The second case is the request to hand over 10 prisoners for two days for an experiment not named. This cannot refer to a real medical experiment, for such an experiment cannot be carried out in such a short time with the necessary tests and observations. The speedy return of the experimental subjects indicates that the experiment was not dangerous.
Finally, the defendant Karl Brandt is connected with the phosgene experiments by Bickenbach, which caused the death of four Germans sentenced to death. But precisely here Bickenbach’s affidavit shows that the defendant Karl Brandt was outside the whole framework of the experiment in Himmler’s sphere, and that he was merely approached to mediate. The order came from Himmler. The experiments must have seemed innocuous to the defendant Karl Brandt since Bickenbach wanted to carry them out on himself.
On the other hand, there was the state emergency and the enormous importance of the discovery that the taking of a few urotropin tablets might give the ardently desired protection to all against the expected gas attack and, as the result of the experiment shows, actually did so.
Now the prosecution endeavors to establish a connection of Karl Brandt with the other experiments via the Reich Research Council. It is true that one can establish such a connection theoretically on paper, but the links of the chain break when one examines them closely. Only the head of the specialized department decided on the so-called research assignments, and he only investigated whether the aim was necessary for war, not how the experiment was to be carried out. He could not inform others of matters about which he did not know himself.
The defendant Karl Brandt is further charged with not having protested in one case when he heard about deaths caused by experiments on persons sentenced to death in the well-known lecture on sulfanilamide. I must point out that even if this experiment had been inadmissible, silence would not be a crime, for assent after the act is without importance in criminal law, and one can only be connected with plans and enterprises as long as they have not been concluded.
Now the prosecution has introduced in its closing brief a new charge holding the defendant Karl Brandt responsible for negligence. In this respect I should like to point out that no indictment for negligence has been brought in, and that the concept of crime against humanity committed by negligence cannot exist.
Therefore, it will be sufficient to emphasize that the alleged negligence depends on the existence of a duty of supervision and the right to give orders through other agencies. In every state the spheres of competence are separated, and it is not possible for everyone to interfere in everything on the basis that everyone is responsible for everything.
The prosecution says that the defendant Karl Brandt ought to have used his influence and availed himself of his intimate relations with Hitler to stop the experiments. Even presuming that he was aware of the facts as crimes, his guilt would not be of a legal, but only of a political or moral nature. Until now nobody has been held criminally responsible for the conduct of a superior or a friend; the question of criminal law, however, is the only one the Tribunal has to consider. As a matter of fact this close relationship did not exist. The defendant Karl Brandt was the surgeon who had to be in attendance on Hitler; Dr. Morell, the latter’s personal physician, soon tried to undermine the confidence placed in Karl Brandt so that he was given commissions which removed him further and further from the sphere of his medical activity.
The alleged intimate relations were eventually crowned by the dictation of a death sentence against Karl Brandt without his having been granted even a hearing on the charges advanced against him.
If one sums up everything relating to the medical experiments and follows to a large extent the charges of the prosecution, it is an established fact that it is not shown that the defendant Karl Brandt participated in any way in experiments on prisoners of war and foreigners, or that he was cognizant of them. Therefore, no war crime or crime against humanity has been committed, and consequently punishment under Law No. 10 is excluded. I refer in this connection to the legal arguments in my closing brief.