1947-02-11, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United. States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 11 February 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.

Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the Defendant Oberheuser is absent from the court today due to her recent illness. A certificate as to the cause and duration of her absence will be presented at the earliest possible opportunity.

THE PRESIDENT: Are the other defendants all present in court?

THE MARSHAL: The other defendants are all present in court, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence in court of all the defendants except the Defendant Oberheuser who is excused on account of illness.

MR. HARDY: May it please the court, in the early stages of the trial the court ruled that on the calling of a witness to the stand notice will be given to the defense or the prosecution and such notice will contain the pertinent information regarding the particular witness. I have just received six requests to call witnesses on the part of the defense containing merely the last name of the witness, no other pertinent information. With such a form as that I will be unable to prepare myself for cross-examination. Hence I respectfully request that in the future all requests of that nature sent to me contain all the information and the first name of the witness, and in addition thereto, substantially what they will testify to so that I might be in a position to prepare myself for cross-examination of the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel in the future will observe the rules concerning applications for witnesses to which counsel for the prosecution has just called attention.

Defense counsel may proceed.

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Earl Brandt): I now come to Document Volume Number 2 which deals with the count of the indictment regarding membership in the SS organization which was declared criminal. There are a number of affidavits which I am submitting. First, we have the document KB 30 which I am submitting as Exhibit No. 20. It is an affidavit made by Adjutant of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler with the name of Grothmann. From 1940 until 1945 he was Himmler's Adjutant. He states the following:

1. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt did not belong to the staff of the Reich fuehrer SS at this time.

That is, 1940 to 1945.

2. At this time professor Dr. Karl Brandt maintained no closer relationship to Himmler.

3. Himmler never hinted at such close relationship with Professor Dr. Karl Brandt in conversations and particularly gave no indications that a medical-technical-contact existed.

4. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was not Himmler's medical adviser.

5. I do not know of any correspondence between Himmler and Professor Dr. Karl Brandt dealing with medical questions.

6. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt was never invited to conferences or participated in such conferences, which united the higher SS-Fuehrer Corps or parts of it. They were so-called Gruppenfuehrer conferences.

7. Professor Dr. Karl Brandt did not have any official functions within the SS, and thus did not hold an office or an official position.

/s/ Werner Grothmann

THE PRESIDENT: What number does this document bear as Dr. Brandt's exhibit?

DR. SERVATIUS: That was Exhibit No. 20.

I now come to document KB 31 which I am offering as Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit made by the Konsistorialrat, Doctor Theology, Eugen Gerstenmaier. Eugen Gerstenmaier was one of the main participants of the 20th of July.

He is a theologist who worked together with Moltke whose friends were sentenced and executed. I am submitting this affidavit to show what Professor Brandt — rather I am not submitting it to show what Professor Brandt did but to show that people turned to him, that is to say, that Karl Brandt was considered a person who was not enveloped in extreme ideas but acted according to moral-ethical considerations and of whom it could be expected that he would intervene in an objective manner.

This affidavit is similar to others which I an going to submit and one of the facts relating to it is that it was not asked for and was voluntarily submitted; and therein I see a special value of this affidavit, that is to say, that these people on their own initiative wanted to make these statement I am reading a few passages from this affidavit, and I quote:

When I was being tried for high treason by the People's Court because of my direct participation in the coup d'etat of 20 July 1944, my wife, through the mediation of third persons, approached Prof. Dr. Karl Brandt, now a defendant in the Nurnberg doctors' trial, in order to induce him to intervene in my favor at the chief of office in the Reich Security Main Office, SS-Obergruppenfuehr Mueller. Thereupon, Dr. Brandt promised my wife that he would comply with her request and intercede on my behalf.

Further, it is stated that Brandt intervened. I am not going to read all of these statements in detail.

This brings me to the next document, which is KB-32, and which I am submitting as Exhibit 22. This is used as a confirmation of the statements of Gerptenmaier and is an affidavit of his wife, Frau Brigitte Gerstenmaier, who states in detail how this intervention was put into effect. She said that Brandt gained insight into the files of Gerstunmaier and passed on information and furthermore she said that in many other cases Brandt tried to help.

My client states that the motive of his action in the first place was that of helping people who were ethically unobjectionable and who were of moral and mental superiority. He wanted to help them without any consideration of their political views. This brings me to Document KB-33, which is Exhibit 23. This is an affidavit made by Frau Manci Schacht. That is the wife of the minister Schacht who was acquitted here before- the International Military Tribunal. She, too, turned to the defendant Karl Brandt for his assistance; and she, too, confirms the fact that at that time Brandt intervened in favor of Schacht.

This brings me now to Document KB-34, which I am submitting as Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit made by Dr. Julius Meyer-Boekhoff, who, on his own initiative, approached me. This witness denied giving his oath to Hitler; and he says:

For reasons of conscience I refused to give the oath of unconditional allegiance to Hitler; and my wife in her anxiety turned to Dr. Karl Brandt to ask for help. Prof. Brandt in a letter pledged this help to my wife, giving a promise to look after my case.

The document KB-33 I am offering as Exhibit 23. This is an affidavit of the wife of the witness just mentioned; and she describes in detail how assistance was given at that time. The next document is KB-36; and I am offers this exhibit as Exhibit 26. This is an affidavit from Maria Kellner, who is the Mother Superior of the Franciscan Hospital and who on her own initiative approached me. Her statement is of importance in so far as it shows that Dr. Karl Brandt was not an outspoken Nazi as he is being indicted here. She describes in detail his character and says:

Dr. Brandt was always very friendly towards us and never showed himself to be a Nazi.

Further, she says:

Considering his kind disposition towards us Catholic Sisters, I cannot believe that he would consciously commit a criminal act.

I now come to the Document KB-37, which is Exhibit 27. This is an affidavit made by a priest of a Catholic order, Father Unto Sebastian Weih. This Catholic priest approached me and at my request gave me this affidavit in this form. He describes here a meeting with the defendant Brandt at Christmas 1394; and he says that the defendant Brandt at that time, on Christmas Eve, went to the front dispensary in order to help some of the physicians there and to take their turns. He further states that Karl Brandt intervened in favor of the Sisters of the order, and he said:

I should like to give you a Christmas surprise. I have been able to intervene so that the Sisters can remain in that hospital." The priest told us that there was a high degree of esteem for religious values in Brandt's character and that all the assistants were very much impressed with his stature and that he therefore judged Brandt very favorably.

Then the General Secretary sent a letter to me, asking me to submit it the Tribunal. This is a letter of a woman physician, Louiza Ernwein, of Muehlhausen, who, as a French woman, was confined in a concentration camp. This letter is addressed to the Tribunal. The witness says that Brandt had helped her in order to get her out of the concentration camp into a position as a physician.

The essential points of this statement are that she thought of turning to the defendant Brandt for help, and that means that she considered him a person who did not belong to the circle who held the extreme SS views. This letter cannot be submitted by me as an affidavit since I have not yet received an answer from the witness. However, I ask you to admit it. The letter is here available in the French language; and I ask the Tribunal to admit it.

THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that this letter was delivered to the Secretary General of the Tribunal?

DR. SERVATIUS: The General Secretary had this letter handed to me by Lt. Garrett and asked that I translate it and then submit it.

THE PRESIDENT: I also understand that the letter was received without solicitation of any kind; this witness was unknown to counsel, as I understand it?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, she was unknown to me.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, there are three letters in this document book. One is attached to Karl Brandt Exhibit Number 31, one to Karl Brandt Exhibit Number 37, and then this last one which was referred to here. I object to the admissibility of any one of the three of these letters because of the fact that they are not affidavits, they are not statements in due form; they don't bear any semblance to a legal instrument to be admitted into evidence before this Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Referring to the other letters mentioned by counsel for the prosecution, I would ask counsel for the defendant Brandt if these other letters were received by him without solicitation on his part or without his knowledge of the writers.

DR. SERVATIUS: I received these other letters also without my solicitation. The people concerned wrote to me on their own initiative. That is why I attached these letters to the affidavits which I asked for formally. I merely attached these letters in order to show that these people approached me from their own initiative.

THE PRESIDENT: The letters referred to may be admitted in evidence. The Tribunal will give them whatever weight is deemed proper to place upon them; but they will be received in evidence as exhibits on behalf of defendant Karl Brandt.

DR. SERVATIUS: On page 82 in my document book there is Document KB 24 of Mrs. Schmundt. This concerns the question of euthanasia.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not find that copy of the document.

DR. SERVATIUS: It was submitted as an annex to this document book. If it is not available before the Tribunal, I an not going to read it. I expect a number of other affidavits and statements and I will not be in a position to conclude my evidence entirely since some of the witnesses haven't as yet arrived and I should like to reserve the right to present these matters at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: You may offer evidence at a later date and the Tribunal will keep all of these cases open for a reasonable time so that the defendant may present evidence which will come in at a later date.

DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, then this brings me to the end of the evidence which was prepared in such a manner that I could submit it. I also had another Document Book No. 3 which I handed in for translation last week and it is not yet finished and I think it will be finished during the course of this day, and at a later date I shall come back to that, and if it please Your Honors this third book, Mr. President, contains mainly cases of experiments —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer evidence at a later date. The Tribunal understands the difficulty under which counsel for both prosecution and defense are laboring in preparing the evidence and the technical rule that all evidence must be presented at one time will be relaxed to allow all parties a chance to offer evidence which is now delayed and which may come a later date due to the fact that the delay is not due to a fault or neglect of either party.

DR. SERVATIUS: I then provisionally conclude my submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant Karl Brandt.

THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, before you start dealing with the next case, I should like to make an application.

We should like to present to you in this courtroom one of the medical experiments and we should like to have your permission for that.

We are concerned with the following matter:

I an speaking in this case for the defendant Dr. Ruff and. for the defendant Dr. Romberg, whose defense counsel is prevented from attending here because of a death case. These two defendants are mostly indicted because of the so-called "high altitude" experiments in Dachau.

You will perhaps remember that the prosecution has maintained with reference to these experiments that the high altitude constituted a torture of the experimental subjects; that is, a cruel measure which has to be considered as a crime against humanity. We should like to show you proof to the contrary. Already in my opening statements I pointed out that these defendants are only responsible for a part of the Dachau experiments; namely, for the first part, during which no fatalities or damages to health occurred and we also already have pointed out that these defendants are not responsible for the second part of these experiments, that is, not responsible for the part where fatalities occurred. During that part of the experiments, for which these two defendants are responsible, the so-called high altitude sickness played a part, that is, the conditions where the experimental subject loses consciousness when the air pressure decreases accordingly and when towards the end of the experiment they revive again from this unconscious state and where the prosecution maintains that this constitutes a torture, a cruelty, towards these experimental subjects, and we in this case in this courtroom would like to present to you this experiment in order that you, as judges, can gain a picture of this kind of experiment.

Naturally, gentlemen of the Tribunal, we cannot bring a low pressure chamber into this courtroom but that really is not necessary and for the following reasons:

This entire experiment, including air sickness, can be carried out and presented to you even without this low pressure chamber. For this purpose only need a few little accessories which can easily be brought into the courtroom; namely, especially an air compression bottle, that is, bottle with compressed air, with a mixture of gas with oxygen and hydrogen. Then we need normal breathing apparatus for the mouth, as one usually uses in airplanes, and, thirdly, we need a rubber breathing tube.

Then we need a can as used by air crews, then we need a breathing mask as air crews use it. That is all we shall need here in order to present this experiment to you in an orderly manner.

Now the question arises: Who can be considered an an experimental subject here? I would suggest to you that as an experimental subject either the defendant Ruff or the defendant Romberg be used. Both have performed these experiments on numerous occasions, one concerned with the experimental subject and the other one as a person in charge of the performance or experiment. I, you consider it necessary, you could have a medical expert present and I am sure that the expert of the prosecution, Dr. Alexander, would be very suita for he was active in the air force. He knows these experiments and at any rate is at all times available.

The matters about which I have just spoken, that is, the accessories which are necessary for the experiment, could be gained from the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg without any difficulty. Dr. Ruff knows these accessories are available and I would like to say about the danger, that is, the danger for one of the participant subjects, that danger is entirely out of the question and the entire experiment will only last for ten minutes, that is to say if the Tribunal attaches value to it, it could be repeated without taking up too much time of the Tribunal.

We attach value to this experiment for the reason that we are here to prove to you and offer a very concrete example as to what the experiment is considered to be and how erroneous it is to make a completely wrong picture of this experiment. We want to show you that this unconscious state, which starts with the experimental subject and which is a completely unconscious state, we want to show you that this unconscious state is a completely harmless affair. The experimental subject, a few moments after the end of the experiment, will regain his full consciousness and the Tribunal can convince itself that the experimental subject will immediately be capable of action, the experimental subject will feel no pain, the experimental subject will have no after effects of this experiment whatsoever, and really the experimental subject would as a rule not know at all that some such experiment was carried out and that they were in fact unconscious.

If this is demonstrated here before your eyes, then you will convince yourselves, at lease as far as the Dachau experiments and as far as Dr. Ruff knew about them, and you will make a completely different and a very objective picture of this affair.

Mr. President, I should like to ask the Tribunal to consider this, my proposal, during the next few days and then let us have their decision, so that perhaps in agreement with Dr. Alexander, perhaps we could prepare this procedure and for this reason, Mr. President, I allowed myself to make this application at this time although the cases of Ruff and Romberg may only be expected to come up in a few weeks, and that is all that I have to say to you.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, would it be your purpose to consider these human subjects as voluntary or involuntary experimental subjects?

DR. SAUTER: This question with reference to these experiments can only be considered in a sound line because if we are concerned with experiments that entail no pain nor any disadvantage for the experimental subjects then, according to my opinion, one could never consider these experiments as crimes against humanity for an unconscious state which is not felt by the experimental subject and because of which he feels no pains whatsoever. This according to our opinion, does not present a crime against humanity but, in my opinion, the question of voluntary nature has to be considered. And, if prisoners at Dachau had known and seen how harmless those experiments were, and I mean the ones Dr. Ruff and Dr. Romberg carried out, then I am sure they had no misgivings whatsoever to put themselves at our disposal because carrying out these experiments constituted no danger whatsoever.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you say that these human experimental subjects whom you want to produce here for demonstration are in the same physical condition that these experimental subjects at Dachau were in?

DR. SAUTER: I cannot say anything in that connection simply because I do not know. These persons, and I mean the ones Dr. Ruff saw when he once visited Dachau, were as far as he could judge in a proper physical condition and were well nourished.

JUDGE SEBRING: If these experiments were permitted would it be your purpose so far as you could to simulate conditions at 68,000 feet altitude as charged in the Indictment?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, quite. The experiment, even without the chamber, will be carried out in the same manner and. in the same conditions as Dr. Ruff carried them out on himself and on his voluntary collaborator as numerous times. The conditions arc quite the same and, therefore, the effect will be the same and, therefore, you will convince yourselves that here one could net speak of torture or a crime against humanity. That is something we want to prove to you because we maintain the point of view that if the Judges can see something for themselves then they can better understand it.

JUDGE SEBRING: You say it would simulate conditions as they would exist at 68,000 feet altitude as charged in the Indictment?

DR. SAUTER: Absolutely. Absolutely. Exactly the same and the experts will confirm that to you. If that were not the case, gentlemen of the Tribunal, then we would not make such an application. We are only making that application for the purpose because we know that the system will be exactly the same as they are during experiments in that high altitude.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take counsel's suggestion under consideration and will advise counsel in a short time as to the ruling of the Tribunal on the matter.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

MR. McHANEY: I might say just a few words concerning the proposal made by Dr. Sauter. Prosecution objects largely because we don't think it will prove anything. As I understand it, Dr. Sauter proposes simply to show that during the course of altitude sickness, which results during the course of certain low chamber experiments, the experimental subject undergoes no physical pain or suffering. As I understand that, based on the supposition that the experimental person blacks out or loses consciousness within the space of a few seconds of time, I think there is no doubt that such persons do show expressions of pain and. reactions of pain, such as screaming, etc. I take it Dr. Sauter is trying to prove that in spite of that the subjects undergo no physical suffering. I think the simple way to take care of such an issue, from the point of view of the defense, is to obtain affidavits from properly qualified experts who have conducted and undergone such experiments. Certainly there are American authorities available at Heidelberg Aero Medical Center without the necessity of conducting experiments in this Court Room. Secondly, as the Tribunal itself has observed, both Ruff and Romberg have undergone a large number of high altitude experiments, the result of that being they have gained certain altitude tolerance, as I understand it.

So, quite clearly, the experimental subjects, I don't think, could be compared with Ruff and. Romberg, that is, the experimental subjects actually used at Dachau. Furthermore, while I am not an expert on these matters, I understand the question of pain depends quite largely on the physical condition of the subject. For example; if the experimental subject has a diseased Eustachian tube, which I understand is in the nature of a passage to the middle ear, if that tube is blacked so that the subject is unable to adjust the pressure in the inner ear to that created externally, then very severe pain is apt to result. Unless defense is prepared to assert and establish that they made examinations on the subjects used at Dachau with respect to the proper functioning of the Eustachian tube I don't see that the demonstration proposed here would really prove at all that the subjects they used there did. not suffer. I object to the above because of the cumbersome and unnecessary manner in which to prove a relatively simple issue since in either case the answer to the question of pain and suffering is based on a number of assumptions, namely, physical condition of the subject and the circumstances under which they were carried out. Moreover, I would be quite at a loss myself to understand what was happening during the course of the experiment and to interpret it and I believe it would be better to have an expert do that for the Tribunal. For example, if Dr. Ruff suddenly let out a piercing scream I would assume he was suffering pain. However, after the experiment is over he contends he was in an unconscious state and didn't feel a thing and the screaming was completely involuntary. Those are all questions which could better be determined by an expert rather than by the demonstration which has been suggested.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I just make a few short remarks on that question. A number of collaborators of Dr. Ruff have already submitted affidavits to us. Mostly they were made from their own initiative, not at our request. At the proper time I shall submit these affidavits. Naturally we have no objection whatsoever that an expert, for instance somebody from Heidelberg, would be consulted on that question.

On my own part I asked two American scientists who were active at Heidelberg to answer questionnaires. Unfortunately, I have not yet received them. The Prosecution attaches a special importances to the physical condition of the experimental subjects and, as an example, states that an experimental subject—

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I think the Tribunal understands counsel's position in the matter without further enlargement on the subject. I do not think further argument or statement on the part of counsel will enlighten the Tribunal any further as to the matter which counsel has already stated which will be given due consideration by the Tribunal.

DR. SAUTER: Very well. Thank you very much.

DR. NELTE (counsel for the defendant Handloser): Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, before I start my submission of evidence, I should like to say the following and ask for your decision: During the session of the 30th of January, Mr. McHaney, prompted by the High Tribunal, declared himself very kindly ready to compile facts and evidence in trial briefs, upon which the Prosecution bases their indictment against the individual defendants. The record of the transcript of the 31st of January, unfortunately, is not available to be. However, the Tribunal will remember this event and will also remember the promise that up to Monday, that is the beginning of Brandt's submission of evidence, all the trial briefs against Brandt would be submitted. Up to this present date I am not yet in possession of such one indictment against the defendant Handloser.

It is the first privilege of a defendant and an urgent prerequisite for his defense that he knows against what concrete assertions no has to depend himself. The indictment against Professor Handloser is based upon the responsibility which arises or which should arise from his official positions. The Tribunal and the prosecution are aware, from my opening statement, that there are no concrete facts available against the defendant Handloser. I have endeavored from documents, testimony, witnesses, and the presentation of the prosecution, to find out how and because of what facts the possibility would arise that a responsibility could occur in connection with his position as Chief of the Medical Services. In suite of hard labor I did not succeed in finding out any such possible relationship from those facts. The prosecution passed the indictment against the defendant Handloser or, rather, withdrew the indictment against the defendant Handloser on account of high altitude experiments. In order to clarify this matter I should like to point cut that there is a case which is even much clearer than the case of high altitude experiments and that is the case of the malaria experiments.

The defendant Handloser is new before the beginning of submission of evidence on his behalf and I do not know what I am to ask him on the witness stand and what individual points he is to speak about and I should therefore be grateful if the prosecution would state whether, for instance, they maintain the indictment against the defendant Handloser on the participation and particular responsibility of Malaria experiments. If yes, I should like to ask you to urge the prosecution to give us the concrete facts on which it bases this responsibility. If, other other hand, the preservation will not comply with this procedure, I would be forced to request the Tribunal for a decision that the indictment against Professor Handloser, because of participation and personal responsibility on malaria experiments, be withdrawn.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal. I would like again to point out to defense counsel that there is no question in this case of dismissing any count or any paragraph in the indictment. Handloser has been charged, as have all the defendants, with participating in medical experiments upon involuntary human subjects, which experiments resulted in murders, tortures, inhumane treatment, etc., which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity. By way of example we cited.

Certain specific experiments and alleged in one instance or another that the particular defendant was concerned with those. I do not think it is incumbent upon the prosecution to now go through and produce precisely for the benefit of defense counsel, its evidence on each such particularized experiment. The count stands if we make proof on one experiment as particularized in the indictment. Now, as a matter of fact, we have tried to simplify the issue and to eliminate from consideration certain experiments on the part of some of the defendants. To have not chosen to dismiss the malaria experiment or to remove it as an issue against Handloser for the reason that the experiments continued over such a long period of time and were carried on a rather substantial scale; during the whole period of that time the defendant Handloser was Chief of the Army Medical Inspectorate and over must of that period of time the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht.

It is the prosecution's position that by showing a knowledge of medical experiments on involuntary human subjects, plus his position of very substantial responsibility— physician at the head of the medical services of the military sector—that a judgment of guilty can be predicated upon the malaria experiments even though he himself personally did not infect any no of the experimental subjects and the like.

In any event, I cannot see that it is burdening the defense in any manner whatsoever not to remove the malaria experiments from the indictment as charged against Handloser. The prosecution has certainly not elaborated that point in its presentation against Handloser. I should think that all the defense counsel would have to do is ask him "Do you know anything about it" and "Did you participate in them in any manner whatsoever?" The prosecution will be quite frank with the Tribunal that if his part in the malaria experiments was the only thing in the case I should think that we had a very weak case against the defendant Handloser. But for reasons which are satisfactory to the prosecution, we do not find it desirable to remove the malaria experiments as an issue against him. They went on, as I recall, from 1941 until 1945, and were carried out on from upwards of 1200 people, so we don't choose to remove that as an issue now.

I don't see that it is any burden to the defendant and I don't think that there is any requirement that we treat it as a motion to dismiss, because there is other substantial evidence concerning the defendant Handloser's participation in medical experiments on involuntary subjects, which is the charge in paragraph 6 of Count Two and it is not to be exported that the particular setup in the sub-paragraph are to be divided up and viewed as anything in the nature of separate counts or separate charges.

These are simply particulars which we gave.

The Prosecution is sorry that we have been unable to prepare griefs on each individual as we had hoped to do. The Tribunal will understand that we have 3 attorneys working on this case and 2 of us are in court substantially all day so it is rather much of a burden, in addition, to get up anything in the nature of a well prepared brief. To will do that as fast as we can but it is not moving as rapidly as we hoped. But I ask that defense counsel for Handloser expedite matters and proceed with his case. I do not think he is being imposed upon in any way.

THE PRESIDENT: The motion of defendant Handloser to dismiss the specification in connection with the malaria experiments is denied without prejudice f r renewing the motion at the close of the case when such motions may be made and considered in the light of all the evidence.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I have yet another complaint. Yesterday morning the marshal gave me a list of the witnesses whom I named and who were approved by the High Tribunal. On that list were the names of Schmidt-Brucken and Hartleben, and it was stated there that they were in prison. I asked that those two witnesses come to me last night for a conference. The security officer stated to me that after he had telephoned the prison office he was told that neither of the witnesses were in the prison. I must assume that the official reports of the marshal are correct and I should ask for the assistance of the Tribunal in placing these two witnesses at my disposal so that I be in a position to speak to them before they appear on the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will do anything it can to procure counsel consultation wish the witnesses. The Tribunal has no information concerning the matter. If counsel will request the Defendants Information Center to procure possible information as to the whereabouts of the witnesses, the matter will be given consideration at the earliest possible date.

BY DR. NELTE:

I now start the submission of evidence on behalf of the former Chief of the medical Services of the Armed Forces, the last Amy Medical Inspector and Army Physician, Professor Dr. Handloser.

He is not indicted because of crimes of euthanasia, sterilization, experiments with poison gas, with poison, high altitude experiments, incendiary bomb experiments or anthropological experiments of the skeleton collection. Further, he is not indicted because of murdering tuberculosis afflicted Poles and many other facts.

I shall confine myself to the individual facts, as stated in the Indictment and I shall not touch upon these points in regard to which no individual indictment is raised. Although Mr. McHaney, if I understand him correctly, stated that if the Indictment is maintained on all counts, even the Prosecution does not want to maintain expressly a participation of responsibility in the individual cunts.

Mr. President, I want you to permit me to call the witness, Professor Dr. Handloser to the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Siegfried Handloser, will take the witness stand.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President I submit three Document books.

THE PRESIDENT: He will first be sworn.

SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: What is your name?

A: Siegfried Handloser.

Q: Will you repeat this oath after me?

I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withheld an add nothing.

(The witness repeated the oath.)

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. NELTE:

Q: Mr. President, I have submitted three document books and I should like to submit them before the Tribunal. Two document beaks are ready this morning and I believe they are available before the Tribunal. I need these document books during the examination of the defendant Handloser, because I am going to quote from these documents during the course of his examination and I shall submit them to you, with your approval.

Professor Handloser, give us your first and last name for the record.

A: Siegfried Handloser.

Q: When and where were you born?

A: I was born on 25 March 1885 in Konstanz near Bodensee.

Q: Would you please tell us about your educational career up to the time of your real study?

A: From 1890 until 1894 I visited the Elementary School in Konstanz. In the autumn of 1894 I went to the Humanist Secondary school in Konstanz, which I visited up to March 1903. In March 1903 I made my matriculation.

Q: Why did you study medicine?

A: During the last years of my period at the Secondary School, I spent my vacation, which lasted for three months with my Swiss relatives in Geneva; a brother of my mother was there who was a man and a physician with repute and was very much respected. He took a great interest in no and I had subsequent occasion to receive a very deep insight into his medical activities; in his relations to his patients and in his conception about his profession. This was the fact which influenced me during the last year of my period at the Secondary school. Most of all, because of his love for his profession, I made the decision to become a doctor too. My home town Konstanz was a very little town with about 20,000 inhabitants. Because of its location, however, and because of its vicinity to Switzerland and because of the large amount of tourists from abroad, it was an extremely lively city.

The regiment stationed there with 1,200 men played a special part in this city. During the years of 1900 up to 1903 three specially skilled military medical officers were stationed there; one in turn who was the chief physician of the army hospital and there was one oar specialist and one eye specialist who had previously a very extensive civilian practice along with their military duties. In addition, there was a son of the Battalion Commander, who was also a military medical officer, who had visited the Military Medical Academy in Berlin. All of these circumstances, especially after conferences and discussions with these gentlemen, led to the result that they advised me to make an experiment — rather not make an experiment, but try to gain admission to the famous Medical Academy in Berlin.

This was extremely difficult; because there was a great demand for admission and about three hundred applications were made for about thirty vacancies which were there per year. However, I was successful nevertheless to receive an approval and that is how it came about that I started to study at the Academy in Berlin, which at that tine held the title of Kaiser Wilhelm Academy. I was admitted there as a student at the Berlin University in 1903.

Q: Tell us about your development as a physician.

THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding, the Tribunal will take its morning recess.

(A recess was taken.)