C. Type of experimental subjects.
1. F 1001. The documents submitted do not reveal the nature of the experimental subjects, though the year 1939 indicates that in no case were foreigners used.
2. “Lost”. According to Sievers’ testimony, the persons used in the experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp volunteered, so that the nature of the experimental subjects would appear to be of no significance as a basis for judgment. The testimony of the defendant Rudolf Brandt (NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252) is no basis to judge the true state of affairs, as Rudolf Brandt’s testimony (Tr. pp. 4930-34) shows that he himself never witnessed an experiment and that his statements are conclusions drawn from documents and statements submitted by the interrogators.
3. N-substance. No experiments, no statement.
D. Danger involved for the experimental subjects.
1. Drug F 1001 and “Lost”. The usual forms of the “Lost” experiments, applying a drop to the skin, as described by Holl (Tr. p. 1052) do not entail any danger to life, because the aim is to ascertain the most detailed reactions of the skin towards tiny drops of “Lost”. Experiments with deadly quantities would prevent this being ascertained. The relevant statements of the witness Holl must be due to ignorance of the manner of the experiment. Holl’s statement (Tr. p. 1050 ff.) and the affidavit of Wagner (NO-881, Pros. Ex. 280) also, to a certain degree, contradict each other. Holl, a miner by profession, who was hospital Kapo [inmate trusty] in Natzweiler, makes scientific statements with illustrations, to which one can hardly attach any value. The affidavit of Wagner who, as a scientific designer, held, during the experiments, an elevated position within the inner working circle, is far more reserved. He knows nothing of deaths occurring during “Lost” experiments. His conclusions as to how dangerous the “Lost” experiments were are based on a chart which was most likely intended for a committee. Sievers’ statement (Tr. p. 5732) reports a visit to Wimmer at Strasbourg during which the latter did not mention that there had been any deaths. Hirt also confirms this in March 1943; though he cites two deaths, they had not resulted from “Lost” experiments. The experiments with drug F 1001, too, are “Lost” experiments. The danger involved in the experiments has been described accurately. There are no deaths and health is not impaired permanently. In 23 cases general condition was not impaired. (NO-199, Pros. Ex. 253.) In contrast to this, NO-198, Prosecution Exhibit 254, mentions serious disturbances of the general condition in eight cases. Yet it must be assumed that these disturbances were of a temporary nature and occurred only when the climax of the injury was reached. They did not last throughout the duration of the experiments.
2. N-substance. The experiments were not carried out. Over and above that, NO-005, Prosecution Exhibit 279, discloses that the experiments would, most probably, not result in any permanent bodily harm.
VI. Special responsibility and participation of the defendant Karl Brandt.
1. The defendant Karl Brandt did not issue any order to carry out experiments. Karl Brandt did not have authority to issue orders.
2. The decree of 1 March 1944 concerning defense equipment in chemical warfare has been reconstructed by means of the following affidavits: (Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42; Karl Brandt 5, Karl Brandt Ex. 6; Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10; Karl Brandt 4, Karl Brandt Ex. 5; Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41; Karl Brandt 89, Karl Brandt Ex. 37). They show that this decree does not refer to an authorization to give orders concerning chemical-warfare agents and their research, but that it represents a production order referring to defense equipment in chemical warfare. Document NO-015, Prosecution Exhibit 275, proves that Hirt’s experiments had been completed when the defendant Karl Brandt received, through Sievers, Hirt’s treatment-instructions for injuries caused by “Lost” following the decree of 1 March 1944. The very fact that in this way, for the first time, he gained knowledge of the results of the experiments proves that this was an SS affair of Himmler and Hirt and that it belonged to a sphere where interference was denied to Karl Brandt by strict orders (see statements on participation in experiments by virtue of contacts with Himmler). (Also Karl Brandt 120, Karl Brandt Ex. 35.) The affidavit of Rudolf Brandt (NO-372, Pros. Ex. 252) is refuted by Karl Brandt 13, Karl Brandt Exhibit 12, as well as statements made by Rudolf Brandt. (Tr. pp. 4930-34.) As a matter of fact the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is never mentioned in the numerous documents extending over a period of several years. The special secrecy surrounding the Noli Decree and its contents with regard to poison gas defense is made sufficiently clear by the necessity of safeguarding the inadequate poison gas defense in the least possible time, and to hide this from the enemy. (Karl Brandt 103, Karl Brandt Ex. 42; Karl Brandt 101, Karl Brandt Ex. 41; Karl Brandt 11, Karl Brandt Ex. 10.)