a human being remains murder if it is done for ethical reasons.
Brack can therefore not be denied his general criminal responsibility for his participation in euthanasia unless he has some grounds which exonerate him.
In justification of his acts Brack cited Hitler's declaration of 1 September 1939, of the contents of which, as well as the oral explanations given at the time, Bouhler informed the defendant Brack when giving him the assignment to participate in the preparatory measures for euthanasia for the incurably insane. Brack did not make it clear that he contrued Hitler's declaration as a Fuehrer decree" which obligated him to carry out Bouhler's assignment. The question with which the I.M.T. concerned itself so deeply, regarding the importance to be attached to this defense, can therefore be left out of consideration in this defense of Brack.
But the defendant Brack did claims that he, like associate and all other persons involved, regarded Hitler's assignment as a completely valid legal basis for carrying out euthanasia, and also considered Hitler justified in issuing such a decree with force of law.
7) Therefore Brack's defense culminates in the fundamental question of whether Hitler's declaration of intentions of 1 September 1939 can be considered such a legally unobjectable state act which eliminated the injustice of killing a human being inherent de lege lata in euthanasia of the insane.
The treatment of the question in this room encounters great difficulties insofar as there is not only considerable ignorance of certain peculiarities of the German position in constitutional matters but above all a great difference between continental European and transatlantic jurists in constitutional and legal thinking. Law and morals have for centuries been sharply differentiated on the European continent in juristic and above all in legislative thinking, in contrast to the states across the ocean, This historical fact must be taken into consideration, for only then can the realization be reached that in a question of German constitutional law only that development can be decisive which legal training has had in Germany in deviations from the constitutional law of the Weimar republic since the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 and the Head of the State law of 1 August 1939.
With these laws Hitler was given all authority as head of the state and chief of the government, in full knowledge of the Fuehrer principle which had been in operation for over a year, with approval by the plebiscite of 19 August 1934.
From this time on Hitler incorporated the will of the people and the resulting functions. He had thus become the Supreme Legislator of the Reich.
A concluding resolution of the Reichstag was only the confirmation of his primary declaration of his will.
Among the independent promulgations of laws, which were represented as direct emanations of his authority, the declarations of Hitler's will were at first called "decree" and later uniformly "Fuehrer decree" assumed the most important role. In them the distinction, still customary under the Weimar constitution, between legislative and executive is overcome, as Hitler proclaimed in his Reichstag speech of 30 January 1937 in the words: "There is only one legislative power and one executive." Therefore the decrees united material law with organizational measures and administrative directives, especially insofar as they were addressed only to a group of person gathered together in a certain community. Proclamation in the Reich Law Gazette (Reichsgesetzblatt), countersigning by the competent departmental minister of later the competent chancery chief no longer played a decisive role in 1937. The Fuehrer principle was already in full operation at this time. It no longer tolerated the dependence of the authority to promulgate original laws which was granted to the Fuehrer by the plebiscite of 1934 on the observance of formal regulations. The only decisive thing that remained was the fact of proclamation of the will of the Fuehrer, not its form. Hitler's decree of 1 September 1939 addressed to Brandt and Bouhler, was therefore in form a legally quite acceptable state act of the head of the state.
My result in the examination of the development in legal history of the Fuehrer principle in the Third Reich agrees with the testimony of the witnesses Lammers, Engert and Best. This testimony is underlined by the standpoint of the Reich Minister of Justice Guertner and Schlegelberger as representatives of supreme Reich authorities, as transmitted to us by Lammers and Engert. Finally, it is affirmed by University Professor Dr. Hermann Jahrreiss, who a few days ago dealt with the questions arising in this connection in great detail and exhaustively in the jurist's trial before Military Tribunal 111.
I may ask the high Tribunal in judging this legal question to consider these statements.
8) Brack was convinced of the legality of this decree, on the basis not only of juridical but also other effective indications of much more significant independent steps taken by Hitler in domestic and foreign policy.
Brack's conviction, that of a non-jurist, of the legality of the Fuehrer decree, based on the explanations and information of his juristic associates and the concurrent or at least now dissenting statements of the highest representatives of the Reich Justice authorities at the meeting of General Public Prosecutors on 23 April 1941 (Brack Exh. 36) can therefore not be doubted. Even if you deny the legal validity to the Hitler Decree, though I regard it as valid, Brack committed a legal error at least as far the particular legal position of Hitler within the State is concerned, according to which Decree is otherwise illegal activities are to be excused. This legal error is suitable to abolish his guilt or at least the grave guilt of intention. According to German law valid at the time of commission this question is to be answered absolutely in the affirmative. According to that, a so-called error outside of criminal law - which is indeed the error about the legal validity of the Decree of 1 September 1939 - excludes the unlawful character which is an essential of the term intention.
9) Of course, the law giver set limits to the exercise of the powers of the Fuehrer. The limits were, where his acts were no longer in accordance with general human feeling. Human feeling, however, does not root in logos, as said afore.
Its limits are found generally, and within the framework of Euthanasia in particular, not to be absolute, but to use a word of Herakleitos, "pant's rhei", vague -after all what has been said during this trial about the history of Euthanasia and the arguments of the religious, ethical and legal opinions.
The contents of the Decree didn't mean anything basically new and alien. A definitely limited number of experts was in a coutious way entrusted with the judgment of that, which in the course of the years has repeatedly been discussed and demanded by competent people, as doctors, lawyers and philanthropes.
The State as well as the Church have recognized exceptions to the divine prohibition to kill for the cases of death sentences and killings in battle. A general decision on the problem of Euthanasia, which never rested during the course of thousands of years, was evidently not the intention of the Decree.
Moreover he created only the personal mitigating circumstances of the not existing conscience of illegality, as far as the men mentioned therein, and the persons, whom they used for the execution of their order acted in conformity with the individual instructions of the decree. The decree therefore neither transgress against the limits that universal moral law has set.
10) Brack according to his entire ethical attitude towards the problem of euthanasia was of the opinion that he acted in accordance with the laws of humaneness. He know that the concept of humaneness can be contrued variously from various points of view. He pointed out during the presentation of his evidence that the Christian concept of humanity is different from that of the modern champion of the euthanasia idea and that humanity is cited not only by theologians but also by atheist members of a compassionate humanity. Brack believed in good faith that in his acts he was not only carrying out a legal decree of Hitler but was behaving in accordance with the presents of humanity.
For the opponents of euthanasia to grant this good faith to the ever ready and honest man Brack does not mean that the opponent is relinquishing his own point of view, but is an expression of a most lofty sense of justice.
11) The duty to maintain securecy which Brack and all the other participants in the in the euthanasia measures were under does nothing to change this. The prosecution's assumption that this betrayed Hitler's innormost consciousness of the illegality of his decree has not been confirmed. Secret decrees were by no means appearances under Hitler's rule, From the, very beginning on Brack repeatedly made efforts with Bouhler to have the secrecy lifted because it was with out purpose and led to difficulties. Shortly after the inception of euthanasia the fact of it was known to large segments of the population and had become an open secret in the fertile ground of which roumors sprouted like weeds. Consequently even at the beginning of 1940 Brack emphatically demanded the issuing of a formal Reich law, on the grounds that euthanasia for the incurably insame was, in its effects and extent, a matter concerning the nation and the public. He personally worked on the draft of this law.
The rejection of the signing of a formal Reichstag law by Hitler is perhaps the most striking evidence that ground for secrecy assumed in the indictment cannot be correct, but that other reasons must have been the motivating factors. Whether these considerations of war policy or other processes of thought were decisive for Hitler did net come to Brack's knowledge. Not the least important reason for Brack's creating the film "I accuse" was to induce Hitler to repeal the secrecy regulation. The legal arguments which I could give at much greater lenght on the question of the Fuehrer decree of 1 September 1939 and Brack's criminal responsibility would overstep the time at my disposal. I have consequently attached the legal opinion of University Professor Dr. Karl Engisch of Heidelberg once more to my written plea for the information of the Tribunal.
This document was not admitted in evidence as an exhibit for Brack during the presentation of my case. I expressly refer to this explanation and ask that you make it the subjects of your deliberations in arriving at your judgment.
In his opening speech General Taylor pointed out that the application of Euthanasia to non-Germans would not have been permissible even if there had been a law in force in Germany.
The evidence proved that, according to the various statements of witnesses, Euthanasia was confined to German mental patients. Foreigners, foreign nationals, as well as Jews, were expressly excluded. It could not be proved by the evidence that such persons were subjected to Euthanasia before it was stopped in August 1941. Consequently, the contrary has to be regarded as proved. The decree and its execution, therefore were strictly confined to the limits imposed on Germany by the generally valid principles of the law of nations or by international agreement.
General Taylor in his opening speech admitted the enactment of legally valid principles about Euthanasia in countries outside of Germany; condition that would merely be the maintenance of certain safeguards. Such safeguards were provided for sufficiently by the detailed filling out of questionnaires and by expertizing the questionnaires according to medical points of view; issue of directives to the experts on the basis of expert-medical consultations; appointment of experts and top experts; personal observation of the insane in the institutions and asylums like the Euthanasia institutions; consultation of the Administrative health agencies of the Reich Ministry of the Interior; and by the right of appeal of every physician participating in the procedure, right down to the last Euthanasia doctor.
With these criteria of Euthanasia, closely bound with the critical judgment of the individual case, all prerequisites seemed to be given according to Brack's point of view, - to guarantee a safe and orderly procedure of Euthanasia. Brack was assidously anxious to make sure they were obeyed according to the Bouhler directive.
Brack felt it as deeply regrettable when, in spite of all that, abuses became apparent here and there. It was beyond his powers and ca pacity to prevent them.
Decisive for him was: the thought, vorn out of compassion, to release the poor creatures from their sufferings painlessly and unnoticed by themselves, provided medical expertizing has made sure that he was incurable and therefore, though he did, didn't lack not every sense of life, but had lost every will to live because his mind and soul were buried. To Brack it seemed to run counter the dignity of man to live a life unworthy to live only for the sake of the will to exist.
In my Closing Brief I have assembled all the arguments with regard to the charge of SS membership, which arc appropriate to refute also this point of the Indictment. I herewith refer to it.
I am at the end of the critical evaluation of my argument. The case of Brack is a very problematic case. The defense fully recognizes the weight and the importance of pro and contra. After a collaboration of several months I was in a position to acquire a complete picture of Brack's personality. I believe in his humaneness and in his sincerity, and I consider him unable to have ever pursued destructive aims. It is the principle recognized in the American concept of freedom that every person accused of a. crime has to be considered innocent, until the proof of his guilt has been established through the evidence that is beyond every reasonable doubt. Taking everything into consideration, I can think of no more appropriate words to define the considerations that should form the basis for the verdict in this case than those uttered by Judge Phillips, when, at the conclusion he voiced his opinion in the verdict against the defendant Erhardt Milch in the proceedings before Military Tribunal II, as follows: "When a preeminent American jurist was applying this God-given principle of freedom he spoke as follows: 'If after considering and weighing the entire evidence you find that your thoughts are confused, your convictions shaken as in a storm, and that your judgment, like the dove in the Flood, finds no resting place, then, the law states, you must acquit.' ".
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear from counsel for defendant Pokorny.
May it please the Tribunal, a few weeks ago the Defendant Dr. Adolf P o k o r n y was on the witness stand here and made an explicit statement about his letter to Himmler in October 1941, document No. NO-035, exhibit No. 142.
The High Tribunal could learn from the statements of the defendant Dr. Pokorny that he states the true motive of his letter to have been to prevent Himmler from carrying out an intended crime on humanity, in putting him on a false trail and offering him, in the plant Caladium seguinum, a drug for the purpose of sterilization which neither suitable for single cases nor for general use for sterilization or castration.
During the Trial and, particularly after the presentation of evidence for the Defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny, I have been repeatedly asked what is my attitude to the motive stated by Dr. Adolf Pokorny and what I think about it.
I, as his defense counsel had to consider that the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny, from the beginning, as well as during interrogations, as also during the whole time of this trial, has repeatedly emphasized that the actual motive of his letter was contrary to the objective contents of the letter.
I had to consider that the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny characterized the witness T r u x the reason already in spring 1942 as the real motive which he submitted here to the High Tribunal. That was at a time when no indictment was in view for him yet. The witness Trux stated this in the course of the presentation of evidence under oath to the High Tribunal.
I had to consider that the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny stated a number of medical reasons from which claims to have drawn the conclusions when writing his letter that it was impossible to carry out a sterilization or a castration with Caladium seguinum. I have not had that much medical training that I could understand in detail in how far those purely medical reasons could actually convince the physician of the impossibility of the use of Caladium seguinum for sterilization or castration.
But I have understood that there were only two actual possibilities for sterilization or castration in 1941/1942, that the surgical one and the one carried out by X-ray. All methods of sterilization or castration by drugs, such as drugs, hormones, lack of vitamin-E, etc., were only theoretical possibilities which only could be obtained under big difficulties with a small laboratory animal and could not in any way be transmitted to the human being.
I understand that the most impossible, the most hopeless and the least consolidate procedure was a sterilization or castration with the Plant Caladium seguinum. I understand that in addition to that there were the extra medical reasons, such as the difficulties of the cultivation, the gaining of the plant extract, the establishing of hot houses and everything else. It is therefore not absurd to think that a doctor could believe that nothing could happen with Caladium.
I also understand that the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny thought his proposal rather safe from a discovery, even though it was impossible to carry out, because a doctor has a certain superiority to a layman like Himmler and only medical people and botanists could recognize the unsuitability of his proposal from the beginning. The actual course of things has proved, as shown by document Pokorny No. 24, exhibit No. 24 that the botanist Professor Wuenzelburg, to whom the letter of the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny was given for his expert opinion, at once pointed out the impossibility to carry out this proposal. Only Himmler, who apparently was attracted to anything medical which departed from the sound and normal school medicine, thought it necessary to follow this project and wast time with it. The fact of this method of thinking by Himmler was not unknown, and the defendant Dr. Pokorny states, and counted upon it, thinking that the letter would have its effect and that, on the other hand, his real motive could not have been so easily proved by the rulers of that time.
I finally had to consider that the defendant Dr. Pokorny was neither a member of the MSDAP, nor one of its organizations, and, because of his education, his social connections and his family ties, could not have been a "yes-man" of the Third Reich, but everything speaks for it that he, who had neither relations nor organizatory connections to the rulers of the Third Reich or their organizations, was an opponent, if not oven a political persecutee. Based upon these facts, which cannot be considered as subsequent constructions or excuses, the defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny stated his motives to the High Tribunal and he hopes that the High Tribunal will believe him under these circumstances. It can be held against him that this letter, which must have been written for the very purpose for which it has obviously been written, proves his real general attitude towards life and that everything else is nothing but an excuse. But, so many things have happened between Heaven and Earth which appear unbelievable, but are true nevertheless that it can be thought worth considering by the objective observer of this state of affairs whether the motive stated in the letter is the correct one or whether the motive stated by the defendant Dr. Pokorny might be really the true one.
In this connection it must be borne in mind that the proceedings during the trial brought out the fact that, what the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, heard, as he says, from a security service man about a planned mass extermination, was actually true, and that a plan was ready as early as 28 March 1941 daily to sterilize 3-4 thousand people with an X-ray plant consisting of 20 machines, as is shown in document NO-203; exhibit No. 161.
Furthermore it is known to the court that as early as 1941 the mass extermination of Jews was in full swing in Auschwitz and in other camps, and that Himmler's plan for mass extermination thus was in full execution, From an objective point of view the evidence in this connection established the fact that no experiments could have been undertaken on human beings with the drug proposed by Dr. Adolf Pokorny, and that furthermore this plant, caladium seguinum is completely unfit to carry out sterilization as well as castration in the real sense of these words.
We must further not consider the hypothetic possibility that one could kill the generative faculty of a human being by means of a general poisoning with caladium seguinum, since this is possible, too, by starvation, or by using caffeine, or other drugs. Such means were not specific sterilizations like the ones planned by Himmler who wanted to kill the generative faculty, but retain the ability to work; these means would have been identical to extermination, as it was carried out much more easily and quickly in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Maidanek and Lublin.
As for the detailed explanations of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny about his motives, I should like to ask the High Tribunal together them from his testimony and his affidavit, document Pokorny No. 29, exhibit No. 29, and from my closing brief.
I do not want to quote them in detail, but rather turn now to legal considerations as they come up in the case of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny.
It is an established fact that the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, wrote the letter of October 1941 to Himmler. Control Council Law No. 10 is the legal basis for the legal classification of this letter. This law contains legal abstractions, as for example, the abstraction of murder, of being a culprit, of aiding and abetting the culprit, of planning, and so forth. How these legal abstractions, however, are to be interpreted to suit the special case, and, above all what their definition is, cannot be drawn from Control Council Law No. 10. We know from the definitions of the German criminal law who is considered to be a culprit, what is to be understood under the term attempt, and so forth. However, it is not immediately sure, whether or not those abstractions are also applicable to Control Council Law No. 10. Furthermore, nearly every case is different, and the question will have to be answered over and over again, if this or that fact is to subsumed under the provision of the Control Council Law.
It is my opinion that for the terms "culprit" and "attempt", used in Control Council haw No. 10, the definitions of German criminal laws should be applied.
Control council Law No. 10 was made in co-operation by all four occupying powers. It represents, therefore, spiritually a uniform entity. On the other hand, the interpretation of the above mentioned legal abstractions is different in the criminal law systems of each of the occupying powers. Murder, being a culprit, aiding and abetting the culprit, and planning, to mention these examples only, are definded differently in AngloAmerican criminal laws than in the Russian or French criminal law systems.
If in each zone of occupation the interpretation were to take place in accordance with the criminal law system of the occupying power of that zone, the result would be, that the very same case could possibly result in different punishment in the different zones. This result would be unfair and would also be contradictory to the uniform entity of Control Council Law No. 10. It must be mentioned, moreover, that the International Military Tribunal pointed out repeatedly in its verdict that the Haag Convention contains binding regulations for the signatory powers who must carry them out in the Occupation laws. In article 43 of tho appendix to tho Haag Convention of 8 October 1907 concerning the laws and customs of land warfare we find that agreement was reached for shaping Occupation laws giving consideration to the laws of the occupied country, insofar as no compelling obstacle prevails. This forces me to the conclusion that according to tho Haag Convention interpretations must take place by use of national laws, in our case the German criminal law, if tho Control Council Law requires an interpretation in solving a legal question, and if this interpretation cannot be made on the basis of tho Control Council Law itself, because it represents itself only as a kind of legal frame-work, (Rahmengesetz).
If we examine the letter of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, from the point of view of German criminal law we can discern two parts, when viewed, objectively. The defendant Dr. Adolf Pokorny, declares in the first part of the letter that "the enemy must not only be defeated, but also annihilated." He points to 3 million bolshevists who are prisoners of war.
In the second part of the letter he occupies himself with the idea of undertaking sterilization, and he proposes to use the plant, caladium seguinum, as means to this effect.
The defendant, refers in this connection to the article of the business firm of Madams and Koch in the periodical for experimental studies on animals and to a popular science periodical "Die Umschau"; they mention that the firm above carried out experiments on animals with the plant, caladium seguinum. These publications gave interesting insights into the experiments on animals carried out with the plant, caladium seguinum, but would not let a physician conclude that with this plant human beings could also actually be sterilized; furthermore, the authors expressly declared in their article that there was no possibility of sterilizing human beings.
The letter of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, did not find in the person of his addressee a man who heard of such thoughts of mass extermination for the first time. To the contrary, it arrived at a time when mass extermination had already started; at that time the firm will have to carry out these mass exterminations could no longer be changed. The letter of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny, could, therefore, from an objective point of view, at most give Himmler a hint as to what course he could eventually take to carry out his already existing plan of extermination in an additional form. On the basis of the defendant, Dr. Adolf Pokorny's letter Himmler ordered the firm of Madaus and Koch to continue the experiments on animals with the plant, caladium seguinum, and to report as to whether or not there was a possibility of sterilizing human beings with this plant.