THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BELCKMANN: Your Honors, Dr. Belckmann for the defendant Dr. Konrad Schaefer.
The SCHAEFER Case appears to be of a special kind, even to the superficial observer of this trial.
In these proceedings, which have lasted for weeks, the name of SCHAEFER has been mentioned only a few times by the Prosecution. He is alleged by the Prosecution to have participated in only one experiment conducted on concentration camp inmates, in which experiment a drug was tested which was intended to render sea water potable.
The Prosecution alleges that, in spite of this very limited activity, SCHAEFER was participant in the conspiracy which comprises all these defendants.
To prove its thesis of the conspiracy of all the defendants, the Prosecution has presented two points in detail.
1. The pervasion and corruption of German medical science, primarily the young medical men, by National Socialist ideas, culminating in a disregard for human life which found its expression in the experiments on concentration camp inmates.
2. The close cooperation of all defendants in various spheres of medicine, primarily in the Army, in the Luftwaffe, and in the SS, which put each defendant in a position to recognize the criminal activity of the others and to contribute his share knowingly.
In this connection I shall prove that, especially in SCHAEFER's case, these prerequisites do not apply:
SCHAEFER has always been an outspoken opponent of National. Socialism and of militarism. It was he who already in 1933 and in the subsequent years as a student and as a young physician opposed the measures which the Prosecutor described so fully on 9 December 1946 (page 100, 101 of the German transcript, and which were intended to make of these young men willing instruments of the National Socialist regime by training them within the organizations of the Party, even at the expense of their scientific achievements.
In spite of extremely strong pressure - which the Prosecution has described very vividly - he refused to join the Party or any other organization, thereby endangering his admission to the examinations. He finally had to give up his position as assistant at a university clinic, although his scientific achievements world have entitled him to a position as lecturer.
Later, too - from 1937 until the outbreak of the war, still more during the war, and also after having been drafted into the Luftwaffe in 1941 - he continued to criticize the existing system and its excesses especially in the field of medicine, and last but not least the experiments on human beings which were conducted in the concentration camps.
How is it to be explained, then, that SCHAEFER held a position in the public health service of the Third Reich (German transcript page 57) But how can the Prosecution contend that the share of each of the 20 physicians - including the defendant SCHAEFER - in the conspiracy and in its execution corresponds most closely to his professional interests and his position within the hierarchy of the Third Reich?
(cf. German transcript page 114.
I shall prove that these contentions of the Prosecution concerning the position of the defendants within the hierarchy of the Third Reich and their close cooperation with each other do not apply in the case of SCHAEFER.
From 1937 until 1945 SCHAEFER hold a position as medical man and chemist and as deputy section chief in private industry, since official positions were not open to him on account of his anti-Nazi convictions. In 1941 he was drafted as a private and after 6 months became Unterarzt in the Luftwaffe, since he was a medical man. An Unterarzt in the German Wehrmacht does not have the rank of an officer. Through an accidental meeting with his former fellow-student BECKER-FREYSENG, he was given the opportunity of entering the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine.
He seized this opportunity immediately, because in this way he was able to continue his activities in private industry, naturally in civilian clothes. He rarely entered the Institute, and he seldom wore a uniform. He knew only a few of the other medical men in aviation. He talked only once to his supreme superior, HIPPKE, and he talked only twice to HIPPKE's successor, SCHROEDER. Such an unimportant person was SCHAEFER! One cannot speak of a position within the hierarchy of the administration and of medicine of the Third Reich.
During the war he held a position like many thousands of other Germans, who were glad to be able to escape the deadly dangers of the war at the front, who had no inner connections with this war and with this system, who even were its radical opponents.
He was given the order to investigate problems arising from distress at sea, particularly the problem of thirst.
He obeyed this order with great satisfaction, because he knew that the solution of this problem would put an end to the tortures of Tantalus suffered by shipwrecked persons all over the world. He set to work with scientific thoroughness, which I shall prove in detail. A study of the entire literature, which took months, enabled him to hold a lecture on thirst and the measures to be taken against it during distress at at see, by order of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate, at the meeting in Nuernberg in 1942. The lecture contained pure theory and was not a report on experiments on human beings. The Prosecution asserted - the contrary on 12 December 1946, is true (sheet 334 of the German transcript, but the complete Document 401, Prosecution, Exhibit 93, proves that this assertion is false.
The further occupation with this problem brought SCHAEFER to experiments, which were carried out by the IG-Farben. In a scientific cooperation with this firm, a drug was finally found, by which sea water could be made drinkable without any prejudice to health. This result was obtained by many chemical, and pharmacological examinations of the bactericide effects and experiments. No experiments on human beings with this drug were necessary, for SCHAEFER had recognized an the basis of all the other scientific methods of investigation that this drug was absolute innoccuous.
The drug was called "Wofatit SW" "IG Drug" or "Schaefer Drug."
It is fundamentally and also in its way of presentation with only very slight differences the same drug which was invented by the American Dr. Ivy and used by the US Armed Forces.
The Schaefer drug was completely ready at the end of 1943, and Schaefer's supreme superior, the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, intended to introduce it in the German Luftwaffe.
The Technical Office, another branch of the German Luftwaffe, however, opposed its introduction, offering as a reason that there was not enough silve available, which was needed for the production of the drug.
The important men in the Technical Office, Oberstingenieur Christensen and Stabsingenieur Shickler, demanded the introduction of a drug which has been invented by Stabsingenieur of the Air Force Berka. It consisted of glucose, which removed or diminished the salt taste of the sea water without changing the actual salt content.
I shall prove with special emphasis that Schaefer opposed this "Berka drug" as being a fake, ever since the origin of this plan.
He wrote a crushing report on the results of experiments which Oberstarzt von Sirany had conducted with the Berka drug on volunteers, patients in a Luftwaffe hospital, by order of the Technical Office. Schaefer had been ordered by his superiors from the Medical Inspectorate to make this check.
The result of Schaefer's attitude in this respect was that he was suspected of sabotage by the men of the Technical Office and by the officers of the Luftwaffe.
Schaefer know very well what this accusation meant in the Third Reich during the fifth year of war. He knew of other instances in which medical men had been persecuted by the RSHA, that is, by the Gestapo, only on account of their diverging scientific opinions on subjects of vital importance for the war.
But nevertheless he explains his opinion of the senselessness of the Berka method also at the conferences of 19 and 20 May, during which it is proposed that this method be tested on, concentration camp inmates. As a final warning he states that with the Berka method death sets in on the 12th day at latest.
This is proved by the Prosecution Document NO 177, Exhibit 133.
This was all he could do under the circumstances, not being an officer, but the least important person among the brilliant uniforms of the 13 highranking officers.
At these conferences Schaefer makes no "resolutions." This is impossible in the Army. The top-ranking chiefs of offices present "order" and "command. But the defendant Schaefer is not even ordered to conduct experiments on concentration camp inmates. He is net even assigned to the commission which had been appointed to determine the conditions for the experiments, because he is known to be an opponent of the entire enterprise.
Another chance for preventing these -- in Schaefer's opinion completely pointless -- experiments on human beings with the Berka drug, whether in the concentration camp or in the Luftwaffe hospital, passes by. On 25 May 1944 the world-famed internist professor Eppinger from Vienna declares that he does not consider entirely wrong Berka's idea that his drug would "sluice" the sea water through the human body without any injury, which Schaefer had hitherto considered absolutely absurd. Three more professors, outstanding medical men, shared the opinion of professor Eppinger.
Thus Schaefer lost one mere medical pretext to declare himself still more openly against the performance of those experiments.
No law in the world can demand of Schaefer more than he did, if one appreciates rightly and with understanding the general circumstances in Hitl Germany and Schaefer's special situation on account of his official rank. Now I already put the question why none of the participants in the conference of 19 and 20 May 1944, who in contrast to Schaefer kept silence, are present here in the defendants' dock, with the exception of Becker-Freyseng, and why just the inventor of a method which solves a very ancient problem of humanity is accused.
In none cf the conferences mentioned in the documents of the Prosecution in which Schaefer took part, was it proposed or ordered that the "Schaefer drug" be tested on concentration camp inmates. Only for such an act could Schaefer have been held responsible. But he would never have shunned this medical responsibility, in view of the good quality of his drug, although he never have approved the use of concentration camp inmates.
The experiments with the Berka drug, which he is not responsible for ordering, were carried out without his cooperation.
He therefore cannot be charged for having listened to the lecture of Professor Beiglbock, which fully revealed the uselessness of the Berka method.
Your Honors, I hereby ask you to consider the Prosecution documents and the speech of the Prosecutor, before listening to my case, and to take into consideration my statements concerning the Prosecution documents.
This examination alone will put you in a position to realize that the Defendant Schaefer is not guilty. In accordance with the practice of American and British courts in penal cases, I request as a measure of precaution that the trial of the defendant schaefer be discontinued, without the submission of any further evidence.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Hoven): The defendant Hoven has been accused on all four counts of the indictment.
Regarding Count i of the Indictment, common plan or conspiracy: In the first place, the fact of a conspiracy requires a common plan or agreement between at least two persons. The prosecution should, therefore, have stated: 1, when; 2, where; 3, between what persons this common plan or this common agreement was reached; and 4, what the substance was of this common plan or agreement.
The prosecution should have made a particular point of stating that this plan or agreement aimed at the committing of those war crimes and crimes against humanity, which are the subject of these proceedings. Furthermore, the prosecution should have proved that the defendant Hoven took part in such an agreement.
Now that the prosecution has concluded its presentation the following must be stated: the prosecution has no reason whatever for assuming and has produced no proof whatever that a plan of this kind ever existed or that the defendant Hoven took part in it.
I therefore ask that the defendant Hoven be declared not guilty under Count I of the indictment.
The opinion expressed here this morning gives me occasion to add a few words at this point. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal does not need any instruction on how these proceedings should be conducted most efficiently.
I shall therefore merely comment on the question of whether such an application is legally admissible or not.
According to German penal law the Court can at any time refrain from hearing defense witnesses if it is of the opinion that the evidence presented by the Prosecution is not adequate.
As far as I know, and I make these statements with a certain reservation because I have foreign literature available only to a limited extent, this principle applies under the law of all states. This principle also arises from the laws of logic, for what purpose would there be in presenting defense witnesses on the count of conspiracy under the present difficulties of bringing them to Nuremberg and of taking up the time of the Tribunal by their examination if the Court is already of the opinion that what the Prosecution has presented is insufficient to prove the participation of the defendant Hoven in a conspiracy?
I shall now continue. If this application is refused, I shall prove: a, that the defendant Hoven did not take part in such plan; b, that he did not even know his co-defendants, with the exception of Mrugowsky, until the beginning of the present trial; and c, that he had only met the defendant Mrugowsky once, unofficially, and that at this meeting there was no discussion of an agreement for the commitment of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Regarding Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment (war crimes and crimes against humanity):
Under these Counts the defendant Hoven is accused of having carried out on inmates of the concentration camp Buchenwald: a, typhus experiments, and b, the euthanasia program.
As an introduction I should like to point out the following in order to clarify my presentation of evidence:
The fact that, the prosecution has proved that a crime has been committed does not suffice. Law No. 10 is only applicable if these crimes were committed on citizens of tho United Nations. I gather from the evidence so far submitted by the Prosecution, and especially from the witnesses questioned by the prosecution, that they also are of this view.
I shall now deal with the individual war crimes and crimes against humanity with which the defendant Hoven is charged, and come first to tho question whether there is a basis for the assumption that tho defendant Hoven participated in the typhus experiments a punishable act according to Law No. 10.
It cannot be doubted that between January 1942 and the end of 1944 typhus experiments were carried out on inmates in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
The defendant Hoven was arrested in September 1943 and was, until March 1945, a prisoner in the concentration camp Buchenwald. This is clear from tho evidence presented by the prosecution. It is therfore of decisive importance whether and to what extent the defendant Hoven actually took part in the typhus experiments January 1942 and August 1943. The prosecution has stated correctly that it was not the defendant Hoven who was supervisor of the department for typhus and virus research at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffs SS which was established at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, but that this was tho late Dr. Ding-Schuler.
The activity of which the defendant is accused allegedly consists in
a) having been Dr. Ding's deputy
b) having selected prisoners who were used as human experimental subjects in the typhus experiments.
Re point a) As has been correctly submitted by tho Prosecution on the strength of Dr. Ding'd diary - Doc. NO. 265, Document, Book 12, pages 36 to 56 of the German, pages 38 to 53 of the English text - the activity of the defendant Hoven as Dr. Ding's deputy has to be broken down into:
1) his work as deputy in the experimental station Block 46;
2) his work as deputy in Block 50.
The evidence of the prosecution has shown beyond any doubt that the experiments were carried out only in Block 46. In Block 50 only the typhus vaccine for tho German soldiers at the front was manufactured. This is shown by tho testimony of tho witness Dr. Kogon, page 1192 of the German transcript.
Only the performance of tho typhus experiments in Block 46, However, can be considered a criminal activity in accordance with Law No. 10. The manufacture of typhus vaccine in Block 50 is beyond any doubt neither a war crime nor a crime against humanity.
Only in Block 50, the section where the vaccine was manufactured, was the defendant Hoven Dr. Ding's permanent deputy. This is shown indubitably by the above mentioned Document NO-265, Document Book 12, pages 38 to 53 of the English and pages 36 to 56 of the German text, particularly by page 41 of the English and the same page of the German text. There is the following entry on 9 January 1943:
"By order of the surgeon general of the Waffen SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer and major General of the Waffen SS, Dr. Genzken, the hitherto existing typhus research station at the concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the "Department for typhus and Virus Research." The head of the department will be SS Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding.
During his absence the station medical officer of the Waffen SS Weimer, SS Huptsturmfuehrer Hoven, will supervise the production of vaccines."
I draw the attention of the Tribunal especially to the expression "production of vaccines."
The defendant Hoven was Dr. Ding's deputy in tho experimental station only temporarily, during an illness of Dr. Ding's. This is to be seen from the entries on p. 37 and 38 of the German Document Book 12, and p. 38 and 39 of the English Document Book 12.
According to these entries, Dr. Ding vaccinated 135 prisoners in the period from 6 January to 1 February 1942, and afterwards on 3 March 1942, infected these vaccinated prisoners and 10 control persons with culture virus. On 17 March 1942 Dr. Ding, who had infected himself, fell ill with typhus. During this illness the defendant Hoven acted as his deputy, according to the entry in the diary on 17 March 1942. The next infection took place on 15 October 1942 and was made by Dr. Ding. From the entries in the diary one can see without doubt that in the period from March to October 1942, especially during the time when the defendant Hoven acted as deputy for Dr. Ding, no infection were made.
These entries are corraborated by the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, who stated that the defendant Hoven did not perform any experiments. Witness Dr. Kogon declared that the defendant Hoven could not begin any experimental series on his own initiative, but that only Dr. Ding, as head of the experimental station, could make decisions in this matter (page 1210 of the German transcript). The witness Kirchheimer stated, corroborating the testimony of the witness Dr. Kogon, that all the typhus experiments were begun by Dr. Ding, (page 1360 of the German transcript). Only Dr. Ding infected the experimental subjects. The defendant Hoven, as the witness Kirchheimer explicitly stated, was not in a position to prevent the experiments after the experimental persons had been infected by Dr. Ding. According to Kirchheimer's statements, the defendant Hoven never had a vaccination needle in his hands, and never made any injections on the experimental persons (page 1355 of the German transcript).
Of decisive importance in this regard should be the further testimony of the witness Kirchheimer that during a period of 1¼ years, namely from the end of 1941 until the beginning of 1943, the defendant Hoven entered the ward of Block 46 only twice. The witness hereby left room for the possibility that the defendant Hoven was only visiting the Jewish prisoner Cohn, who was employee in the ward as chief male nurse and whose life the defendant Hoven had saved (page 1355/6 of the German transcript).
If the defendant Hoven had been active in Block 46 as Dr. Ding's deputy, then he would have had to enter the ward more than twice during 1 ¼ years.
So far as the infection through typhus-bearing lice in November 1942 is concerned, the following facts are clear from Dr. Ding's diary - Document NO265, page 36 of the German and page 38 of the English Document Book 12.
1. Through the infection by lice no persons died. The test persons did not even fall sick, for according to diary entry of 4 January 1943 five persons showed only atypical illnesses of short duration, i.e. illnesses which had no causal relation to the infection through lice (Document Book 12, page 40 of the German and page 41 of the English.)
2) Lice were sent to Buchenwald only twice. Both shipments were destroyed (page 39 of the German, page 40 of the English Document Book 12).
Regarding this the witness Dr. Kogon testified that it was the defendant Hoven who ordered the destruction of the lice (page 1203 of the German transcript). The witness Kirchheimer has confirmed these statements by Dr. Kogon (page 1351, 1353 of the German transcript).
It will be proved that the defendant Hoven: a) did not order or carry out any typhus experiments in Block 46 whatsoever;
b) that he consented to Dr. Ding's appointment of him as deputy for Block 50, and for a short time also for Block 46, only upon request of the underground camp government. This was done in order to enable him to accommodate political prisoners who were endangered, especially non-German subjects, in the wares 46 and 50, and it will be proved that his activities as deputy consisted only in this assistance to the political prisoners.
As far as the selection of the persons for typhus experiments is concerned the testimony of the witness Dr. Kogon proved that the defendant Hoven did not select all the test persons for the typhus experiments, (in this connection I refer to page 1197 of the German transcript). According to the transcript, the method of selecting the test persons differed at different times. Volunteers were used in the first two experiments. Later on the test persons were picked by the a) camp physician or SS camp commandant, b) National Criminal Police Bureau (Kripo). Towards the end transports arrived from other camps for these typhus experiments.
Accordingly, the defendant Hoven picked only a small number of the test persons.
I shall now prove:
a) that the defendant Hoven chose only German habitual criminals for the experiments; and furthermore, b) that the defendant Hoven took over the selection of prisoners on the express request of the underground camp government in order to prevent others than German habitual criminals from being used in these experiments.
As to the further charge against the defendant Hoven that he took part in the execution of the euthanasia program, it has already been proven by the testimony of the witness Dr. Mennecke that the defendant Hoven had no part in it whatsoever. Neither did the defendant Hoven select prisoners for euthanasia, nor did he give other orders for the carrying out of the euthanasia program.
According to the testimony of the witness Dr. Mennecke, prisoners of the concentration camp Buchenwald were selected for the execution of the euthanasia program in the years 1940 and 1941 by a medical commission which came from Berlin and of which Dr. Mennecke was a member.
This commission filled out its own reports for every prisoner who was to be killed. Those reports were sent to the Reich Ministry of the Interior, where they were examined by three experts independently of one another (page 1880 of the German transcript of 17 January 1947). After the experts had given their decisions on the basis of the reports, another commission passed final judgment. On the basis of this final judgment the transfer of the persons intended for the euthanasia program to the euthanasia institutions was ordered by Berlin (page 1881 of the German transcript). The Bernburg asylum was decided upon as the one to be used as the euthanasia institution for the prisoners from Buchenwald Concentration Camp.
It is therefore incorrect when the prosecution asserts:
The defendant Hoven as chief physician of Buchenwald Concentration Camp took part in the euthanasia program and personally ordered the transfer of at least 300 to 400 Jewish prisoners of various nationalities to the Bernburg euthanasia station where they were killed (page 107 of the German and page 59 of the English transcript of 9 December 1946). The high Tribunal will remember the chart which was explained in this court by the prosecution. This chart showed the offices that took part in the euthanasia program. The defendant Hoven did not even appear on that chart. These explanations, in connection with the testimony of the witness Dr. Mennecke, show without a doubt that the defendant Hoven could not have given the orders as asserted by the prosecution. The transfer was ordered by Berlin offices after the expert and the final commission had given their decision. The witness Dr. Mennecke testified in addition that the defendant Hoven did not take part in selecting the prisoners for the euthanasia program. I refer in this matter to page 1930 of the German transcript. Dr. Mennecke also testified that the defendant Hoven did not bring the prisoners intended for the euthanasia program before the commission (page 1938 of the German transcript).
According to the testimony of the witness Dr. Mennecke, the entire activity of the defendant Hoven in the program being carried out by Dr. Mennecke consisted in greeting the witness Mennecke in 1941.
He did not even see the defendant Hoven during the previous visit of the witness Dr. Mennecke at Buchenwald in 1940. This is understandable since, according to Document NO-591, submitted by the prosecution, defendant Hoven was not yet working in the concentration camp at Buchenwald in 1940.
Thus it may be accepted as proved by evidence submitted by the prosecution that the defendant Hoven did not participate in the euthanasia program.
Beyond that, on the basis of testimony given by the witnesses Dr. Kogon and Kirchheimer it is to be accepted as proven that the defendant Hoven, in collaboration with the underground camp government at Buchenwald, prevented the execution of euthanasia'program 14 f 13 by substituting counter-action 13 f 14. That persons, designated for euthanasia by Dr. Mennecke, especially the 1200 Jewish prisoners, were not transported to Bernburg is especially due to the intervention of the defendant Hoven (pages 1238, 1292, and 1295 of the German transcript).
I therefore request that the defendant Hoven be acquitted of the charge that he participated in the execution of the euthanasia program.
In the event that this application be rejected, I shall submit further proof that the defendant Hoven did not participate in the execution of the euthanasia, program, and that, moreover, he took counter-measures to keep this program from being into effect.
On the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecution thus far only the following facts stand:
The defendant Hoven participated in the killing of prisoners. The killing of those prisoners, however, was in no wise connected with the euthanasia program.
With regard to this I shall prove that:
1) the number of these killings was considerably lower then the witness Roemhild, for example, stated;
2) that these persons with out exception, were not political prisoners and especially not foreigners, and, above all not subject to the United Nations, but exclusively German habitual criminals who acted as informers for the SS camp management and the Secret Police;
3) that all these killings were carried out at the instigation of the underground camp government;
4) that by each killing the lives of a great number of persons were saved, i.e. of political prisoners and Jews, and particularly of subjects of the United Nations.
5) that there was no other way to save these endangered persons than to kill these SS and Secret Police informers.
In order to prove this I do not have to refute the evidence submitted by the prosecution; and I do not need to present anything that has not been discussed already in this room. The witnesses whom I shall call and the documents I shall submit will supplement the testimony already given by the witnesses far the prosecution. I shall prove that all the killings in which the defendant Hoven took part were exactly analogous to the case Kushnir Kushnarew described by the witness Dr. Kogon. Dr. Kogon, a person with high C Christion ethical and moral concepts, a witness far superior to the average prosecution witnesses, a witness whose truthfulness cannot be doubted in the slightest, expressed the following opinion about the killing of Kushnir Kushnarew: "I personally as a convinced Christion do not deny these people the right to have killed indisputably dangerous persons in this emergency who in collaboration with the SS endanger the lives of individuals or a large number of persons in the camp." (Page 1298 of the German transcript.)
The Tribunal, however, would have no true picture of the defendant Hoven if I should fail to prove that the defendant Hoven had saved numerous political prisoners from certain death and helped many of them to find freedom, particularly non-Germans, Jews, and subjects of the United Nations, inder peril of his own life. This concerns among others numerous non-German persons endangered by the Night and Fog (Nacht und Nebel) Decree.
Regarding Point 4 of the Indictment (membership in organizations declared criminal by the IMT.
According to the decision of the IMT persons are not to he charged with membership in SS organizations designated as criminal, if a) they withdrew before 1 September 1939; b) the state had placed them in the ranks of the SS in such a way as to leave them no choice whatever in the matter (page 16527 of tho German transcript of 30 September 1946.)
On the basis of this decision of the IMT I shall prove that the defendant Hoven received an order on 26 August 1939 to report for active duty with the Waffen SS and thus: a) left the Allgemeine SS to which he had belonged since 1934; b) was prossed into the ranks of the Waffen SS, compulsorily and against his will.
I shall prove in particular that the order to report for active duty with the Waffen SS had the same legal force as the order to report for active duty with the armed forces, and that it was just as impossible for a member of the Waffen SS to resign during the war as it was for a member of the armed forces.
DR. STEINBAUER (For the Defendant Beiglboeck):
Members of the Court:
In modest and simple language, but I hope none the less effectively, I am going to explain to you in a characteristic outline the principles in accordance with which I am intending to put forward the arguments in favor of my follow countryman, the defendant, Dr. Wilhelm Beiglboeck, university professor in Vienna.
In the big trial against Goering and others, I have had already an opportunity of reliving the growth and the disappearance of Adolf Hitler's Reich which was finally marked by tyranny, enslavement, war and junger, terror and mass murder. In this trial we again had to hear about bloodshed, cruelties, sadism, assassination and mass murder. Both trials have one thing in common, namely, that the victims were chiefly non "behind barbed wire" whose normal fate already was to be deprived of their freedom, to have, to serve as slaves, to suffer hunger, long, drawn-out sickness and early death. Public opinion, being almost crushed by the worries for their daily broad, follows the War Crime Trials which continue one after another with an ever-decreasing interest and views in particular the so-called doctors' trials, as the empty galleries show, with reluctance and inner reserve.
This is due to the fact that the men who are here indicted should not open wounds but heal them, and that they should not kill but prevent death. But this circumstance does not only involve the danger of biased publicity but also that we, the guardians and servants of justice, unconsciously become hard, thus unjust, in view of the strongly optical effects of the facts with which we are here concerned unless we pay the greatest attention also to the so-called inner facts. For this reason I am going to begin by replying in my defense to the question: who is this Dr. Beiglboeck?
1. Personality:
As the son of a country doctor, he had personal experience from the days of his early childhood of the joys and sufferings of the medical profession and chose out of idealism the occupation of a doctor as his life's work. I am going to prove to you by questioning tho defendant himself, by submitting documents, in particular certificates from his teachers, by presenting to you the long list of his works, that the Prosecutor was not wrong when he said of Beiglboeck:
"that he, although still young in years, is, nevertheless, known for possessing remarkable scientific aptitudes." Beiglboeck had the good fortune of meeting among his teachers two people whose names are immortal in the history of medicine. They are the two internists, Franz Chvostek, head of the Third Medical Clinic at Vienna, and Hans Eppinger, head of the First Medical Clinic at Vienna. Chvostek emphasizes at the conclusion of his certificate not only the scientific abilities, the industry of hie student, but, above all, his humane attitude towards the patients entrusted to his care. Eppinger, the famous internist who counted the most prominent statesman like Marshal Stalin among his patients, calls Beiglboeck in his certificate his most capable student. Chvostek and Eppinger are already dead, and the two certificates originate from a period before the experiments which are here under review, therefore, must be considered as correct and unobjectionable documents.
I can, therefore, sum up my remarks about the personality of the defendant by saying that the words apply which Euripides, the great Greek poet of tragedies says about Anaxagoras, the philosopher:
"Happy is the man who achieved knowledge For the benefit of research:
Never he feels the urge to make his neighbor suffer, Nor is he driven to do wrong for such motives!"II.
Order from Above:
My second line of argument is going to be the reply to the question as to how it is possible that a man of such high qualities finds himself in the defendants' dock as an alleged criminal. The same question was asked by the Heidelberg psychiatrist, Dr. Mittscherlich, the head of the German Doctors' Delegation, when he wrote: "In the defendants' dock there are side by side with scientifically meaningless doctors experts of great reputation. From the prison witnesses with prominent names are brought in. Two famous scientists have committed suicide in connection with this trial. These events prove that in passing judgment on the events, considerations of a purely legal and criminalistic nature will not suffice;