b. Selections from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT HOVEN

* * * * *

(Hoven) tried to justify the killings [of concentration camp inmates] by stating that these inmates were informers, spies, and stool pigeons of the SS and therefore had to be exterminated. He said that if they had been permitted to carry on with their activities, the illegal camp management would have been wiped out and the criminal inmates in the camp would have gained the upper hand. Hoven’s attempt at justification for the killing of inmates of concentration camps is, of course, no defense. It may well be true that Hoven sympathized and even collaborated with the illegal camp management. It may also be true that some of his victims may have been killed by him on the basis of suggestions put forward by this illegal camp management. But it goes without saying that these political prisoners, who instigated the murder of their opponents, were in no position to judge whether it was really necessary to kill them for the sake of the camp community. They only judged this emergency from their own point of view, i.e., from the point of view of the benefit of themselves. Hoven himself had no judgment at all in this respect and simply made himself the willing and bought tool of a small clique in the camp, who undoubtedly often tried to eliminate not only persons whose activities were considered detrimental to the well-being of their fellow inmates, but also personal opponents and enemies. That Hoven was corrupted by the inmates and paid for his murders is proved by the testimony of several witnesses.

Kogon testified:

“I can only conclude that both motives, the political motive and the motive of corruption, were active in the case of Dr. Hoven. _If Dr. Hoven expressed any desire—and he expressed many desires—then these wishes were always filled._” (_Tr. p. 1213._)

“_He himself expressed many wishes constantly and all possible advantages were given him by such people whom he had saved._” (Tr. p. 1214.)

Kirchheimer testified to the same effect. (Tr. p. 1346.) The defense witness Pieck painted pictures for Hoven and his family, and the defense witness Horn in his affidavit stated that Hoven was very corrupt. The prisoners knew it and they corrupted him in every possible manner and made him gifts of furniture, underwear, and food. There were periods in which complete workshops were erected for Hoven in which thirty or more inmates were working.

Pieter Schalker testified before the Dutch Bureau for the Investigation of War Crimes in Amsterdam that Hoven played an exceptionally evil role and had innumerable deaths on his conscience owing to completely inadequate medical attention. In later years, when it became obvious that Germany would be defeated, he changed his attitude towards the inmates. (NO-1063, Pros. Ex. 328.) When Schalker was interrogated by the commissioner of the Tribunal on the motion of defense counsel, he amplified his statement by saying that Hoven stole the food which was furnished for the experimental subjects in Block 46 and also obtained other items such as shoes, toys, and women’s clothing.

The testimony of the affiant Ackermann, who was an inmate in the pathological department under Hoven, proves that Hoven participated in the customary brutal crimes in concentration camps. He said—

“Dr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of the pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known to me, who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr. Hoven said to me: ‘I want to see the skull of this prisoner on my writing desk by tomorrow evening.’ The prisoner was ordered to report to the medical section, after the physician had noted down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was delivered on the same day to the dissection room. The postmortem examination showed that the prisoner had been killed by injections. The skull was prepared as ordered and delivered to Dr. Hoven.” (NO-2631, Pros. Ex. 522.)

Hoven also approved the beating of concentration camp inmates. (NO-2313, Pros. Ex. 523; NO-2312, Pros. Ex. 524.) One of these inmates died.

On 20 August 1942, Hoven suggested to the camp commander of Buchenwald that the reporting of deaths of Russian political prisoners be discontinued in order to save paper. He said—

“It is requested that the question should be examined whether it is necessary to issue reports of the death of political Russians. According to a direction issued last week, an issue of only one form was required. This may effect a saving of paper, but as political Russians are for the greatest number among the dead prisoners at the present time, more time and paper could be saved if these death reports were dropped. Notifications of death could be made as before, as for the Russian prisoners of war.” (NO-2148, Pros. Ex. 570.)

The proof has shown that beside the sixty inmates who were admittedly killed by him, Hoven participated in the killing of many other inmates of the Buchenwald concentration camp who suffered from malnutrition and exhaustion. He selected the victims for the transports who were later killed in the Bernburg Euthanasia Station. His defense that all his activities were done only for the benefit of the political inmates in the concentration camp is clearly ridiculous and without foundation.

It is interesting to note that Hoven’s defense that he killed for idealistic motives is the same he used in the proceedings against him in 1944, only then his alleged idealistic motive was “to prevent a scandal in the interest of the SS and the Wehrmacht.” (NO-2380, Pros. Ex. 527; see also, NO-2366, Pros. Ex. 526.)

* * * * *

_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE PROSECUTION_[1]

* * * * *

In Sievers we have an unresisting member of a so-called resistance movement. He asks the Tribunal to free him from guilt for his bloody crimes on the ground that he was really working as an anti-Nazi resistance agent. Nor was he a latecomer to the resistance movement; according to him, he has been resisting since 1933. Yet in those 14 years, yes to this very day, he has not performed one overt act against the men who ran the system he now professes to have always detested. He joined the Nazi Party as early as 1929 and the SS in 1935. He stayed with Himmler’s gang until the last days of the collapse. He came to Nuernberg in 1946, not to give evidence of the horrible crimes of which he had first-hand knowledge, but to testify in defense of the SS. During his testimony before the International Military Tribunal, he consistently denied any knowledge of, or connection with, crimes committed by the Ahnenerbe of the SS. It was left to the cross-examination of Mr. Elwyn Jones to prove him the murderer and perjurer that he is. Nor did he show any signs of resistance in this trial except to the manifold crimes with which he is charged. Not one new fact did he reveal to this Tribunal, although specifically asked to tell all he knew. If asked today, he will assure one and all that there is not a guilty man in the dock, and least of all himself. But, for purposes of argument, let us concede the truth of his many lies. It does not harm our case. It is not the law that a resistance worker can commit no crime and, least of all, against the people he is supposed to be protecting. It is not the law that an undercover agent, even an FBI agent, can join a gang of murderers, lay the plans with them, execute the killings, share the loot, and go his merry way. Many are the policemen who have been convicted for taking part in crimes they were entrusted to prevent. No, the sad thing is that this collector of living Jews for transformation into skeletons has only one life with which to pay for his many crimes.

* * * * *

c. Selections from the Argumentation of the Defense

_EXTRACTS FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT GEBHARDT_[2]

* * * * *

The State Emergency and War Emergency as Legal Excuse

The evidence proved furthermore that the experiments to test the effectiveness of sulfanilamide were necessary to clarify a question which was not only of decisive importance for the individual soldier and the troops at the front but above and beyond this care for the individual, it was of vital importance for the fighting power of the army, and thus for the whole fighting nation. All efforts to clarify this question by studying the effect of casual wounds failed. Although drugs of the sulfanilamide series—the number of which amounts to approximately 3,000—had been tested for more than 10 years, it was impossible to form an even approximately correct idea of the most valuable remedies. It was impossible to clarify this question in peacetime by the observation of many thousands of people with casual wounds and by circularized inquiries. Nor could a clear answer be found to this question of vital importance to many hundreds of thousands of soldiers by observation of the wounded in field hospitals during the war. In this argumentation it is impossible and also unnecessary to examine details of the problem of wound infection and its control in modern warfare. I may assume that the importance of this question is known to the Tribunal and needs no further proof since this question not only played a part in the German Army but was a matter of special research and measures in the armies all over the world.