Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
When State Secretary Dr. Conti during the war was toying with the idea
to commission Professor Schilling, who was at that time in Italy, with
malaria research in Germany, I, at that time, Chief of the Tropical
Medical Department of the Robert Koch Institute, was first of all
assigned by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to give an opinion. In
this opinion, for reasons which I have explained in the witness box, I
rejected Schilling’s plan. Had one followed my advice, the experiments
by Schilling in Dachau would never have taken place. In the course of
these proceedings I made all efforts to come into the possession of that
opinion but in this case also I was unsuccessful, although that opinion
in two copies is in the hands of the military government, possibly even
in this building.
Also, in vain, I attempted to get the file note, so important for my
defense, which I dictated to the witness Block about my conferences with
State Secretary Conti and President Gildemeister, after I had gained
knowledge about the conduct of the typhus experiments in Buchenwald.
What little correspondence I had with Professor Haagen is apparently
entirely in the hands of the prosecution. In spite of that, it has been
submitted only in part to you. That fact offered an opportunity to the
prosecution to interpret passages taken out of the context incorrectly.
Unfortunately, I have no opportunity to force anyone to submit the
missing documents which would clarify matters in my favor.
To evaluate the work of Haagen, and my defense counsel has pointed that
out already, the statement of an unbiased expert would have been of
decisive importance. Therefore, I can only regret that the interrogation
of the Frenchman Georges Blanc for whom I applied and who has the best
knowledge in this field, did not take place, although he had volunteered
to appear before this Tribunal as an expert.
Professor Lecrout, Director of the Institute Pasteur in Paris, was
frequently in Nuernberg during this trial. After an interview, the
prosecution refrained from calling him as an expert witness to clarify
some difficult questions resulting from the work of Haagen. I ask the
high Tribunal to draw its conclusions from these facts and to assure
that the lack of these pieces of evidence should not result in a damage
to my interests.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account