. NMT02-T0239
Volume II · Page 239
We learn from the record that persons subjected to treatment were "young, well-built inmates of concentration camps who were in the best of health, and these were Poles, Russians, French, and prisoners of war."It goes without saying that the work done in conformity with the plans of Himmler, substantially aided by the cooperation of Rudolf Brandt, brought maiming and suffering to great numbers of people.
TYPHUS EXPERIMENTS
Medical experiments ostensibly conducted to benefit Germany in the prevention of typhus fever were carried on in the Natzweiler concentration camp beginning with the year 1942. The details of these experiments have been dealt with elsewhere in this judgment.
In the evidence it is proved that not less than 50 experimental subjects died as a direct result of their participation in these typhus experiments. Persons of all nationalities were used as subjects. Regarding these enterprises, Rudolf Brandt, in his own affidavit, admits that these experimental subjects did not volunteer but were conscripted and compelled to serve without their consent being sought or given.
Inasmuch as information on the typhus experiments, both before and after their performance, was furnished, as a matter of course, to Himmler through Brandt, the defendant's full knowledge of them is regarded as definitely proven.
Here, again, the managing hand of the defendant is shown. The smooth operation of these experiments is demonstrated to have been contingent upon the diligence with which Rudolf Brandt arranged for the supply of quotas of suitable human experimental material to the physicians at the scene of the experiment.
In view of these proven facts, the defendant Rudolf Brandt must be held and considered as one of the defendants responsible for performance of illegal medical experiments where deaths resulted to the nonconsenting human subjects.
SKELETON COLLECTION
In response to a request by Rudolf Brandt, on 9 February 1942 the defendant Sievers, business manager of the Ahnenerbe, submitted to him certain data on the alleged desirability of securing a Jewish skeleton collection for the Reich University of Strasbourg. The report furnished to the defendant Brandt contained among other things the following:
