1947-02-20, #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 20 February 1947, 0930, Judge Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom 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 court.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the Marshal ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence in the court of all the defendants.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President before the examination of the witness Hartleben continues, I should like to submit a request to you. Generalarzt Dr. Wuerfler, who was examined yesterday, asked me to tell the Tribunal the following.

In the cross-examination yesterday, the apparent contradiction between Dr. Romberg's report and his testimony has bothered this witness. He did not go home as was his privilege, but he stayed here to be available to the Tribunal for examination, if this is necessary to clear up the situation.

This morning he gave me an affidavit and asked the Tribunal to decide whether to clear up a misunderstanding as he sees it — whether he is to be heard again personally, or whether the Court would agree of course after consultation with the prosecution, if I submit an affidavit from this witness. After reading this affidavit it seems valuable to me to have at least judicial notice taken of it, for it actually clears up a misunderstanding.

MR. HARDY: Such a procedure as this seems most unusual to me, Your Honor. I would like to have the opportunity of reading this affidavit. If the gist of the particular statements Dr. Wuerfler would like to make—I submit that he has been duly examined, was placed under oath; questions were directed to him in a very precise and frank manner, and his answers are on the record. Now, whether he wishes to change his testimony or not is something that i cannot understand from Dr. Nelte's remarks. I wish Dr. Nelte would be a little bit more specific.

THE PRESIDENT: If counsel for the defendant Handloser desires to place the witness again on the stand as his own witness recalled, counsel may do so.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, if I could give the prosecutor an opportunity to decide by reading this brief affidavit, that will probably be the best solution for all of us. It is not a correction of his testimony, but an explanation of his testimony.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant will hand the affidavit to counsel for the prosecution and allow him to study it for a few moments.

MR. HARDY: Unfortunately, Your Honor, the affidavit is in the German language and I would have considerable difficulty in making it out at this time.

Could we postpone this until later in the afternoon? And I will have one of the members of my staff look this matter over.

THE PRESIDENT: The matter may be postponed, at any rate, until after the morning recess.

MR. HARDY: Thank You.

THE PRESIDENT: If the affidavit will be immediately sent to the office of the Secretary General it will be translated in a few moments.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the direct examination of this witness by me had been finished. The Tribunal had put questions to this witness, and it seemed to me as if the last question which the presiding Judge asked had not yet been answered. Perhaps the Tribunal wants to continue its questioning.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no further questions to propound to the witness. If counsel offer the defendant desires to propound further questions on his direct examination, he may do so. If not, the witness will be turned over for the cross-examination.

Have any defense counsel any questions to propound to this witness on cross-examination?

HANS HARTLEBEN — (Resumed) EXAMINATION

BY DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for defendant Professor Dr. Bieglboeck):

Q: Witness, the Judge asked you yesterday about the extent of military orders. Your answer was not very clear. Did I understand correctly that you made a distinction between "instructions" and "orders"?

A: I said that in the service regulations of 1942 for the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services, the word "order" was not used. Instead of this word "order" the word "instructions" was used. In military language a distinction has always been made between these two concepts. An instruction, as I took the liberty of saying yesterday, is a directive, a request, a general statement as to in what direction and toward what aim something is to be done, without going intO details and making precise statements, which form the actual content and meaning of a military order. This distinction was quite usual in military language.

Have you understood me clearly now?

Q: What were the results of instructions on the one hand and a military order on the other hand, in regard to a medical officer?

A: I do not quite understand the question. Could you please phrase it a little more precisely?

Q: Is it true that an instruction is only to give directions while an order must be executed directly?

A: About the sense.

DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination of this witness by Defense Counsel. If not the Prosecution may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Doctor, you stated that the express purpose for the Fuehrer's decree of 1942 was to coordinate material or the utilization of material and personnel in the medical field in Germany; that is, the field of the Wehrmacht, civilian sector, with Karl Brandt as the top superior? Now, isn't the utilization of the material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht requiring a coordinated and planned directive?

A: First, I may correct one thing, Professor Brandt was not the Chief in that matter, but according to the text of the Fuehrer's order, he is empowered to conduct the negotiations; that is how I explained it yesterday. As far as the joint nature of research which, as I said yesterday, at that time in 1942, was not in the foreground of interest. It is not absolute, there are branches of research which are specifically for the Luftwaffe, for example, or for the Navy—problems can appear which do not interest the Army at all, then one would not speak of any joint nature of a research assignment.

Q: Well, isn't it true, Doctor, that there were a considerable number of medical men working on research problems in the various branches of the Wehrmacht?

A: In various fields of research, you mean?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes, of course.

Q: Then, that decree was to coordinate the use of material and personnel. Would it not seem logical that the field of research would also come within the scope of this decree so that they might use some of their doctors on research, for other problems to avoid duplication of their effort. For instance, the Luftwaffe working on Typhus research, the Army working on Typhus research, the Navy working on Typhus research, and the Waffen SS working on Typhus research; wouldn't it be a function of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to coordinate that research in order to utilize the personnel and material to the best of advantage?

A: In my opinion, in this case, the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, not in this case, but in any case, must examine each individual case to that effect because in the field of research very often many paths must be taken to come to a desired goal, and it is quite possible that it is even desirable for many people to work on the same problem because one never knows whether the path taken by one person will lead to the desired goal. I have said the same thing yesterday in a different direction. In all possible fields we have similar conditions from the international view point. Consider automatic research. Special favorable circumstances brought it about that a certain problem was solved in America, although, no doubt, a number of other countries were working on it also. It could be quite similar within one country in a certain field of research.

Q: And, if I understood you, it would be within the scope of the authority of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht to coordinate and direct medical research, if such coordination and directions were necessary; is that true?

A: Yes, if it proved necessary and if he is examined to that effect, he will be able to reach a decision. He would presumably sit down at a round table and discuss the thing first. You cannot act impetuously in scientific matters.

MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. NELTE:

Q: The examination yesterday, by the presiding Judge, gives me an occasion to ask you a few more questions because it seems to me that certain military directions of the Medical Service are not quite clear. The defendant Handloser, as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, was doubtless the highest medical officer in the Wehrmacht.

A: Yes.

Q: The Prosecution said that he may possibly have failed to exercise his duty, his duty of supervision; for this reason I must ask you, did Professor Handloser, as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, have such a supervisory duty of all medical officers of the various branches of the Wehrmacht?

A: There can be no doubt that such a right and such a duty did not exist because in the service regulation there was nothing whatever said about this. The regulation would have been made to say that. For example, I remember some regulations in which, for example, in such cases it says he directs and supervises, this expression "and supervises" is lacking in the service regulation of 1944, and was certainly not in the regulation of 1942 either.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, in my document book 3, under HA-50, page 31, I have a copy from the Army Service Regulation 21, the title is "The Leading Medical Officers at Army Headquarters of the Field Army." I believe that this excerpt can help you in determining the authority and interpreting the terms which will be important here.

Q: Witness, you apparently mean the place in this regulation, "They direct and supervise the medical service within their sphere of service according to the orders of their Headquarters, and the official medical orders of their superior medical officers."

A: That was the kind of example I was thinking of.

Q: Now, however, that may be. One can understand the point of view of saying the highest medical officer of the Wehrmacht has a supervisory duty even if not in the concrete sense.

This results from his position, and I should like to know from you exactly what is the difference between the concrete supervision provided in the War Medical Regulations from the supervisory duties of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht. What must he do in order to fulfill his duty morally to be the highest Chief Medical Officer of the Wehrmacht?

A: In this specific case, he could only ask for information from the medical Chiefs of the Army, Navy, Luftwaffe, and possibly of the Waffen-SS.

Q: Witness, I ask for information if I have a particular reason for asking information. I want you to tell me what you would consider the duty of the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. In order to supervise and to make sure that if something happens he will learn about it, what must he do?

A: Under this regulation he really had no possibility of doing that. I will assume that in some way by coincidence he heard that at some place in the army or the Luftwaffe or the navy something had happened that he considered wrong or even punishable. Then under this regulation the only thing he can do is to go to the chief of the medical service of the army, the navy, or the Luftwaffe, and say, "In such and such a way I have learned that in such and such a place something objectionable has happened. Please investigate it."

Q: If I tell you that in my opinion the chief medical officer has a moral duty to care for his medical corps as far as he can, then he will make use of safeguards in the form of organization in order to guarantee what he considers the ethical and the medical duty; is that so?

A: Well, his ethical duty is a matter of course. All of us in the medical corps were trained to that effect; and it would never have occurred to us that anything could happen in that connection. One cannot suddenly issue an order: "I order that one may act only according to ethical points of view." One cannot order things which are a matter of course; and if it is only an individual case which comes to the attention of the chief medical officer, he would in this case have settled it in agreement with the medical officer concerned and consider it such an exception that it would not give occasion for issuing a general order. But one can, of course, say that only in a concrete, individual case.

Q: Well, then we agree that to intervene one needs positive knowledge of an individual case, or for general intervention one needs knowledge of symptomatic cases?

A: Yes, that's true.

Q: Now, the question of responsibility is frequently brought in connection with the question of superiors, as you have heard here. I should like to ask you in connection with the question which the presiding judge asked yesterday to make clear what is a military troop order and what is a medical order.

A: Military orders are all orders issued through military channels to the troops, and they are orders which affect the life of the troops.

Q: Is there a military troop order in the medical service?

A: Yes, that exists. I was just about to give an example. In combatting epidemics, if it is, for example, in the opinion of the chief medical officer necessary for all the troops to be vaccinated, then it is not the chief medical officer who orders the individual divisions, regiments, and so forth directly with his signature. He goes to the chief troop commander, that is, perhaps to the commander-in-chief of the army. If it is a Wehrmacht matter, he goes to the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht. He explains to him for what reasons it is necessary to have the troops vaccinated against typhus or against dysentery; and he brings him a draft of an order which contains the necessary provisions; and this commander or chief of the high command signs this order on the letterhead of the chief of the high command of the Wehrmacht. Then it goes through channels from the high command to the subordinate commands, that is, army group commands; from there to the army high commands; from there to the corps commands; and from there to the divisions, and so forth; but always through purely military channels. The individual commander, for example, the commanding general of an army corps, passes this information on to the medical officer and his staff and consults this medical officer about measures to be taken within his corps. The order given to the individual divisions and regiments will be signed by the commanding general.

Now, in contrast to this there is the medical service, the medical service generals, a purely medical matter. For example, suppose a new and especially effective method of treatment for pneumonia has been discovered; it has been tested and its effectiveness has been proved; and medical experience in hospitals and clinics has shown that this method of treatment is a great step forward.

Now, the medical chief wants to let his medical officers know about this. It is purely a medical matter, purely a technical matter. This he can sign himself on the letterhead of the chief of the Wehrmacht medical service or of the army medical inspector or chief of the medical service of the Luftwaffe or chief of the medical service of the navy. This goes directly to the medical officers in the headquarters. It does not go to the headquarters of the 25th army corps but to the corps physician of the 25th army corps. The corps physician then announces this new method of treatment to his medical officers so that they know that in treating their pneumonia patients they will have a better opportunity. That is a typical incident of the medical service generals. This difference was clearly expressed in the regulation that all questions or all orders affecting the troops as a whole in any form had to go through military channels. I believe that this is perhaps clear now.

Q: Yes. I want to put perhaps a more concrete question. How about directives which were the result of the meetings of the consulting physicians to the medical officers or units? Were they orders or were they instructions or what were they?

A: The directives which were distributed, or, rather, the contents of the directives which were distributed were not in the usual military sense orders but advice. But the thing is like this. The medical officers, upon receiving these printed directives, of course knew that they were based on well-considered discussions, for example, at the meetings of the consulting physicians, on the basis of experience which well-known professors and doctors had; and the medical officers were thus given the latest progress in science and medical experience. Therefore, the medical officers were grateful for it; and in the great majority of cases they no doubt acted according to these directives. That, of course, was the purpose.

For example, I myself as corps physician or army physician, when I asked medical officers at the front about such directives, had the experience that one or another said to me: "In this particular point I have a different opinion."

Then I said "All right, one might have a different opinion on this point; but I will send the consulting physician from my army." If it didn't happen to be my own special field — I was a specialist for internal medicine; and it may be that the question was a surgical question — then I saw to it that this particular officer talked to the recognized representative, the specialist, and discussed the matter; and then he voluntarily accepted the result of greater experience.

Q: Now, I'd like to ask one more question which may be superfluous but which is necessary in order to clarify the matter. A medical officer, no matter how high his position, could never give an order to a military officer, no matter what his rank?

A: That was expressly forbidden.

Q: On the other hand, the medical officer in all things, even medical things which affected the troops, the soldiers as such, would submit his order to the military commander and have it issued by him?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, a final question. Will you please tell the Tribunal the difference between a higher superior and a direct superior? The prosecution holds the point of view that if someone is a higher superior, a specialized, technical superior, he is the superior of everyone under him in the hierarchy. Is that true?

A: As you indicated, there is a distinction made between the immediate superior and the higher superior. If I specify supervisory authority, the immediate superior has supervisory authority over the field in which the medical officer is working. For example, a medical officer in a hospital is supervised first by his section physician, and then by the chief physician. It is, of course, possible for the chief physician to supervise both; but over him again is the divisional physician, who may inspect this hospital from time to time and thus exercise supervision. Above the divisional physician is the corps physician, the army physician, and the group physician, and above him the army medical inspector.

Now, if the army medical inspector makes an inspection and finds some objection, he will, of course, intervene directly; and the immediate superiors will be present. But if, for example, he is working in his office in Berlin and he hears accidentally that in the post hospital in Stuttgart something is said to have happened which he does not think is right, assuming peace conditions, he will turn to the corps physician. He will write to him: "I have learned that in the Stuttgart hospital this certain matter has happened. Please investigate it and report to me." Need I add anything to that?

Q: If I have understood you correctly, supervision was in charge of the immediate supervisor?

A: Yes.

Q: It is not so that the supervision was connected with every superior over everyone subordinate to him in rank? The supreme superior has supervision over everyone directly under him; he has to see to it that these people are in order. They have supervision over the next category and have to see that is kept in order and the higher officer must intervene if he hears anything from anywhere, but he can do this only through the immediate supervisor, that is, the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, through the Luftwaffe, Army or Navy Chiefs?

A: Well, there is perhaps a little difference between the Army Medical Inspector and the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. The Army Medical Inspector could, of course, in exceptional cases, if he learned of something, inquire directly, but it was customary that the answer went back through channels, that is, through the immediate superior of the person who was said to have done something wrong, or the immediate superior got a copy; at least they were always informed about it and not eliminated from the whole matter. And you no doubt understood correctly that in general the Army Group Physician was responsible to the Army Medical Inspector and the Corps Physician or Army Physician was responsible to the Army Group Physician.

But it was a little different with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. The Army Medical Inspector, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and the Chief of the Medical Service of the Navy were the superior officers of all their medical officers; but the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, according to the service regulation which we discussed yesterday, was not a superior. In the case of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service there was no other way than to go to the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, or the Army Medical Inspector, etc. He was not superior.

The medical chiefs in question of the individual groups would have resented it if the example which I just gave for the Army Medical Inspector, if he had done the same thing as Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service to the Army, the Navy, or the Luftwaffe; they would certainly have written to him: "I recognize the necessity of this investigation but under the existing regulations we must ask that the investigation of this case be left to us." Consequently, official supervision, as such, within the medical services of the Army, the Navy, or the Luftwaffe, rested with the medical chiefs of these groups, not with the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services. Have you understood me correctly?

Q: Thank you.

DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to put to this witness.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: In line with the explanations which you have just given, will you answer these questions? Let us assume that the evidence in this case is sufficient to prove that medical experiments on human beings were conducted on concentration camp inmates without their consent, resulting in death, and let us assume further that the evidence is sufficient to prove that such experiments were ordered or conducted by and for the benefit of one of the several branches of the Wehrmacht, from your knowledge what would have been General Handloser's responsibility for such experiments?

A: Your Honor, do you assume that the Defendant Professor Handloser knew of these matters?

Q: I am not making any assumption at all in that regard. You may consider the question either from the assumption, first, that General Handloser did know of them; secondly, from the point of view that he did not have actual knowledge, actual personal knowledge, but that memorandums or information in the matter passed through his office; or, thirdly, that he did not have personal information and that such memoranda did not pass through his office. I would like for you to explore that entire field upon the assumption, the postulate, that the Court has given you.

A: First of all I will assume that there was no knowledge that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service knew nothing about it, then there must have been someone who either ordered such experiments, or the person who conducted such experiments did them on his own initiative. In this connection, of course, in my opinion there can be no responsibility at all for the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. He can be responsible only for his orders. If he had ordered such and such experiments are to be conducted then he would be responsible for this order as such. If he did not order it but if he learned of it, then according to the situation, according to the regulation in effect he could not be held responsible for the execution of any such experiment as such, but —

Q: Who would have been responsible?

A: The person who had official supervision over the field sphere where the experiments were carried out.

Q: Now, then let us suppose that such experiments had been ordered or conducted by the Waffen SS either for its own benefit or for the benefit of one of the several branches of the Wehrmacht, in such event who would have been responsible for the conduct of such experiments?

A: The person in the Waffen SS or the SS who had ordered the experiments would be responsible or if he did not order them, but learned about them and permitted them to be continued, although in his opinion they are inadmissible, it seems to me that the concept of responsibility is still valid. Something can happen somewhere for which the person concerned has supervision without his having ordered anything illegal, and then he knows it is necessary when he hears about it, to have the matter followed up, if he believes that something wrong is being done.

Q: Witness, according to the translator you referred to the regulations of 1942 and 1944 in connection with the duties of defendant Handloser, did you refer to the orders designating defendant Handloser to the two positions to which he was appointed in 1942 and 1944? That word was translated to us "regulations". Did you mean "regulations" or did you mean what it included, the duties assigned to defendant Handloser? Do you understand?

A: I would ask the interpreter to sum the question up again. (question was again translated in German). One must make a distinction between the order appointing him to the position, that is the order effective the 1st of September, 1942. The Army Medical Inspector is appointed Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. That is an order, about a personnel change. On the other hand, what I have called service regulations, Dienstanweisung, these are service regulations issued for this individual case, and signed by Hitler in the case of the Fuehrererlass, and the service regulations describe the duties and are signed by Field Marshall Keitel. Those were regulations, not orders. We use the word "regulation" for an order, if you like, which defines the duties of an officer exactly or characterizes it in general, as was the case of this regulation of 1942.

Q: Your explanation clears the matter. I would like to ask you further what reports came to the office of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, who reported to him regularly or specially?

A: The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service received reports from the Medical Chief of the Army, Navy and Luftwaffe, and the units of the Waffen SS attached to the Wehrmacht and other units attached to the Wehrmacht for their sphere. Let us say the Army Medical Inspector of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe reported to the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service about things which he wanted to know about medical matters in the Luftwaffe.

Q: You stated that when the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service obtained knowledge of something that had happened and again when you said when he hears accidentally of something that would happen, how would he obtain knowledge or how might he hear accidentally of things that would happen; was there anyone whose duty it was to report to him, to give him knowledge and advise him and inform him of things that were happening other than the Chiefs of these services you have just mentioned?

A: In general there were no special officers who could have reported to him, but I shall assume that in some post the doctor in charge, — there is a doctor in charge of a civilian hospital, during the War. He may at the same time be doing military service in the military hospital, and I will assume that on some occasion, at a meeting.say, he has an opportunity to speak to the Medical Inspector of the Army, and to tell him he had a suggestion to make, whether in this or that field, one could not change something in the hospital. That was not the customary way, as in all Armies it was customary to report first to the immediate superior, but such cases may have happened now and then; or, for example one can imagine that someone quite outside the military sphere might comp plain about some incident, let us say the father of a patient who is in the hospital. The patient is a soldier. The father is a civilian, and has no connection with any military authorities. He visits his son in the hospital, and thinks he sees something wrong. This person is, of course, above if he does not prefer to go to the doctor in charge of the hospital or to the higher superior in that town, no one can prevent him from writing and complaining to the Medical Inspector. That is one way in which the Medical Inspector might learn of an incident outside the usual channels, and then after he learns of it he will send it to the next superior, or will say "please investigate this matter and report to me." Perhaps he may add, "please report to me in case something is wrong here what you have done about it."

Q: Would the officer who received that letter in the hospital be required to answer it; is that an order from the Chief Medical Inspector to that officer which the officer is bound to obey?

A: The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service would not be able to do that. He could speak only to the Medical Chiefs of the Luftwaffe, the Navy, and so forth. He had no authority to issue orders.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. Is there any further questions?

DR. NELTE: No, Your Honor, please, but I should like to say the following: The witness spoke of the system of reports in answer to your questions yesterday.

In December I made application to have the War Regulation for the Army, second part, submitted in evidence. This has not yet been possible, as the General Secretaries Office tells me. Here I have these written regulations, and if you agree I shall have these parts of these regulations copied and submitted which refer to the regular method of giving reports.

THE PRESIDENT: Hand the volume to the Tribunal for examination, if you please.

DR. NELTE: Such a regular reporting procedure did not exist for the Wehrmacht as a whole. As you see from the copy it is the War Medical Regulation for the Army.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit copies of that portion of the volume which he desires the Tribunal to consider, and the volume itself and those copies prepared should be deposited with the copies in the Office of the Secretary General.

DR. NELTE: I have no further questions to this Witness.

THE PRESIDENT: I have one more question to the witness.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q: Now many persons comprised the staff of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service; how many persons were there under his direct command, just approximately?

A: In his staff?

Q: Yes.

A: I cannot give any exact information but that because from 1943 on I did not have any connection. I could not see conditions anymore. I can only speak from my knowledge from the beginning of this development, at the beginning until I left. As far as I remember there was only the Chief of Staff and one Medical Officer from the Navy and a few clerical personnel, but there was no one else who was directly subordinate. In the beginning important work was given to offices of the Army, the Navy or the Luftwaffe, and as long as I was there the most important task was to coordinate personnel strength, and the available equipment.

Lists were drawn up by thou offices which the Chief of Staff had asked to do this work, and then were submitted to the Staff for final decision.

THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions to be propounded to the witness, the witness will be excused.

MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.

(The witness is excused.)

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the witnesses, General Schmidt Brucken, the chief of staff of Professor Handloser, as Army Medical Inspector, Professor Eyer, head of the OKH Typhus Institute in Cracow, and third, Professor Kilian, are still missing.

Dr. Schmidt Bruecken has been requested since the 12th of December; however, Captain Rice of the General Secretary's office has told me it has not been possible to induce the English military authorities to release this witness, who is in the Muenster Camp in England, to come to Nuernberg. As soon as this witness appears, I should like to hove him called. If there should be difficulties, I ask for the permission of the Tribunal to have an affidavit drawn up in the Muenster Camp.

THE PRESIDENT: If the witness appears in Nuernberg, he may be called at a later date in the Tribunal. If counsel desires to take a deposition of the witness on an interrogatory, have him file an affidavit and that may also be permitted when it is ready.

DR. NELTE: The second witness, Professor Eyer, as I have heard and as I have told the prosecution, is sick. With the approval of the Tribunal, I should like to obtain permission to ask the witness questions in the Eidlinghausen Camp where he is at present. Yesterday I informed the prosecutor of this so that he would have the opportunity of appointing a representative in this case. I shall submit an affidavit.

The third witness, Professor Kilian, is in the Russian zone. He sent me a letter, or rather a telegram, which concerns the meeting of the consulting physicians. I believe that I can dispense with this witness since we are not well informed about these meetings.

Then I come to the end of my case by submission of a few documents. I believe that the Tribunal now has the third document bank.

THE PRESIDENT: We have not seen it. Will you hand that to Dr. Nelte? Counsel, there are several documents in Books 1 and 2 which have not been offered in evidence. Is it your intention to offer these or are they to be abandoned?

DR. NELTE: Insofar as I have not offered them in evidence and will not do so now, I will let then drop. From Document Book No. 1 I have not offered HA 34. That is a memorandum of Reich Student Fuehrer Scheel, page 69. I shall submit this now. There is a supplement which I ask the General Secretary to see. Mr. President, the defendant Handloser...

MR. McHANEY: I understand that Dr. Nelte is offering Document HA-34 which is in Document Book 1. I should like to know the number of that.

THE PRESIDENT: It is page 69 of the document book.

DR. NELTE: Yes, Document Book 1, page 69.

THE PRESIDENT: The document was incorrectly indexed.

DR. NELTE: The defendant Handloser on the witness stand spoke —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just a moment. I understand you are offering in evidence Document HA-34?

DR. NELTE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you assigned a number to that exhibit?

DR. NELTE: Exhibit 40.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.

DR. NELTE: I do not intend to read this document. The defendant mentioned the attempt to have the student companies, the medical personnel, who are given leave to study medicine, the attempts to remove them from the authority of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service and nut them under the political service. As evidence in support of this testimony I submit this document because the memorandum of the Reich Student Leader Dr. Scheel shows what opposition Handloser voiced and what differences there were in this field. The defendant Handloser during his examination also referred to the difficulties made for him by certain people that the Catholic nurses were to be kept in the hospitals. To prove the correctness of this statement and at the same time to illustrate the personality of the defendant, I will read from Document HA-39, Exhibit 49, Document Book 2, page 58.

The Prelate Dr. Krautz, president of the German Charity Association Caritas, writes on page one of the letter of the 21st of January at the bottom:

I therefore was pleased when Professor Dr. Handloser was called to head the Medical Inspectorate since I know that he and his family are religious Catholics and that he in no way was inclined to hide that fact. I was not disappointed. His official environment made me realize soon that he not only felt very kindly toward the Catholic members of orders and to the deaconesses, but also that he above them preference since they were nursing for religious grounds.

Then, at the bottom it says: "Later I was always able to notice that in the most important points of contact between the sisters and the doctors men were almost always used who heeded such last desires. I always was very grateful for that and I attribute this almost frictionless conduct of the war nursing service above all to the expressed supreme will of the Medical inspector Professor Dr. Handloser. Without having had an opportunity to gain insight into his personal conduct, I was told repeatedly that Professor Handloser is a convinced Catholic and that he expressed that at every opportunity. Many heads of the orders, whose sisters were employed, told me that, in contrast to the continuous chicaneries which the NSDAP inflicted on the sisters and choir headquarters, Professor Dr. Handloser was governed by professional ethics which revealed an inner greatness because it was based on lasting values.

On the basis of my experience I consider it impossible that Professor Dr. Handloser could have adopted any steps or measures or admissions which were in conflict with his conscience and his professional ethics. Dr. Kreutz, Prelate.

Now, in connection with this document I must add that the Prelate is an Apostolic Protonotar; that he asked that his signature not be certified by a notary. I ask that in view of the origin of this letter this fact will not limit the value in evidence.

MR. HcHANEY: The prosecution must object to this document and ask that the words which Dr. Nelte has read from it be stricken from the record. I would like to observe first that I would appreciate Dr. Nelte's offering the document before he begins reading it. It is very difficult for the prosecution to make a sensible objection when he just refers to document on a certain page and proceeds to read it without offering it and giving us an opportunity to object.

I think this document is clearly inadmissible because it is not in the form of an affidavit; it is not sworn to, nor is there any statement on the part of the writer of the letter that he has any objection to making an oath. This is nothing but a latter in reply to one written by Dr. Nelte himself apparently. I certainly think it is inadmissible.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, Document Book 2 has been in the hands of the prosecution for one week. I did not call this letter an affidavit. I cannot call it an affidavit. According to Ordinance 7 the Tribunal can admit any document, even if it is not certified by a sworn statement. What value you assign to this, to the contents of this document is another question. I ask that this document be admitted as such.

THE PRESIDENT: The offered exhibit states that it is written in reply to a letter fr a Dr. Nelte of January 4. If Dr. Nelte would submit a copy of the letter which he wrote to Dr. Kreutz there would be before the Tribunal something upon which the Tribunal could rule. A letter in the form in which Document HA-39 is now before the Tribunal is clearly inadmissible, being merely a letter. If Dr. Nelte can submit a copy of the letter to which this is in answer, the Tribunal would then rule upon the admissibility of Document HA-39.

MR. McHANEY: I would ask the Tribunal to instruct Dr. Nelte henceforth to made his offer before reading the document.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, both for prosecution and defense, will follow the plan outlined now by counsel for the prosecution; that is, a document should be offered to the Tribunal by number, volume and page so that opposing counsel may have an opportunity to examine the document and refamiliarise himself with it before the document is begun to be read in the record.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President -

THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding further, the Tribunal will be in recess.

(Recess was taken.)