Rose did not participate in the hepatitis research and moreover states that he had no knowledge of these alleged hepatitis experiments.
In the further course of this case I hope to be able to prove the accuracy of the defendant Rose's statement.
As far as the typhus experiments are concerned, it is true that Rose though he never worked on typhus - if only just once - was in Buchenwald while these experiments were being carried out. I believe to be able to prove beyond doubt that this visit to the concentration camp Buchenwald was not made because Rose was concerned with - or even approved of these experiments but that, on the contrary, this visit was connected with his fundamental objection to such experiments on human beings, which led to several protests by the defendant Rose. The witness Kogan has already forcibly drawn our attention to this.
Nor can it be denied that in the course of its presentation of evidence, the prosecution has produced some documents and heard some witnesses from which a layman could conclude a certain connection of the defendant Rose with the experiments of human beings in Buchenwald and Natzweiler.
Thus Mr. Hardy, for example, submitted document NO-122 - a letter by Professor Rose to Professor Haagen dated 3rd December 1943 with this reservation saying that he expected an explanation from Professor Rose. I hope to be able to offer this requested explanation to the High Court in the course of my presentation of evidence not only concerning this document but also concerning other existing correspondence, in a sense favorable to the defendant Rose.
In the course of its oral statement regarding the extent of the accusations against Rose, as contained in the indictment, the prosecution has even gone beyond those contained in the indictment.
Thus, it has also connected him with the malaria experiments by Professor Schilling which the latter carried out in the concentration camp of Dachau. It was evidently led to this because of the frequently recurring name of Rose in documents connected with Schilling's experiments in Dachau.
The prosecution has in the first instance overlooked the fact that Professor Rose is a malaria expert of international repute and it is hardly imaginable that his name would not be mentioned when experts are discussing malaria. Over and above this I hope to be able to prove that the defendant Rose - who altogether rejected Schilling's research methods quite apart from his experiments in Dachau - also here stands wrongfully accused. The last vestige of doubt about this will be removed when in my presentation of evidence, I come to speak about the sanitorium of Pfaffenrode, where the defendant Rose on his part conducted malaria experiments and used malaria therapy up to the arrival of the Americans.
Finally, Professor Rose, as well as all of his co-defendants, are accused of having participated in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity according to Count I of the Indictment.
The prosecution sees proof of the existence of such a conspiracy especially in the repeated meetings cf the consulting physicians during the war at the conferences of the consulting specialists at the military medical academy. I shall prove that the defendant Rose, as far as his participation in such conferences is concerned, and in other respects, can on no account be considered a conspirator, neither as a leader nor as organizer nor as initiator or abettor. For it is just his attitude, be it at such a conference, be it at a meeting of prominent physicians, or be it towards the Reich health leader Dr. Conti, or towards the president of the Robert Koch Institute, Professor Gildemeister, which shows that there can be no question of this.
In the course of my presentation of evidence, I plan to examine the defendant Rose on his own case, to present various documents and affidavits as exhibits to the Tribunal and finally to question several witnesses and experts.
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Dr. Siegfried Ruff): Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I have now the task of submitting to you in what manner the Defendant Dr. Ruff intends to conduct his defense:
I) The subject of the indictment against Dr. Siegfried Ruff deals merely with his participation in the high altitude experiments carried out in Dachau, as they are explained in Document Book 2. No further count of the indictment mentions Dr. Ruff, except for the question of "Conspiracy." Consequently, the defense on its part, can limit itself to dealing with these Dachau high altitude experiments.
II) The aim of Dr. Ruff's defense will be to establish the following facts:
1) The high altitude experiments carried out in Dachau by Dr. Romberg and Dr. Rascher with the approval of Dr. Ruff were necessary for the clarification of the problem of "the rescue of airplane crews from high altitudes."
2) These experiments were prepared in an unobjectionable scientific manner by Dr. Ruff and his associate, Dr. Romberg, and were executed in an unobjectionable manner by Dr. Romberg.
3) While carrying out these experiments, Dr. Ruff knew that the only experimental subjects used for that purpose were German convicted criminals, who voluntarily put themselves at his disposal and who, as a reward for undergoing these experiments, were subsequently to be pardoned. Dr. Ruff made certain of these facts at the time by asking various participating experimental subjects.
4) Dr. Ruff did not know Dr. Rascher closely before the Dachau high altitude experiments. He was at that time introduced to him by an absolutely reliable source and considered him to be a conscientious physician of the Luftwaffe.
5) Behind Dr. Romberg's back, this Dr. Rascher proceeded to carry out still other experiments, to which Dr. Ruff never gave his consent and which he would never have approved had he been asked.
6) These other experiments of Dr. Rascher were in no way connected with the parachute descent experiments carried out by Dr. Romberg. Dr. Ruff and the German Air Force were not at all interested in these other experiments of Dr. Rascher's. It was only in the course of this present trial that Dr. Ruff found out in detail with what these so-called "experiments" of Dr. Rascher were concerned.
7) When Dr. Ruff heard through a report by Dr. Romberg that a fatality had occurred during these additional, that is to say unauthorized, experiments of Dr. Rascher, he (Ruff), ordered that these experiments be discontinued and had the low-pressure chamber returned from Dachau to Berlin, and he prevented having the low-pressure chamber put at their disposal during the subsequent period, although Dr. Rascher and various high SS offices repeatedly requested the return of the chamber to Dachau for the purpose of carrying out further experiments.
8) Dr. Ruff is a serious and conscientious scientist, as will be confirmed by all witnesses. He is hard on himself but considerate towards his experimental subjects. His attitude was, on principle, that he would carry out his experiments in the first place on himself and with the voluntary associates of his institute.
9) Both before and after the experiments at Dachau, Dr. Ruff, together with his associates, carried out countless experiments on himself which, for the most part, were more un;easant from a subjective point of view, and more dangerous from an objective point of view, than those experiments at Dachau of which Dr. Ruff knew and which he authorized.
III) Dr. Ruff intends to use the following as evidence: Altogether he has applied for 17 witnesses, all of whom were granted by the Tribunal. From most of these witnesses affidavits are already available, which will be submitted in the Document Book Dr. Ruff. I assume that the Prosecution, too, agrees to the submission of these affidavits. The nature of the testimony of the witnesses has been accurately described in the applications submitted to the Tribunal.
With reference to two of these witnesses, namely the two Americans, Dr. Wood and Dr. Baldes, both of whom are now again residing in the United States, I have submitted questionnaires on the 13th of January 1947, which are to be answered by the above-mentioned persons in their capacity as witnesses and experts and which, together with the answers, I intend to read into the record as soon as they will have been received. With reference to a further American citizen, Colonel Benford, I have applied on the 15th of January 1947 to obtain a statement of services rendered and a personal evaluation of the Defendant Dr. Ruff. From the autumn of 1945 until the autumn of 1946, Dr. Ruff was employed at an American Institute in Heidelberg, of which Colonel Benford was the chief.
I intend to hear only two witnesses in person here in the witness stand, namely the witnesses Dr. Walter Freitag and Karl Fohlmeister, for whom I applied as witnesses on December 13 and January 9 respectively, and whose examination in court has been granted by the Tribunal. If, for any reason, the personal appearance of these witnesses before this Tribunal cannot be carried out, then the Defendant Dr. Ruff is reserving for himself the right to submit affidavits from these two witnesses also.
The Defendant Dr. Ruff will also take the stand himself, in order to be examined as a witness. It appears suitable for this to be done before the other witnesses are called, so that Dr. Ruff can make the necessary explanations regarding the technical details of his experiments. The layman, too, will then be in a better position to understand and appreciate the testimony of the witnesses regarding these technical questions.
In the course of the direct examination of Dr. Ruff, I intend to have a short film, which had been made in the institute of the Defendant Dr. Ruff at the time, shown to the Tribunal. The purpose of this film is to enable the Tribunal and the Prosecution to make their own decisions about the high-altitude experiments carried out by Dr. Ruff, in particular in regard to the character and effects of the so-called "high-altitudesickness," in order to enable the Tribunal to make its findings as to whether this "high-altitude-sickness" can be considered under the heading of a crime against humanity.
IV) As I have already mentioned, Dr. Ruff is accused of special responsibility by the Prosecution on one count only, that of the high altitude experiments at Dachau. It has not been alleged by the Prosecution that Dr. Ruff had in any way participated in other experiments at Dachau,-for instance, in the freezing experiments of Dr. Rascher. However, he has also been indicted from the point of view of conspiracy. In this respect the case for the Prosecution is in no way specialized and is not supported by any evidence. Already today, on the strength of the evidence submitted by the prosecution, it is an established fact that Dr. Ruff, apart from the high-altitude experiments in the spring of 1942, had no contact whatsoever, no matter of what nature, with Dr. Rascher or with the SS or with the concentration camps. Particularly he was never a member of the SS or any other affiliated organization of the Party, which was connected with such experiments. During the period dealt with in this trial, Dr. Ruff was not even a member of the Luftwaffe.
The presentation of evidence on the part of the prosecution has already shown that Dr. Ruff was not present at a single one of the various meetings and congresses, where planned experiments were discussed.
It is, therefore, quite obvious that the charge of conspiracy cannot be proved against Dr. Ruff. The prosecution was not in a position to establish even one single concrete assertion in that respect against Dr. Ruff. It would, therefore, be in accordance with justice to dismiss the charge of conspiracy against Dr. Ruff immediately since there is absolutely insufficient basis for the indictment in that respect.
I hereby apply for the immediate dismissal of the charge with reference to Conspiracy.
My other statements with reference to Conspiracy I am not going to repeat since a number of defense counsels have already submitted the legal basis with reference to that question, even if there were various differences in their arguments, and different results. This brings me to the end of the case of the Defendant Dr. Ruff.
***************
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, now the opening statement for the Defendant Dr. Romberg, follows. The defense counsel of the Defendant Dr. Romberg is at the moment engaged in an official journey for the purpose of interrogating witnesses. He yesterday telephoned me, saying that because of difficulties with trains, he would not be in a position to arrive here in time to appear in Court. He asked me to read the opening statement for the Defendant Dr. Romberg in his place and I ask for your permission.
We are now going to deal with the case of Dr. Romberg:
I) The prosecution charges the Defendant Dr. Hans-Wolfgang Romberg with:
1). Participation in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
2). Participation in High Altitude Experiments in Dachau from March until approximately August 1942, which were carried out, as the Prosecution states, to investigate the limits of human endurance and existence at extremely high altitudes.
II) 1). With reference to the charge of participating in a conspiracy against the Defendant Dr. Romberg, I herewith present the application to quash the procedure and/or to acquit the defendant, Dr. Romberg, in respect of this count of the charge, for the following reasons:
a) The Control Council Law No. 10 provides in Article II, Paragraph 1a, a possibility of punishment for participation in a conspiracy only in cases of crimes against peace. Therefore, this rule is to be regarded as lex specialis and cannot simply be extended to war crimes and crimes against humanity, on which the entire charge is being based.
b) The defendant, Dr. Romberg has never been a member of any of the organizations declared as criminal by the IMT, he was not even a member of the Luftwaffe.
c) From the evidence presented it does not in any way appear that the charge in question is based on facts.
2) With reference to the charge made as to participation in high altitude experiments, it is to be stated;
a) That it was not the purpose of the high altitude experiments in question to investigate, and I quote, "The limits of human endurance and existence at extreme high altitudes", but to solve the problem of 'saving plane crews from high altitudes', and that these experiments were conducted properly.
b) It is further to be stated to the experimental subjects used in these experiments are criminals, condemned to death by ordinary courts, who had volunteered and who were to be pardoned as a reward;
c) That Dr. Romberg was, at first, to consider Dr. Rascher, whom he get to know only at the beginning of the experiments, a serious scientist.
d) That at a latter date Romberg succeeded, after having taken note of Rascher's fatal experiments, with the help of his superior, the co-defendant, Dr. Ruff, in having the low-pressure chamber immediately removed from Dachau, and this against the will of Rascher and Himmler.
e) That Dr. Romberg never took an active part in the experiments of Dr. Rascher which exceeded the plan; and finally
f) That Dr. Romberg is a serious and conscientious scientist who had previously taken part in many high-altitude experiments as a subject.
III Dr. Romberg's statements, as well as the s** of several co-defendants are to serve as evidence. The Tribunal furthermore will be offered several affidavits."
And in this manner the defendant, Dr. Romberg intends to conduct his defense, and this brings me to the end of his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant, Brack. (Welz)
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I come back to yesterday's agreement of the defense counsel, which was that the cases of Romberg and Welz should be dealt with together.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding with the statement on behalf of the defendant, Welz, the Tribunal will recess.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SIEGFRIED WILLE: Mr. President, Your Honors, please permit me first of all to state several words outside of the official text.
In view of the opening statement of the gentlemen before me and the statements of the Prosecution against Professor Welz in the field of circumstantial evidence, because of the lack of proof, in order to counter this it is necessary for me to point out a number of apparently incorrect details in my presentation of evidences.
My presentation will be somewhat enlarged in this way because it justified the actions of the defendant Welz, which are only a very small part of the incidents that occurred. In order to simplify the matter, as far as I can review it at this time. I shall not make fundamental statements about the legal questions because they have been sufficiently treated in the presentation of my colleague.
"The prosecution accuses the defendant Weltz of the following criminal acts:
1. Participation in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity.
2. Participation in the commission of such crimes.
I.
In detail, Weltz is accused by the prosecution of the following:
1. Participation in the High-Altitude Experiments by Dr. Rascher.
Subsequent to a lecture on high-altitude experiments on monkeys Weltz is alleged to have stated confidentially to Rascher, a member of the audience at that time, (Doc. No. 1602-PS) that these experiments ought to be made on human beings. By virtue of his relations with Himmler, Rascher is then allege to have received permission from him, in the summer of 1941, to carry out experiments with 2 to 3 criminals in Dachau.
The prosecutor connects this lecture, as well as the remark, with Weltz, for the reason that Weltz at that time was in charge of the permanent research office on the effects of high-altitude and therefore worked at the same institute as Rascher. (German Transcript p. 217). This is merely an assumption on the part of the prosecutor, I shall prove through witnesses and documents that it is without any foundation.
2. Other deductions of the prosecutor are based on this assumption. He deduces that Weltz was a starting point for Rascher's further preparations, although Weltz did not yet know Rascher at that time. Here the prosecutor mentions a remark in Rudolf Brandt's affidavit (Doc. No. 191), according to which Himmler had in June 1941 given Weltz, Rascher, and Kottenhof permission for low pressure experiments. In this one-sided statement it was further alleged that Weltz had postponed the experiments again and again for fear that they would give offense to the Medical Inspection. The truth is that Weltz had never asked for nor received this permission. The prosecution then alleges that Weltz used Ruff and Romberg, of the Research Institute Adlershof, as a front. Before that, he is alleged to have vainly offered his assistants, Lutz and Wendt, the opportunity to collaborate with Rascher.
Through the necessary assignments Weltz is alleged to have made a participation in the experiments possible. Because of this attitude of Weltz, who secretly reserved for the Luftwaffe or for himself the credit for the scientific results of the experiments, the Munich representative of the SS Main Office is alleged to have stopped the Dachau experiments without Rascher until Himmler's decision (Mrs. Nini Rascher, Doc. No. 263). Weltz is alleged to have hedged in this way until the spring of 1942. Then Weltz apparently succeeded in overcoming Hippke's objections (German Transcript 220-222). The prosecutor states that Weltz also received information about deaths subsequently. The witnesses Lutz and Neff were to give testimony to prove this, but their statements did not really implicate the defendant. As regards the high-altitude experiments, the prosecutor draws the following conclusion from them.
It is true that Weltz did not actively participate in experiments, but he obtained expert assistants for Rascher, who was not conversant with highaltitude research (German Transcript p. 222).
3. Freezing Experiments:
Weltz is known as the real discoverer of the freezing problem and was aware at an early date of the scientific investigation of it through animal experiments. Hence his basic experiments on small animals, and also the experiments on shaved cats which were treated with irony by Rascher. Himmler offer of an opportunity to experiment on human beings did not seem attractive to him, not to speak of his basic repudiation of experiments on human beings. A co-responsibility of Weltz for the freezing experiments, which only began in May 1942, that is, long after Rascher's dismissal from the assignment, cannot seriously be considered. Therefore, the prosecutor could present here only one single fact. In Document No. 343 a-PS, a letter from Milch to Wolff, Milch notes the conclusion of the altitude experiments in Dachau and suggests going over to freezing experiments which Weltz was ordered to carry out. For this purpose Rascher could be made available in the future. I shall prove through witnesses that this order was never given.
II.
The charge against Weltz is not complicity, but instigation and assistance. Weltz is alleged to have given Rascher the idea of making experiments on human beings and afterwards to have helped him in their execution. These accusations are in no small measure the results of the one-sided and noticably prejudiced affidavits by Brandt, Ruff, and Romberg, Lutz also is not an unobjectionable witness, as he is politically too implicated by his SS membership. He therefore avails himself of every opportunity to make himself appear in a more favorable light.
In reputation of the statements of the prosecution I shall prove through documents and witnesses:
1. Weltz had nothing whatsoever to do with Rascher's assignment to his Institute. It was not Weltz but Stabsarzt Kottenhoff of Luftgau VII, who gave the lecture on the monkey experiments. The suggestion to make experiments in the future, not on monkeys, but on two or three habitual criminals can therefore only have been made by Kottenhoff. I shall substantiate this through presentation of a reprint of Kottenhoff's article in the magazine "Luftfahrtsmedizin" (Aviation Medicine) and through witnesses.
2. Rascher's assignment to Weltz' Institute took place at his own insistence and with the support of Kottenhoff. Rascher wishes to establish himself in Weltz' good graces."
Outside of the text, may I here clear up a misunderstanding and a false translation into the English language? To habilitate, according to the German concept, that is to gain permission to be an active lecturer in the German Higher School. Now, I continue with the text:
"The experiments on human beings that Himmler permitted him to carry out were to assist him in this. Weltz, however, repudiated the proposed experimental research, the gradual ascent to high-altitudes and the freezing experiments. The reason for this will be seen in Weltz' basic negative attitude toward freezing experiments on human beings, as set forth by me under 1, 3.
I shall further prove that Weltz, on the occasion of Hippke's visit in the summer of 1941 explicitly, stated to him that experiments on human beings were to be made only in the most pressing cases and only on criminal prisoners serving long terms.
These prisoners would have to make themselves available voluntarily, and be rewarded by a termination or shortening of their sentence.
3. Thus Rascher's assignment to Weltz from the late summer of 1941 to the beginning of March 1942 meant absolutely nothing. Rascher went to Munich only seldom, without visiting the Institute. Therefore, in fulfillment of his official responsibility, Weltz ordered Rascher to report twice weekly. I shall prove that the second time he reported, Rascher produced a telegram from Himmler stating that he should keep the experiments secret from everyone, even Weltz. I shall further produce witnesses to prove that Weltz discharged Rascher at that very time and requested his immediate transfer back to the Luftgau, at the beginning of March 1942. On the basis of document No. 318 I shall prove that already in this letter Rascher appears after 16 March 1942 as member of the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher experimental group with an assignment for the Research Institute for Aviation, at the Dachau Branch. From this it will be so that the inauguration of high-altitude experiments in Dachau, coincides in point of time with Rascher's separation from Weltz. Thus I shall make clear that Weltz did not call Rascher to him and instigate his experiments, but that on the contrary, he kept Rascher at a distance and discharged him from his assignment when Rascher attempted to withdraw from Weltz' supervision.
4. In my submission of evidence I shall further take issue with the assumption that Weltz wished to provide Rascher with --"
And I must bring out a mistake in the text, it must be Weltz instead of Werz.
"experienced helpers in the person of his assistants, Lutz and von Weltz while making sure to keep himself at a discreet distance. I shall prove through witnesses that it was customary in Weltz' institute to determine and draw up in writing the working program through joint discussions of the collaborators. If, therefore, Weltz had ever intended that his institute should participate in Rascher's experiments in Dachau, or that his collaborators should seriously concern themselves with it, there would have to exist a written elaboration of Rascher's program.
I shall prove through witnesses that Weltz never suggested such a collaboration of his assistants.
5. I shall further prove through documents, and also through logical deductions that it was not Wertz' intention to induce Ruff and Romberg to enter into a plot with Rascher. His presence in Adlershof was fortuitous. It was only through this visit that Weltz found out about the work program in progress there involving high-altitude experiments. I shall prove from this that there was no question here of a prearranged meeting. I shall further prove that there were discussions that took place among physicians of equal rank in good faith. The experiments were to be carried out on the doctors themselves or on habitual criminals, who were to be rewarded with a mitigation of their sentences. I shall further prove by witnesses that up until then Rascher had demanded this and that this work program of Dr. Ruoff's was also approved by Hippke. It will be seen from this that this discussion offers no grounds for the contention that Weltz deliberately associated himself with Rascher. The shipment of the low-pressure chamber to Dachau and the advance inspection of Dachau Concentration Camp by Weltz will, in view of this, no longer be incriminating.
6. I shall further prove by documents and witnesses that the high-altitude experiments in Dachau from March 1942 on lay outside Weltz' responsibility.
a) First, because at the beginning of March, Rascher had separated from his assignment with Welta;
b) Also because the experiments were carried out under the exclusive responsibility of Ruff in his capacity as leader of the medical department of the Research Institute at Adlershof. Among other things, it will be seen that the experiments were carried out under the heading "Adlershof Research Institute, Dachau Branch." This latter I shall prove by documents."
There is a little change in the text there:
"c) I shall further demonstrate by witnesses that Weltz learned nothing of the results. He received neither current reports nor the usual scientific analysis.
It will be seen from this that his Institute was regarded as not taking part.
7. As incrimination through the freezing experiments the prosecutor merely pointed out that Weltz was intended as a participant in them. In answer to this I shall prove, from documents presented by the prosecution itself, that this intention was not put into execution. Rather, Professor Holzlodhner was commissioned to carry them out in place of Weltz.
8. I shall clarify Weltz' character said personality through the testimony of his colleagues. Through their testimony, I shall prove that his attitude toward life, as manifested in his many years of activity, does not fit him for the role that the prosecutor ascribed to him. Weltz is not only a scientifically distinguished physician, but also a humane one, upright, without timidity, and without depotism. He is no ambitious in such a way as ever to derive benefit from the work of his assistants.
I shall prove this through affidavits by competent persons. His sense for the healing and constructive activity of the physician cannot be reconciled with experiments on human beings such as Rascher was carrying out. In fact, he opposed these experiments for so long that Himmler threatened to put him in a concentration camp as a traitor to his country. The chief prosecutor defines the goal, of German medical science as killing and extermination; in refutation of that I shall prove that Weltz' life work was devoted exclusively to the preserving and saving of human lives.
9. Finally I shall bring forth my objections to the charge cf conspiracy, In my examination of the defendant and occasionally of the other defendants, I shall prove, that Weltz had almost no connections with the leading doctors cf the Wehrmacht and the SS who are gathered here. This circumstance results quite naturally from his position as leader of a purely research institute that had nothing to do with the general medical administration. His only task was the elucidation of scientific problems. Accordingly, it naturally follows that Weltz' participation was only of a scientific character. I know of only one such act of participation; namely, the congress on "Shipwreck and Winter Suffering" (See note and Winternot) on 26 and 27 October 1942 at Nurnberg.
Participation in a conspiracy with such far-reaching goals, however, would also, require proof that the participants were criminal characters. Unpremeditated crimes can be alien to the person's essential character. A crime of sich lous duration as a conspiracy as only conceivable if the perpetrator's character is criminal and if his depravity is manifested also in his entire behavior. The evidence that I have premised to submit regarding Welts' personality and character will make clear the impossibility of such an assumption Outside of the text may I make the following statement.
The defense counsel of the defendants Ruff and Romberg have suggested immediate discontinuance of the trial and I want to join this request at this time.
10. Finally, I feel it to be my duty to refer in quite general terms to the following objection:
It has how been established, after the submission of the prosecution's documents, that Rascher was a criminal. It would have been a crime to support this Dr. Rascher, whom we now see in all his depravity. In the evaluation, however, of the defendant Weltz's possible guilt and responsibility, we are not concerned with this Dr. Rascher. I have reached the conclusion of my statement.
DR. GROESCHMANN: (Defense counsel for Viktor Brack) Mr. President, your Honors. The prosecution accuses the defendant Brack of: 1) taking part in a common conspiracy for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity; 2) commission of war crimes; and 3) commission of crimes against humanity by participating in the euthanasia and sterilization measures as well as 4) remaining a member of the SS, and thus of a criminal organization, after 1 September 1939, although he knew that the SS was used for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
In refutation of those accusations counsel for the defendant Brack will present testimony or witnesses, documents, films, and eye witnesses and also by showing the film, "Ich Klage An", "I accuse", to prove the following and show his previous life and also his care of inmates in insane asylums. This is an additional part of my text.
1) Brack worked in the Fuehrer's Chancellery as specialist for Amt II, where it was his function to handle all complaints and appeals addressed directly to the Fuehrer by persons from all walks of life, and to submit then to Reichsleiter Bouhler for his decision.
In addition to these duties Brack was instructed by Reichsleiter Bouhler in 1939 to assist him in the technical preparation of such measures as were required in the execution of the task that Hitler had assigned to Bouhler; that is shortening the worthless lives of incurably insane persons, after most critical diagnosis, by specifically designated doctors, and in the technical preparation of the excution of these measures. Brack felt no doubts, after the development of German law since 1933, as to the constitutional legality of Adolf Hitler's directives.
Brack carried out the instructions given him and his other duties in his capacity as an administrative official subordinate to Bouhler and subject to the individual instructions of Reichsleiter Bouhler, with no independent power to make decisions.
Brack had no contact whatsoever with any of the defendants who were planning or preparing a war crime or a crime against humanity. Only with the defendant Karl Brandt did he have a few more or less incidental conferences, the purpose of which, however, was not the commission of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
2) The task with which Reichsleiter Bouhler entrusted Brack involved only incurably insane persons. Brack had nothing to do with measures designed to shorten the lives of deformed children (which was within the competence of the so-called "Reich Commission for the Survey of Serious or Inherited afflictions"), nor with measures affecting incurable invalids in general.
The task assigned to Brack involved only German insane persons, excluding persons wounded in the first World War and industrial casualties. It did not include foreign nationals, particularly those of nations at war with Germany, but on the other hand did include Party members and Jews living in Germany.
Brack gave close study to writings on the problem of shortening the worthless lives of incurably insane persons, which has been disputed for centuries by physicians, jurists, philosophers, scientists, and ordinary citizens, and, for ethical reasons and on the basis of a carefully formed conviction deriving from his own experiences, education, spiritual orientation, and personal study, answered in time affirmative the question, which comes up in connection with the above-mentioned problem, as to the justification of euthanasia in such cases.
Brack did not participate in the ether extermination measures with which the Prosecution charges him, which were directed against Germans and non-Germans through a misuse of the organizational apparatus that Bouhler had created.
3.) Never in his life was Brack's attitude anti-Semitic. On the contrary, in many cases he interceded in the interests of Jews even at the danger of personal detriment. Consequently, Brack became an enemy of Heydrick and Borman. Just before the end of the war at the institution of Bormann he was even sentenced to death by a military court martial. And I continue with my criminal test: Consequently Brack was dismayed by his progressively clearer recognition of the radical intentions and extermination plans embraced by Hitler and his advisers.
Brack wished to frustrate these plans at all costs. For this purpose, abusing the confidence he enjoyed, he attempted to induce the men in the control to adopt means and procedure which apparently promised success but which actually, according to the state of research at that time, had to be remarked as useless, and at any rate made a successful application of those plans impossible for a considerable period of time. This is the origin of Brack's correspondence with and sterilization proposals to influential persons in the government in 1941 and 1942. Brack's activity in these years will, in the light of the evidence that the defense will produce, take on an essentially different psychological aspect from that which the Prosecution has presented.
Brack did not furnish personnel for the extermination of Jews.
4.) In the spring of 1942 Brack volunteered for service at tho front with the Waffen SS because, after the failure of his efforts and realizing that the radical tendency was new irresistible, he did not wish to be associated with or oven to come into contact with an activity that seemed to have criminal tendencies.