Dr. Hoven had no cause for that. It was not his life that was endangered by those spies or traitors. It was rather the committee of political domestic and foreign prisoners, many of whom are today holding high office in their countries. Those personalities guaranteed to Dr. Hoven that only such individuals would be killed who already had been active and would continue to be active as spies and as traitors. These statements by Dr. Hoven were particularly confirmed by a number of witnesses who were heard on this. These observations may be found in the affidavits I submitted. Above all it has been proven that only such people were down away with of whom Dr. Hoven held that conviction. Dr. Hoven testified to that effect and it has been re-affirmed by the witnesses Dorn, Dr. Kogon, Seegers and Hummel.
In his interrogation of October 23, 1946, Dr. Hoven stated expressly that he killed or knew only of the killings of such persons of whom he was certain that their deaths were necessary to safe the lives of aumultitude of political prisoners from the various countries. At that early date already he expressly stressed that he refused to carry out any of the killing orders of the camp commander Koch; the prisoners who were covered by his orders were put into the Hospital or hidden in some other way by Dr. Hoven.
2) Dr. Hoven had not negligently adopted the conviction that their killing was essential for the salvation of huge numbers of prisoners.
This is proved first of all through the testimony of the witness Dorn, who gave many details as to the means and methods employed by Dr. Hoven and the illegal camp administration in the conviction of the necessity for the killings. Dr. Hoven supplemented those statements. Furthermore they were corraborated by the testimony of the witness Hummel, Dr. Kogon, Seegers, Philip Dirk, Baron von Palladnt van Eerde through their affidavits. I refer to pp. 13L 135 of my closing brief.
3) Actually, the prevention of the planned crimes, i.e., the mass murder of a multitude of domestic and foreign political prisoners, could be accomplished only through the killing of the spies and traitors. There was no other means. What should Dr. Hoven have done to prevent the crimes planned by the spies and traitors? Those spies collaborated with the S camp commanders to carry out Himmler's program to destroy the political prisoners. To whom should Dr. Hoven have turned? Perhaps the the SS camp commanders who worked with the spies and traitors? Or perhaps to the Gestapo or to the police who worked under Himmler's orders?
There was no other way but the one which Dr. Hoven went in order to prevent crimes.
I showed that with details on pp. 136-147 of my closing brief. There, I assembled the testimonies of the witnesses of prosecution and defense who were heard on this point.
Here, I merely wish to stress the following statements by the witnesses:
In this court room, Dr. Kogon, a convinced Christian and a deeply religious man, said: "There was really no other possibility for the men of the illegal camp administration. I, as a convinced Christian, do not deny those men the right to have killed people in an emergency who in collaboration with the SS encangered the lives of individuals or of many." End of my quotation.
The witness Pieck stated: "It may be that the liquidation of many green inmates and of SS spies employed in the camp may make Dr. Hoven a murderer in the eyes of many; yet, for me and others who understood the real situation, he was a soldier fighting on our side and risking very much."
This very opinion, Pieck - as stated here -- expressed also in a letter to the Dutch Minister of Justice, a letter that was so--signed by the City Council of Amsterdam and Mr. Droering, head of a department of the State Institute for War Documentation in The Hague.
Pieck is one of the few who are best equipped to answer these questions, for he belonged to the Committee of domestic and foreign political prisoners which formed itself at Buchenwald.
Father Katjetan, presently Supreme Abbot of one of the largest religious orders in Czecho-Slovakia, declared that as a prisoner of the concentration camp Buchenwald in the presence of witness Dr. Horn that those killings were an inevitable necessity for the preservation of the inmates who had been abandoned by justice in the camp.
Even the witness of the prosecution, Roemhild, had to admit on the stand that it would have been impossible to save 20,000 prisoners if those spies or traitors whom Dr. Hoven killed or of whose killing he knew, had remained alive.
Let me ask in this connection: What would have happened if a man of Kushnir Kushnarev's calibre had not been killed, and if the murder of the Russian POW's in the Buchenwald camp had been continued? Would Dr. Hoven not stand before this Tribunal even then? Then, would not the same charge be made against Dr. Hoven as the one levelled against the Japanese Governor of the Philippines who was tried before an American Military Court for not having prevented atrocities mid abuses?
In another part of my closing brief I summarized the result of my evidence concerning the good character and refutation of Dr. Hoven in the Buchenwald concentration camp.
On the basis of Wharton's Evidence in Criminal Cases, I described the legal basis of my reasoning and my evidence, by stating.
1) the admissability of the evidence.
2) the limits of the evidence.
3) the nature of the evidence.
4) the value of the evidence for the problem of Dr. Hoven's guilt.
My evidence in regard to Dr. Hoven's good character and reputation, as given on pp. 121-202 of my closing brief, led to the following result:
a) The defendant Dr. Hoven saved the lives of numerous inmates.
b) Dr. Hoven helped numerous prisoners to regain freedom.
c) Dr. Hoven assisted the prisoners of the Buchenwald concentration camp in their fight for life.
d) The defendant Dr. Hoven as the first SS man attempted, as far as in his power, to prevent the application of beating as penalty.
e) Dr. Hoven carried out numerous improvements of medical care in the Buchenwald concentration camp
f) Dr. Hoven treated the inmates always humanely.
g) Dr. Hoven's good character is shown particularly by his attitude towards the Jews.
The taking of evidence concerning Dr. Hoven's good reputation in the Buchenwald concentration camp resulted in such a wealth of material that it is not possible to mention all details. Above all, it has been proven on the basis of evidence that Dr. Hoven resisted measures by high SS officials, particularly orders of Himmler.
The Prosecution in the course of the evidence repeatedly asked some defendants to list actions that could be interpreted as resistance.
I deeply regretted that the Prosecution did not submit this question to Dr.Hoven in his cross examination, too. Dr. Hoven would have been in a position to mention not only one, not ten or hundred, but many hundreds of acts by which he resisted the orders of highest authorities.
Let me mention only the case of the seventeen-year-old Jewish inmate; of whom the witness Dorn spoke, an incident I included in my closing brief on p. 196. Dorn related in how moving a manner Dr. Hoven gave medical care to that prisoner, and that he repeatedly went to the sick bed of that Jew, asking him, "Have you any wish?"
From those facts the witness drew the only correct conclusion which I could not better phrase myself.
Your Honors; I can not imagine that a man who exerts great effort on behalf of a Jew, who in the Nazi state really was denied the right to live, asked him for his wishes and hides him in the hospital - that this man should arbitrarily kill prisoners and permit killings which were necessary in the interest of the preservation of the lives of many prisoners.
Furthermore, the witnesses Dorn and Pieck agreed that Dr. Hoven, after the liberation of the camp by the American troops was taken from an American tank by the Jew August Kohn, the trustee of the Jews in the illegal camp administration. Dorn also described how Kohn addressed an American officer: "Sir, don't harm this man, he fought in our own ranks."
At that time there were hundreds, nay, thousands of witnesses in Buchenwald who knew Dr. Hoven's work in the Buchenwald Camp.
Could Dr. Hoven have dared re-entering the camp after liberation by the American Army if he had committed the things the Prosecution changes him with? Would not a tempest of indignation have swept him away if he had been the man as described by the Prosecution? What did actually happen? Dr. Hoven was gladly and cheerfully welcomed by the inmates and treated as their guest for two days until American troops took him into a POW camp.
I am unable to understand with what justification on the basis of the overwhelming evidence that speaks in favor of Dr. Hoven the prosecution still calls him a corruptible murderer.
First of all, I venture to ask: Who should have bribed him? The poor inmates who called nothing their own but their lives? Doesn't this observation suffice to demonstrate the absurdidy of the charge? In regard to bribery I expressed myself more lengthily on pp. 199-202 of my closing brief.
I further ask: Isn't it true that the more fact that the ex-inmates who were called as prosecution witnesses had to speak favorably of Dr. Hoven, justifies doubts in his guilt?
Let me recall Kirchheimer's evidence? This prosecution witness when asked by the prosecutor whether Dr. Hoven was a Sir Galahad in the Buchenwald concentration camp, did not reply by saying "NO", but rather answered "Dr. Hoven enjoyed a good reputation amongst the prisoners."
There is another fact which should shake that charge; I refer to the fact that witnesses have rushed here to testify for him and to serve the truth, - men from the hast and the West, from Czecho-Slovaki, and from the Netherlands. Isn't it also true that the three witnesses who were called here by the prosecution to speak against Dr. Hoven, as former inmates of the concentration camps were saved by Dr. Hoven. I refer to Dr. Kogon, Kirchheimer and Roemhild. Dr. Kogon stated personally that Dr. Koven saved Kogon's life three times. Kirchheimer was one of the 1200 Jews whom Dr. Mennecke had selected for transport to the Bernburg euthanasia station. In Roembild's case too it is proven that Dr. Hoven saved him.
The evidence in the case of Dr. Hoven has clearly shown that this man was not a corruptable murderer, but that he was -- to repeat Pieck's words -- a man win fought on the side of the United Nations against Himmler and the systems of concentration camps, risking his own life constantly and paying for this fight by spending 1 1/2 years in the Gestapo dungeons and as inmate on the Buchenwald concentration camp.
Such a man who acted so often in the best interest of the United Nations, a man who resisted highest officials so often in the interest of the United Nations, a man who languished for that in the dungeons of the Gestapo and as inmate of the Buchenwald concentration camp -- such a man cannot be called a war criminal and a criminal against humanity before any Tribunal of the United Nations. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng.
DR. TIPP for Gecker-Freyseng: Mr. President, Your Honors:
When, in May 1945, German resistance collapsed and the German Reich thereby ceased to exist, the iron curtain was lifted which has hidden so many deeds and activities from the eye of the German public for the past years. As unbelievable as this may seem to those outside, the German public had until then no knowledge of many of the events which had taken place in national-socialist Germany. But I think I can assume that this fact as such had been established as a certainty by the recent trials in no little way by those trials held here in Nurnburg.
The things which before the collapse were completely obscure to the majority of the German people included everything connected with the concentration camps. People in Germany knew that there were concentration camps, they also knew of persons who had been put into them, but nobody, unless he had some direct contact with these camps, actually learned of what took place behind those barbedwire fences.
The revelations about the true conditions, in concentration camps about the millions of murders which were committed there, moved the German people to the core. Only with difficulty could they believe what seemed to be proven by facts.
When, during these months, the assertion appeared in the press, that members of the German medical profession had committed enormous cruelties against hundreds of innocent inmates of concentration camps and when detailed evidence of these assertions was supplied, the German people as well as world opinion were inclined to despair of the German doctor, indeed of the German medical profession as a whole The charges which were raised were so severe and seemed so well founded that a defense of the German medical men who appear in this trial seemed hardly tenable at first.
Public opinion which had been influenced to such extent, adrversely affected the defense in many decisive points. I am sure I was not the only one among my colleagues who had difficulties in securing witnesses and other evidence, because witnesses hesitated to put themselves at the disposal of the defendants.
An additional difficulty was that the whole of the German written material wasin the hands of the prosecution. All available material, was gone through by the prosecution and was introduced into the proceedings only according to their own point of view. In this respect the prosecution acted entirely according to rules binding for them, but this does not prevent me from stating that the defense, from the beginning, was being put into a much weaker position.
If, in spite of these difficulties, the defense succeeded in undermining the charges which at first seemed so well founded, in some of the essential points, as in my opinion they did, then this result must appear of particular significance.
For many months now, prosecution and defense in this courtroom have reported everything which seemed essential to clarify the facts. The Tribunal must decide now what happened and who among the defendants must bear the responsibility for these happenings. In this connection only the following can be said in general:
The evidence has shown that deeds were done which are not compatible with medical ethics and the principles of medical behaviour. Under the cloak of medical research actions were carried out which are not defensable. On the other hand, however, the fact emerges clearly and unmistakably before the eyes of the Tribunal and before the eyes of the world, that it is not the perpetrators of these crimes who are in the dock here.
The bearers of the names most frequently mentioned here are the very men who escaped human justice through their own hands or who, as Rascher, fell from a bullet from their own ranks.
The fact that crimes have undeniably been committed but that on the other hand the guilty can no longer be called to account, must not result in other men being made responsible for deeds for which they never had to take the responsibility. The desire for punishment must not lead us into a course where the innocent instead of the guilty are called to account.
As the prosecution appears to have been aware from the beginning that those who were guilty of the individual offenses and among them of the worst offenses, could no longer be called to account, they have tried from the start to throw the veil of common conspiracy over the individual cases and to show everything they submitted in the impenetrable simi-darkness of confusing relations and connections.
The prosecution repeatedly tried to create such connections to the advantage of the common planning doggedly alleged by them. Even though I am of the opinion that particularly in the case of Dr. Becker-Freyseng the participation in such common planning on the part of the defendants hasin no way been established, it must be pointed out that on the terrifying background which the prosecution intentionally and cleverly created for itself from the start, every incident was in danger of losing the character of an objective fact of the case. It was just that in determinate and undefined moment in the assertions of the prosecution, who with slogans much as "participation" and "special responsibility" tried to establish the connection between the actual happenings and the persons of the defendants, which was the great danger in this trial.
The prosecution portrayed all defendants in the same style. They were represented as morally and mentally inferior party followers who, having become subject to the party doctrine, no longer cared about the sublime laws of humanity or the medical profession, but who committed cruelties for the mere sake of it without regard to their duties as doctors and human beings.
Against this, the defense, in laborious detail, had to show the defendants as they really were. Only in this way was it possible to crack the foundation of the charge and to shape the personality of each defendant, and every individual case, from the confused mass of collective assertions of guilt which the prosecution had produced, in order to show the tribunal deed and guilt in their true light.
Among all the defendants, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng holds a special position.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the prosecution has not submitted its charges against Dr. Becker-Freyseng in detail. In many of the counts of the indictment the defense, therefore, had to work on as eruptions. They assumed that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was supposed to be essentially responsible because he worked as a Referent or assistant Referent in the Referalt for aviation Medicine in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. I need not do more than mention how difficult the construction of the defense was made by this lack of substantion in the charge. In the same way was it necessary to extend the defense into every possible and conceivable direction because of this lack of precision in the prosecution's proceedings in this case.
Altogether, in the indictment the prosecution held Dr. BeckerFreyseng responsible for the high altitude and Freezing experiments in concentration camp Dachau, for typhus and other bacteriological experiments in Natzweiler and finally for the Sea Water experiments in concentration camp Dachau.
neither for the high Altitude experiments nor for the Freezing experiments has the Prosecution supplied the evidence on which they mean to base their charge of Dr. Becker-Freyseng's responsibility.
In as far as those experiments are concerned the objections which I have raised in connection with all counts of the indictment apply especially. i.g. the prosecution did not once mention the name of Dr. Becker-Freyseng when dealing with high altitude experiments except in the written indictment. Furthermore they did not even submit one document which originated in the referal for aviation medicine at the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
Therefore I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove by any means that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was in any manner implicated in these experiments which took place at Dachau. Even less has it been proved that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was responsible for these experiments.
With regard to the freezing experiments the prosecution managed to submit some few documents which originated in the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Only two documents however show the reference number of the referat for aviation medicine.
And as regards these documents the defense has proved during presentation of its case that it was and Dr. Becker-Freyseng who dealt with this letter, but the Referent Prof. Dr. Anthony.
The prosecution was therefore unable to prove in their case in chief that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was connected with the freezing experiments.
In the case of the defense Dr. Becker-Freyseng declared himself that he had been ordered to attend during part of the discussions between Professor Dr. Hippke and Dr. Rascher in June 1942. The public prosecutors could not prove this fact. They have up to this date not undo any such statement.
Nobody but Dr. Becker-Freyseng knew that he was present at the discussion part of the time, of which the prosecution knew. He admitted this fact before the Tribunal without duress and mentioned it as an exonerating circumstance because neither he nor the defense considered this as objective facts constituting a criminal action, on the contrary: For the information which Dr. Becker-Freysing received in the course of this discussion gave him the impression, that these experiments, which had been planned entirely without his assistance were altogether legal.
One reason for such a view was that he realized that his superior, Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Hippke had approved the suggestion as submitted.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not hear anything about the execution of the individual experiments.
The first time he heard about it again was when, after they had been concluded, Prof. Dr. Holzloehner gave a lecture during the Luftwaffe meeting concerning the cold experiments in October 1942 in Hurnberg. This lecture concerned on one hand-experiences from actual shipwrecks and on the other hand results of experiments with animals and experiences gathered from human experiments. The last part of the lecture did not reveal that these experiments were at all criminal.
To me it seems particularly important that the realization, that the judgment of Holzloehner's report may not be based on those facts which are now known about Rascher's experiments. This lecture has to be judged according to the facts known at the time, and this knowledge did not make it possible to understand from the lecture, that the experiments which were described might have been at all criminal.
The participation of the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng in the freezing experiments therefore only consists of participation in a discussion to which he was ordered by his supreme chief, General-oberstabsarzt Prof.
Dr. Hippke, which revealed nothing to indicate a criminal plan.
It was also limited to listening to a lecture which did not reveal anything about crimes which had been committed. This lecture was, at the same time, attended by 90 physicians and scientists, who, except for four other defendants, all enjoy complete freedom and some of whom hold professional positions.
The defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng can therefore not be held responsible for the freezing experiments in particular, or for participating in criminal freezing experiments, based on these circumstances alone.
To determine that his participation in these experiments, insofar as one can call it participation at all in view of the circumstances set down, should be criminal could only be established provided Dr. Becker-Freyseng considered the planned experiments criminal and yet participated under these circumstances.
This cannot be established, however, from the evidence.
Before saying anything further about the experiments Dr. BeckerFreyseng is accused of, which allegedly concern experiments with typhus and other bacteriological problems, the following should be pointed out fundamentally:
The Prosecution left out two decisive facts completely in their entire case in chief. First of all, the fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not hold the position of referent for Aviation Medicine from August 1941 to May 1941, but was merely an assistant referent under the referent Professor Dr. Anthony. The Prosecution presented their case entirely as if Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been the only referent. In fact, they even made him chief of a research institute for aviation medicine of his own, which had been invented for the Prosecution.
The defense proved, on the other hand, that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was mainly responsible for the jobs as assistant referent from August 1941 to May 1944, which had no connection whatsoever with the experiments. The referent Dr. Anthony dealt with all the other tasks of the referat for Aviation Medicine. The defense also proved that the particularly important subject of research assignments was definitely not handled by Dr. Becker-Freyseng in the Referat for Aviation Medicine until May 1944, but by Professor Dr. Anthony.
More will have to be said about that later on.
Concerning the experiments with bacteria which the Prosecution brought forward, they did not maintain that Dr. Becker-Freyseng took an active part in these experiments. In contrast to the high altitude and freezing experiments, the Prosecution reported about experiments with typhus and epidemic jaundice which is, in their opinion, supposed to be the basis for the responsibility of the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
They submitted a number of documents, some of which bear the file numbers of the referat for Aviation Medicine. On top of that, they mentioned, in an oral plea, that the Luftwaffe issued assignments for research on these subjects, that the research assignments were dealt with by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and that he even gave orders to the research workers to carry out the experiments which the Prosecution considers criminal.
On the other hand, the following points have been proved by the defense:
1) During the years 1941 to May 1944, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who at that time was assistant referent, was by no means in charge of research assignments within the referat for Aviation Medicine.
2) Part of the documents submitted by the Prosecution, in their case in chief, do not bear the file notation of the referat for Aviation Medicine but that of the referat for Hygiene.
3) The case in chief of the defense has shown further that, although all research assignments were informally dealt with by the referat for Aviation Medicine, i.e., for purely technical and formal reasons, factual work was carried out in the referat for Aviation Medicine only with regard to research assignments concerning aviation medicine.
All the research assignments in other fields of research were factually dealt with at the respective competent referats.
4) On the other hand, all research assignments given to Professor Haagen do not concern aviation medicine at all. They are all in the field of hygiene and bacteriology.
Only the referent for Hygiene, however, was competent to deal with the matters.
Thus, it is certain that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was not engaged in these research assignments until May 1944 and that, until that date, he knew nothing whatsoever about them. That further proves that, after May 1944, he likewise dealt with the research assignments to Professor Haagen only in formal respects, that the factual work was carried out at the Hygiene Referat.
Furthermore, it is proved that the research assignments, which has been stressed so greatly by the Prosecution, were in reality research subsidies which were granted to the various scientists in order to facilitate their work. These research orders contained neither directives nor instructions regarding the execution of the work. Its execution was not checked upon, such a control was neither customary nor necessary, nor was it at all possible, in view of purely professional reasons. Within the scope of these research commissions, final reports and occasionally intermediate reports were rendered by the scientists. Neither in the intermediate reports nor in the final reports were there contained any details regarding the work which had been completed.
Even if the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng had dealt with the research orders given to Professor Haagen, he neither could have given him instructions nor directives for it, nor would he have come to know any of the details.
For this reason, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng cannot be made responsible for anything that is supposed to have been done by Professor Haagen.
But, besides these research assignments, the Prosecution has not been able to submit further evidence which can prove any connection between Dr. Becker-Freyseng and the work of Dr. Haagen.
I should like to draw your attention to the following points of the evidence given by the defense:
Dr. Becker-Freyseng, whom the Prosecution accuses of being responsible for the alleged criminal experiments of Dr. Haagen, has been examined here as a witness.
He stated - in accordance with the evidence just submitted - that Dr. Becker-Freyseng has nothing at all to do with this work.
The defense is hereby convinced that the evidence did, in no way, prove Dr. Becker-Freyseng's knowledge of any details concerning the work of Dr. Haagen, to say nothing of his being responsible for any experiments carried out by Dr. Haagen.
Before we leave this point, I should like to make the following clear:
Dr. Becker-Freyseng is to be made responsible for an alleged criminal activity of Professor Haagen. In order to motivate, however, such a responsibility, the Prosecution ought to have proved, first of all, that Professor Haagen actually did commit crimes against humanity. But the Prosecution completely failed to do so.
The Prosecution has tried to prove this responsibility by submitting a series of documents and by the testimony of several witnesses.
The case of the defense has shown thoroughly that the documents were not able to prove any criminal activity by Dr. Haagen.
The testimony of the witnesses was so vague and confusing that it is even less possible to base any finding thereon.
In order to oppose this extremely weak basis of the evidence for an alleged criminal activity of Dr. Haagen, given by the Prosecution, the defense summoned Dr. Haagen himself as a witness. I shall not go into the details here of Professor Haagen's highly scientific testimony, but one fact certainly is obvious: that his statement has not been reputed, his testimony that his work in the Natzweiler concentration camp was purely scientific and entirely unobjectionable from a medical point of view.
All these reasons exclude entirely any responsibility of Dr. Becker-Freyseng as far as Haagen's work on typhus is concerned.
With regard to the criminal experiments in the field of epidemic jaundice, alleged by the Prosecution, I should like to refer to the fact that the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate did not even issue as much as a research assignment here.
This means, from the very beginning, that there is no connection between Dr. Becker-Freyseng and those experiments in this field. The only research assignment mentioned in the trial was issued by the Reich Research Council.
Beyond this, the statement of the Prosecution's own witness, Edith Schmidt, proves that Professor Haagen in this sphere did not conduct any experiments on human beings at all.
The documents and the testimony by Dr. Haagen show, however, that it was planned to experiment on human beings. But the planning of such experiments does not constitute a crime. It is much more decisive on what kind of persons such experiment was to be conducted.
The Prosecution here asserted that it was Professor Haagen's intention to conduct experiments on prisoners, but it failed to prove this. On the other hand, the defense has proved, through Professor Haagen himself, that these transfer experiments were to be carried out with volunteers of the students' companies of the Luftwaffe. Such a scheme, however, constitutes no crime against humanity, but is strictly within the framework of what is admissible internationally. But, even with these legal plans, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng had nothing whatsoever to do.
In summary, it may be said concerning this group of experiments that there exists no proof that any criminal experiments were carried out or that they were planned. Even more, we lack any proof to the effect that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had anything to do with those problems.
The most important charge against Dr. Becker-Freyseng is his participation in the sea-water experiments.
In this regard, the Prosecution did not claim that Dr. BeckerFreyseng actively participated in the experiments, but it called his sharing in their planning a criminal action that violates the laws of humanity.
The only thing that is true is that Dr. Becker-Freyseng, as referent for Aviation Medicine in the Office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, in the course of his official duties, participated in the planning of the experiments that were carried out in the summer of 1944 at Dachau.
The defense claims and has proved that these experiments did not violate those medical principles that are to be applied in medical experiments, neither in their planning nor in their actual performance. Actually, they were in accordance with those standards and norms in every respect.
The following must be said in this connection:
In general, the following demands are to be made in regard to medical experiments: