[Cover Illustration]
TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10
VOLUME II
NUERNBERG OCTOBER 1946-APRIL 1949
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. — Price $2.75 (Buckram)
CONTENTS
The Medical Case
(Introductory material and basic directives under which trials were conducted together with Chapters I-VIII-E of Medical Case are printed in Volume I.)
Page VIII. Evidence and Arguments on Important Aspects of the Case (cont’d) 1 F. Necessity 1 G. Subjection to Medical Experimentation as Substitute for Penalties 44 H. Usefulness of the Experiments 61 I. Medical Ethics 70 1. General Principles 70 2. German Medical Profession 86 3. Medical Experiments in other Countries 90 IX. Ruling of the Tribunal on Count One of the Indictment 122 X. Final Plea for Defendant Karl Brandt by Dr. Servatius 123 XI. Final Statements of the Defendants, 19 July 1947 138 XII. Judgment 171 The Jurisdiction of the Tribunal 172 The Charge 173 Count One 173 Count Two and Three 174 Count Four 180 The Proof as to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity 181 Permissible Medical Experiments 181 The Medical Service in Germany 184 The Ahnenerbe Society 188 Karl Brandt 189 Handloser 198 Rostock 208 Schroeder 210 Genzken 217 Gebhardt 223 Blome 228 Rudolf Brandt 235 Mrugowsky 241 Poppendick 248 Sievers 253 Rose 264 Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz 272 Brack 277 Becker-Freyseng 281 Schaefer 285 Hoven 286 Beiglboeck 290 Pokorny 292 Oberheuser 294 Fischer 296 Sentences 298 XIII. Petitions 301 XIV. Affirmation of Sentences by the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation 327 XV. Order of the United States Supreme Court Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 330 Appendix 331 Table of Comparative Ranks 331 List of Witnesses in Case 1 332 Index of Documents and Testimony 336
The Milch Case
Introduction 355 Order Constituting Tribunal 357 Members of Military Tribunal II 359 Prosecution Counsel 359 Defense Counsel 359 I. Indictment 360 II. Arraignment 365 III. Opening Statements 366 A. Opening Statement for the Prosecution 366 B. Opening Statement for the Defense 377 IV. Selections from the Documents and Testimony of Witnesses of Prosecution and Defense 385 A. Slave Labor 385 1. General Slave Labor Program in Germany 385 2. The Central Planning Board 444 3. The Jaegerstab 524 4. Generalluftzeugmeister 596 B. Medical Experiments 623 C. Curriculum Vitae and Excerpts from the Testimony of the Defendant Milch 633 V. Closing Statements 690 A. Closing Statement of the Prosecution 690 B. Closing Statement of the Defense 730 VI. Final Statement of the Defendant, 25 March 1947 772 VII. Judgment 773 A. Opinion and Judgment of the United States Military Tribunal II 773 B. Concurring Opinion by Judge Michael A. Musmanno 797 C. Concurring Opinion by Judge Fitzroy D. Phillips 860 VIII. Petitions 879 A. Extract from Petition for Clemency to Military Governor of United States Zone of Occupation 879 B. Petition to the Supreme Court of the United States for Writ of Habeas Corpus 883 IX. Affirmation of Sentence by the Military Governor of the United States Zone of Occupation 887 X. Order of the United States Supreme Court, 20 October 1947, Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus 888 Appendix 889 List of Witnesses in Case 2 889 Index of Documents and Testimony 891
VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE CASE—Continued
F. Necessity
a. Introduction
The defense generally argued that the medical experiments took place because of military necessity or the national emergency presented by war. The defendant Sievers argued that his participation in various experiments was a necessary part of his participation in a resistance movement in Germany. The defendant Hoven argued that the concentration camp inmates, who were killed by him or with his approval and knowledge, were selected by the camp leadership which had been formed by the political inmates themselves. Hoven also argued that the inmates killed were all dangerous criminals who collaborated voluntarily with the SS, and if they would not have been removed, the political inmates would have been exterminated by these criminals and by the SS. He concluded that it was therefore necessary, in order to prevent greater harm, either to kill these “stool pigeons” personally or to give his approval for their extermination.
On the argument of military necessity and national emergency, extracts from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt are included on pages 5 to 12. On the general question of necessity, extracts are included from the examination of the defendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring on pages 29 to 30, and from the cross-examination of the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy on pages 42 to 44. The prosecution discussed the general question of necessity in its opening statement.
The argument of the defendant Sievers that his participation was necessary in connection with resistance to the Nazi leadership appears in his final plea, an extract from which is given on pages 13 to 25. From the evidence supporting the claim of Sievers, extracts from the testimony of defense witness Dr. Friedrich Hielscher are included on pages 30 to 41. The prosecution’s reply to Sievers’ special defense was made, in part, in the prosecution’s closing statement, an extract of which appears on pages 4 to 5. The argument of the defendant Hoven that the killing of concentration camp inmates, of which he was accused, was justifiable homicide appears in his final plea, an extract of which is set forth on pages 25 to 28. The prosecution’s reply to this special defense is set forth in the closing brief against the defendant Hoven, an extract of which will be found on pages 2 to 4.