| |
FISCHER
The defendant Fischer is charged under counts two and three with
Sulfanilamide and Bone, Muscle and Nerve Regeneration and Bone Transplantation
Experiments.
Fritz Fischer joined the Allgemeine SS in February 1934
and the NSDAP in 1939. In the latter year he joined the Waffen SS and was
assigned to the SS unit in the Hohenlychen Hospital as a physician subordinated
to the defendant Gebhardt. In June 1940 he was transferred to the SS regiment
Leibstandarte "Adolf Hitler", and returned the same year to Hohenlychen as
assistant physician to Gebhardt, where he remained until May 1943. He then
served as a surgeon on both the eastern and western fronts and, after having
been wounded in August 1944, came back to Hohenlychen as a patient. In December
1944 he was assigned to the Charity Hospital in Berlin, but returned again to
Hohenlychen as Gebhardt's assistant in April 1945. In the Waffen SS he attained
the rank of Sturmbannfuehrer (major).
SULFANILAMIDE EXPERIMENTS
Gebhardt, as shown elsewhere in this judgment, was in personal charge
of the work being done in this field by his assistant Fritz Fischer. That the
latter performed most of the sulfanilamide experimental work is not denied by
him; on the contrary, he freely admits it. The defense offered in his behalf is
twofold; that the experimental subjects were to have alleged death sentences,
then impending, commuted to something less severe in the event they survived
the experiments; and that defendant Fischer was acting under military orders
from his superior officer, Gebhardt. These defenses have been considered and
separately rejected in other parts of this judgment.
It is true,
however, that paragraph 4 (b) of Article II of Control Council Law No. 10
reads: "
The fact that any person acted pursuant
to the order of his government, or of a superior, does not free him from
responsibility for crime, but may be considered in
mitigation." It is unnecessary to take up
and answer all the arguments that might be presented upon whether or not
Fischer is entitled to a mitigation of sentence due to the circumstances
claimed as the basis of such mitigation. He acted with most complete knowledge
that what he was doing was fundamentally criminal, even though directed by a
superior. Under the circumstances his defense must be rejected, and he must be
held to be guilty as charged.
296 |