NMT01-T198
Volume I · Page 198
Q. At that time, was there any possibility in Germany to resist, and in what did you see such possibility?
A. There were only three types of resistance possible. First of all, emigration for a person who was able; second, open resistance which meant a concentration camp or the death penalty, and to my knowledge, never met with any success; third, passive resistance by apparent yielding, misplacing and delaying orders, criticism among one's friends, in short, what writers today call "internal emigration." But that really doesn't have much to do with the question. As far as the direct question of prevention is concerned, I would like to say something more. To take a comparison from the medical field, it is unknown to me and I cannot imagine, for example, that an assistant of a scientific research worker who is performing infections with a fatal disease, for example, leprosy, on a prisoner, that this assistant should prevent the scientist from carrying out this infection by force — perhaps by knocking the hypodermic syringe out of his hand and crying "You mustn't do that, the man might die!" I could imagine that some assistant might, for personal reasons, refuse to participate in such experiments, but I cannot imagine that if there were a trial against this doctor the prosecution would demand that the assistant should have prevented the scientist in this manner.
Q. Then, you are convinced that prevention by force was impossible
A. Yes.
Q. But could you not have filed charges, for example, with the police or with the public prosecutor, against Rascher?
A. Yes, of course, I could have, but if I had gone there and said, "Rascher has performed experiments ordered by Himmler — by the Chief of the German Police and whatever else he was — the Reich Leader SS, the State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior," they would probably have said: "Well, we can't do anything about it. If he has orders, then we can't do anything about it."
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving freezing experiments (par. 6 (B) of the indictment). On this charge the defendants Handloser, Schroeder, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers were convicted. The defend-
[...ants]
