1947-06-27, #5: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

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

The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. SEIDL: Counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.

Mr. President, in accordance with the suggestion made by the Tribunal, I have drafted an index where you will find all of the documents which have been submitted so far. Also you will find there all of those documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal today. In view of the short time at my disposal, I was not able to get a translation in time.

I do believe, however, that this index even in the German language will help to facilitate the proceedings.

On the first page of this index you will find a list of those documents which have been submitted in Document Book I and which have already been admitted by the Tribunal. This part of the index is finished and I ask you now to turn to page no. 2 where you will find those documents which are contained in the document book now before the Tribunal, which is Document Book No. 2. For reasons of expediency I have also inserted, in Column 1, the exhibit number provisionally for the convenience of the Tribunal.

In the second column you will find the documents in the order as they are contained in the document book, and then you find the page number and the description of the individual document.

The last document which I submitted to the Tribunal in April was Gebhardt Exhibit 16. The first document I am now submitting to you is Document No. 18 in Document Book No. 2. This will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 17, as it is listed in the index. This is an order of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, dated 17 May 1940. The defendant Karl Gebhardt in his direct examination defined his attitude toward that order. This order is being submitted in order to illustrate the tasks of the defendant Karl Gebhardt in his capacity as Consulting Surgeon to the Waffen SS. This document is offered as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 17.

The next document in the document book is an order of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, signed by the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, the defendant Dr. Handloser.

MR. HARDY: May I inquire of defense counsel just what is the source of these documents? The second document I believe I have seen the original myself upon the interrogation of Gebhardt many, many months ago. I won't object to that. But the other copies, these are certified copies by Dr. Seidl of original German documents. May he inform me just where those documents are kept in custody?

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the original documents were returned to the defendant Karl Gebhardt after his arrest. He turned them over to me, and they are now in my possession. According to the usage of the Tribunal, that only copies or phtotstats are submitted, I thought it sufficient to submit only a copy. If however, it is desired, I can submit the original to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The originals should be submitted. A photostat, being a facsimile of the original, will serve a purpose, but a mere typewritten copy would not.

DR. SEIDL: In that case I shall submit the originals of these two documents to the Secretary General of the Tribunal, They are still in my possession. The document which I just mentioned is Document Number 19, is the second document in Document Book Number 2. This is the order of the OKW, dated 1 November 1944. The defendant has already defined his attitude toward that order in the witness box. This order shows the tasks which had to be fulfilled by the defendant Gebhardt in the last months of the war. I offer this document as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 18.

The next document to which I turn now is an affidavit signed by General of the Waffen-SS Karl Wolff. Karl Wolff, throughout a long period of time, was Chief of the Personal Staff of the Reichsfuehrer-SS and therefore has a sound knowledge of the situation within the SS in general and also within the medical service of the SS. He further knows about the relationships between the defendant Karl Gebhardt and Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. I submit this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 19. Karl Wolff, among other matters, shows his attitude toward the concept of the "escort physician". He then states what Gebhardt had to do in his capacity as Consutling Surgeon to the Waffen-SS. He further makes statements about the position of Dr. Stumpfegger the later accompanying physician of Himmler and Hitler. This seems to me to be necessary because Dr. Stumpfegger has repeatedly been mentioned in this case in connection with the experiments and in particular the bone experiments.

I now turn to the affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, which can be found on page 21 of the document book. This affidavit I offer as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 20. This witness worked in the Defendant Karl Gebhardt's clinic at Hohenlychen for a considerable time. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this document. I should merely like to quote a few sentences of the second paragraph on page 13 of that affidavit:

Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger's personality, I can state that already in peacetime he was an assistant at the clinic before me. At the beginning of the war in 1939 he joined the Waffen-SS and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards escort physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my return to Hohenlychen in the autumn of 1943, nor had he any official connection with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a military sense.

I then turn to the affidavit of Dr. med. habil. Josef Koestler. This affidavit can be found on page 15 of the document book, and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21. Dr. Koestler was also an assistant physician at Hohenlychen. I shall quote only two paragraphs from this affidavit. They are to be found on page 15 of the document book.

When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the third Conference of Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, gave a lecture on surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one h?, interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on experimental dogs from 1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital Berlin, and in the institutes of Professor Holz and Professor Osterlag, and, on the oth r hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been frequently used during the previous years.

Under the title of 'Preparatory and Restorative Surgery in cases of Peripheral Nerve Damage', I recorded these experiences in the "German Journal for Surgery," Volume 259, Numbers 1 to 4, 1943, and in my habilitation paper (1943, University of Berlin). I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out exclusively on animals.

I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21.

I now go over to page 17 of the document book where you will find an affidavit signed by another assistant physician of the defendant Gebhardt. This is the affidavit of Dr. Hans-Georg Jaedicke. His statements are relevant in connection with the so-called biochemical experiments. I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 22, and I shall merely quote paragraph 5 from page 21 of the document book:

5) Biochemical Work at Hohenlychen. In the course of 1943 a medical conference took place at Hohenlychen among Professor Gebhardt, Health Senator Laue, the biochemical physician Dr. med. Kiesewetter, and Professor Schlenz, in which I participated. Laue and Schlenz represented the standpoint that the recognized surgical methods for the treatment of chronically purulent wounds should be supplanted by biochemical means and bath treatments. Laue was of the opinion that, according to the basic principle of biochemistry, all diseases originate in a deficiency of of certain minerals which normally exist in small quantities in the body and that the induction of these basic minerals highly diluted (in the case in question; calcium carbonicum 1:1,000,000, calcium fluoratum1:1,000,000; silicea 1:1,000,000) would cure these diseases. Although Professor Gebhardt and I could not confirm these findings, Professor Gebhardt charged me with the clinical scientific checking of this bio-chemical therapy and the bath treatment of clinic patients in the framework of our work on stimulation therapy, of course retaining the usual life-preserving therapy. Tests on clinic patients suffering from chronic diseases and late complications were clearly justified, as these methods were not applied at the beginning of a disease (accidental wounds, fresh injuries) but constituted additional treatments applied at the end of the cure.

As similar treatments of chronic patients, especially juveniles, had long been applied — especially when all other medicinal therapy had failed — and had partly been found successful, rand as they were entirely harmless, we had the scientific guarantee that we would not subject the patient to any risks by applying this treatment.

As far as I can recall, I treated about fifty patients in my surgical ward additionally with bio-chemical and balneological measures. As could be foreseen, the success of these one-sided measures was only moderate and was restricted to the well-known good general effect of contrast therapy with warm baths. I reported this to Professor Gebhardt, submitting a scientific resume and a scientific paper intended for the professional press. Only a year later did I learn of Gebhardt's and Fischer's sulfonamide experiments, which were completed in 1942. In 1943 when I was transferred from the Luftwaffe in Norway to the military reserve hospital Hohenlychen, I learned about them from an official report (in a green pamphlet issued in 1943) dealing with a congress of Consulting Medical Officers of the German Wehrmacht. A short time before me, in 1936 or 1937, Dr. Stumpfegger joined the clinic as an assistant physician; at the beginning of the war, however, he became a military doctor, and since that time he never worked at Hohenlychen. I learned that from about 1942 on he was Himmler's escort physician and that he later held the same position with Hitler.

The next document can be found on page 24 of the document book. It is an excerpt from -the report on the Third Conference East of Consultant Specialists from the 24th to the 26th of May 1943. This is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 23. I should like to state that we are concerned here with an excerpt from this green pamphlet, from which the Prosecution as well as by the defense have already submitted excerpts to the Tribunal.

I submit this document because the lectures by Gebhardt and other doctors of his clinic were held during the same meeting as the lectures reporting on. the sulfonamide experiments. That was in May 1943. On another occasion; when submitted Document Book Number 1, I submitted an excerpt from this report. This was Gebhardt Exhibit Number 10. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this excerpt. A lecture by the Defendant Professor Gebhardt in collaboration with Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Schulze, who was chief physician at Hohenlychon; regarding physiotherapy and the mobilization of joints, is described under figure 2.

On page 28 of the document book you find the name Koestler mentioned at the bottom of the page. Here there is no question at all of any experiments on human beings, but of experience gained as a result of the clinical work. On page 29 under paragraph 15 you find a lecture given by Dr. Brunner. This concerns limitations of the therapeutic value of x-ray contrast pictures of injuries of peripheral nerves. I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Brunner in this connection which has already been submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 20, a few minutes ago.

On page 30 of the document book you find reference to a lecture under paragraph 16 by SS-Gruppenfuehrer [General], Generalleutnant [Lieutenant General] Prof. Gebhardt regarding paralysis of the nerves. This was done in collaboration with Koestler. This lecture was given as a result of experiments on animals which Koestler carried out under the leadership of Gebhardt. Koestler speaks about experiments in his affidavit which was already submitted by me to the Tribunal today as Gebhardt Exhibit 21.

THE PRESIDENT: What page of your Document Book was the last one you referred to, counsel?

DR. SEIDL: Page 30 of the German and 30 of the English document book, your Honor.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, exhibit 23 which is document 24 does that purport to be an extract of Prosecutions exhibit?

DR. SEIDL: We are here concerned with the same document which was mentioned about an hour ago by Dr. Nelte. This is the green pamphlet about the report of the consulting physicians.

I shall not turn to page 31 of the Document Book. Hero you find the statement made by Dr. Med. von Erlach dated 23 February 1947. Dr. Erlach was the head of a mixed commission of physicians which visited the clinic of Hohenlychen. He visited this institute in his capacity as chief physician, coming from Switzerland from the International Red Cross. I submit this statement as Exhibit Gebhardt 24.

I don't think that it is necessary to quote anything from this statement and I ask the Tribunal to take notice of that.

I then turn to the affidavit of Wilhelmine Henne which can be found on page 34 of the document book. I should like to make the following remarks in that connection. The nine documents which I am going to submit now all concern more or loss the same subject. Those are statements made by former nurses, former male nurses, and former patients of the Clinic Hohenlychen. I picked out from a large number of letters which were addressed to me a number of statements and converted them into the form of an affidavit. I don't thin that it is necessary to read anything into the record and I shall merely submit them to the Tribunal as exhibits. The affidavit made by Wilhelmine Henne on page 34 of the document book which bears the number 24, will become Gebhardt Exhibit 25.

The next document is an affidavit signed by a certain Mademoiselle Antoinette Delachaux and it can be found on page 37 of the Document book. This is document 27 and I submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit 26.

The following document is an affidavit signed by a certain Horr von Schlebruegge. This you find in Document Book II on page 39. It bears the number 28 and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit #27.

Then follows the affidavit signed by a certain Carl Friedrich Mossdorf. This you find on page 42 of the Document Book bearing the number 29 and will become exhibit 28. Then follows the affidavit signed by Paula Kallmuenzer who was a physiotherapist at Hohenlychen. This can be found on page 45 of the document book bearing #30 and will become Gebhardt exhibit 29.

There follows on page 47 of the document book an affidavit signed by Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding which bears document number 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30.

MR. HARDY: For the convenience of the Tribunal at the completion of the introduction of evidence on the part of Dr. Seidl for the defendant Gebhardt, Dr. Merkle will have his document book ready for the defendant Genzken and he was submitted his Genzken document book and the Secretary General may procure those for the Tribunal and I will attempt to procure ones for the Prosecution and we will be ready at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: The secretary will procure the documents.

DR. SEIDL: The last document to which I referred was the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding on Page 47 of the document book. This bears no. 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30. The next document is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Marie Agnes Kasten. This will find on page 49 of the Document Book bearing the document number 32, and is being offered as Gebhardt exhibit #31. On page 51 of the document book you will find the affidavit signed by the physiotherapist Gisela Fritze. This document bears no. 33 and is offered to the Tribunal as Exhibit 32.

I now turn to the affidavit signed by Kaethe Sommer a licensed physiotherapist which you will find on page 53, bearing #34. This affidavit is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 33.

These documents conclude the series of affidavits with which I intended to give a picture to the Tribunal about the spirit in which Professor Gebhardt tried lead his clinic. As already mentioned these affidavits have been selected from a large number of letters from his former collaborators and patients. Now I shall turn to page 55 of the document book. Here you will find an affidavit signed by Fr. Dr. Maria Weber, a nerve specialist in the nerve clinic of the Munich University. This bears #35 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 34. This document distinguishes itself from previous documents by the fact that it deals with one particular question which has played a part during these proceedings, namely treatment of psychopathic and people who are feeble minded. This serves a good purpose in substantiating of the testimony which Dr. Gebhardt made on the witness stand. It describes how the defendant Gebhardt tried to cure psychopathic children, feeble minded children, and make then again worthy members of society.

As I mentions before I am offering this document as Gebhardt Exhibit 34.

There now follow a number of Documents, Mr. President, which are intended to show what Dr. Karl Gebhardt's political attitude was and to show that he was tolerant from a political point of view and that he tried to help the people who had gotten into difficulties because of political or racial reasons. Here I am also only supplementing from a number of letters which I have received and which I am submitting to the Tribunal in the form of affidavits.

The first document of that kind can be found on page 58 of the document book. This is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Dorrit von Viereck. It bears the document No. 36 and is offered as Exhibit 35 — I repeat, Gebhardt Exhibit No. 35, In the case of this document, as well as in the case of all other documents, I forego quoting any passages into the record and merely confine myself to asking the Tribunal to take notice of the documents.

On page 60 of the Document Book you will find an affidavit signed by a Mrs Daisy von Arnim, bearing the document No. 37, which is being offered as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 36.

The next document to which I am turning now is the affidavit signed by Med. Dr. Gertrud Obermeier, on page 65 of the document book. This document bears the number 39 and I am submitting it to the Tribunal as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 38.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you intentionally passing one document, counsel? Did you pass your document No. 38 intentionally?

DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I overlooked that document. Document No. 38 is the affidavit signed by Conrad Scherz on the 25th of March 1947.

THE PRESIDENT: That is Document No. 38, counsel, is it not? You said Document 39. It seems to be No. 38.

DR. SEIDL: Yes, it will be No. 38.

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 37.

DR. SEIDL: Document 38 will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 37. This is an affidavit signed by Konrad Scherz. The affidavit signed by Gertrud Obermeier, bearing the number 39, will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 38. You will find these documents in the sequence as recorded in the index which was submitted to the Tribunal. It was my mistake in overlooking that affidavit of Konrad Scherz.

On page 67 you will find an affidavit by Medical Doctor de Valdez Lange, bearing the No. 40, which is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 39. Mr. President, the next document in the document book was already submitted by me at an earlier occasion.

This is an affidavit signed by Frau Margaretha Mydla and was submitted as Exhibit Oberheuser No. 1. This document refers only to defendant Herta Oberheuser and her activity in the concentration camp of Ravensbruck. I merely included it once more in my document book because it was then only submitted individually and not within the framework of a document book. In order to avoid any loss or oversight, I deemed it expedient to also include it in my document book at this time.

The last document in my document book —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will you again give me the number of your Document No. 41?

DR. SEIDL: Document No. 41 bears the Exhibit Oberheuser No. 1. It was already submitted to the Tribunal into evidence and admitted as such.

The last document in the document book constitutes an ordinance by the Government General for the Occupied Polish Territories. It is a decree against acts of violations in the Government General of the 3rd of October 1939. The Court suggested that this document be offered in connection with some of the documents of Volume I. I was not in a position to submit this document at an earlier date because at that time I was not in possession of the Gazette of the Government General dated 1939. This document is on page 72 of the document book, bears the number 42 and is submitted by me as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40. I have referred to this document in my final plea and have explained in detail what legal conclusions can be derived from the document. I cannot submit the document in the original because it is now in possession of the General Secretary's Office. For that reason I have made an excerpt from the Gazette of the Government General and had it certified. If it is desired I shall also be in a position to submit a photostat copy.

MR. HARDY: I understand defense counsel certifies that this is a true copy of the Act as set forth in the Government General's rules, or orders — is that correct?

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Seidl, we have been observing this document No. 42, that is certified by you. I understand this is a literal transcript, certified by you from the original?

DR. SEIDL: Yes. This ordinance was published in the same way as all other decrees and laws, that is, in a book. This book can be found in the library of the General Secretary. I have merely certified the authenticity of the copy as it was taken from that book. This decree of the Government General will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40.

This brings me to the conclusion of the submission of documents which are contained in Volume II. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, there are 4 more documents which I would like to submit, which are not contained in any document book, but which I can submit singly. These are 4 affidavits. The first affidavit is an affidavit signed by Countess von Kuonnburg. It bears No. 43 and will be submitted to the Tribunal as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 41.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I would like to inform Dr. Seidl that I have translations of these last 4 in my possession.

DR. SEIDL: The same question is treated in this affidavit which was already dealt with by the witness Dr. Maria Weber, namely, treatment of feeble-minded and psychopathic children by the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt.

The next document —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just a moment. These were handed up to us not in order. We would like to arrange them in order before you proceed.

DR. SEIDL: May I ask whether the Tribunal has this affidavit of Countess von Kuennburg before it?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. SEIDL: In that case I should like to submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 41. The next document listed in the index is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Spranger, This is the wife of the well-known Dr. Spranger and is intended to show in what trends Professor Gebhardt's political thinking was moving. This will be Gebhardt Exhibit No. 42.

The next is an affidavit signed by a certain Wachsmuth and deals with the same question. This bears No. 46 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 43.

I now turn to the last document, Mr. President, It is an affidavit signed by the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt himself. I believe that it is necessary for me to state the reason which moved me to submit such an affidavit in addition to the testimony of the defendant Dr. Gebhardt, under oath, in the witness stand.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I have no copy of that document in English. I wonder if one is available — an English translation of this document? We have only one copy of that document translated.

DR. SEIDL: I brought a number of translations along with me, Mr. President. I should merely like to explain, Mr. President, that my only reason for submitting this affidavit is to prevent any misunderstandings in interpretation during Professor Gebhardt's testimony. We have observed that the translation of Dr. Gebhardt's testimony has proved to be very difficult and for that reason I thought it to be expedient to submit to the Tribunal a concentrated summary of Professor Gebhardt's testimony on the witness stand. Nothing new is contained in that affidavit and its purpose merely is to facilitate the work of the Tribunal and to adjust and clear up any mistakes in the translations which have not been cleared up to date. I just want to add that this really constitutes no basic question for me and should the Prosecution be of the opinion that this procedure is not proper, I for my own part, will not insist on the submission of this affidavit. I don't know whether the representative of the Prosecution has already read the affidavit. In case he has not as yet read it, perhaps the decision regarding its admissibility can be postponed until such time as Mr. Hardy is in a position to state whether or not he intends to object to this affidavit.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have sufficiently looked over the affidavit to determine enough to satisfy myself that I do not think it is admissible as an exhibit. It is a summary of evidence written by the defendant himself. However, I feel that it might be suggested that the defense counsel for Gebhardt may well file this with his brief to the Tribunal as a summary of evidence written by the defendant instead of by the defense attorney. It is not a document as such, as we would consider here as admissible in evidence. It is merely a summary of the transcript of the evidence and the testimony of Gebhardt when he was on the witness stand. I think it is perhaps a good brief and one that the Tribunal may find useful, but I do not think it is admissible as an exhibit. In substance, Your Honor, I think the defendant could well incorporate this into his brief.

THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the defendant would have a right to file an affidavit; it would, of course, be subject to an examination, inspection by the prosecution, or calling the defendant again for cross examination if he desires, but —

MR. HARDY: But this affidavit, your Honor; is just a rehashing of the testimony of the defendant which he has been examined on. In other words, the defendant own summary of the evidence in this own judgement of how he testified. That is for the Tribunal to decide when reading the testimony.

THE PRESIDENT: If the affidavit is a conclusion rather than a statement of facts it is not a proper subject for examination but a proper subject for argument as a supplement counsel's brief. The Tribunal has had no opportunity to examine the affidavit or whatever the document is called.

DR. SEIDL: I may perhaps add the following. This affidavit contains facts as well as conclusions in the same way. It contains conclusions in the same way as many of the witnesses whom we have heard here have stated conclusions. It is merely a summary of very extensive testimony and is merely intended to facilitate the work of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will receive the document in evidence, and disregard the conclusions. The counsel for prosecution may call the defendant for cross-examination in connection with the document if he desires. What number do you assign the document?

DR. SEIDL: This document will receive Exhibit 44. Mr. President the document number has not been assigned on the document. It is document number 43.

THE PRESIDENT: I had already added the number which counsel gave us before.

Does this conclude counsel's offer documents?

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President; this concludes the submission of evidence on behalf of defendant Karl Gebhardt. I may again repeat that these documents are of course also evidence on behalf of defendant Oberheuser and Fischer; and only for reasons of simplicity the designation was Gebhardt alone.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that they are on behalf of all three defendants.

These documents counsel, are well arranged and in consecutive order and the Tribunal would compliment counsel on the presentation and arrangement of the documents. I am not referring to the contents of the documents because I have not read them, but the arrangement and order of presentation was excellent.

DR. SEIDL: Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We received the book offered on behalf of the defendant Dr. Karl Genzken. Is counsel ready to proceed with those?

MR. HARDY: At the conclusion of Dr. Genzken production of evidence I think the defendant Ruffs document book will be ready, so if the Secretary General can have those document books ready, it will be helpful.

DR. MERKEL: Merkel for defendant Genzken.

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in supplementation of the submission of evidence I should like to offer seven documents. The first document, Genzken Document 18 to be found on page 40 of the document book. This is offered as Genzken Exhibit 17. This is an affidavit signed by the witness Ruff. After the customary introduction the witness states, and I quote:

I was Chief of the Fuehrungsabteilung (administrative department) in the SS Fuchrungshauptamt (SS Administrative Main Office) since August 1943, and from 1 May 1942 to the end of the War 1 was one of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt and I am acquainted therefore with the organizational structure and branches of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt, and consequently also with the medical service of the Waffen SS.

While Groups of consultant physicians had been attached to the medical chiefs of the three sections of the Wehrmacht, groups which acted in an advisory capacity in the separate special fields of medicine, this institution dod not exist with the Chief of the Medical Service of the Tiaffen SS within the SS Fuchrungshauptamt.

I knew that there was a large number of leaders within the Waffen SS who were not subordinate to the SS Fuchrungshauptamt, but served in other SS branches, and were subordinate therefore to the chiefs of these branches.

This affidavit should prove there were no so-called groups of consultant physicians at the Waffen SS. This supports the testimony of the Defendant Gebhardt who designated himself as consulting surgeon of Himmler and therefore was not subordinated to the SS Fuehrungshauptamt [Executive Office] or the chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS.

All the other documents are copies of the Pohl trial which is Case No. 4 in Courtroom No. 2 All of these are certified by Major Schaefer.

The first of these series of documents is Genzken 19-A, and can be found on page 41 of the document book. It is going to be exhibit 18. This is the interrogation of witness Dr. Kogon by the prosecution in Tribunal IV. I quote on P. 41 the last question:

Q: And in 1943 Block 50 was abandoned and was used for the production of typhus vaccine?

A: We entered the block on the l5th of August 1943. It had been arranged for the purposes of production of typhus vaccine, and the production had been changed.

This shows that Block 50, the vaccine production station was only used as from the 15th of August 1943. If the Tribunal will remember as of the 1st of September 1943 the institute for the production of vaccine was no longer under the jurisdiction of Genzken, but under the jurisdiction of the Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS Grawitz. The block was only occupied on 15th August 1943. The actual production of vaccine must have stated much later, certainly after the 1st of September 1943.

The next document will be Genzken 19-B, and will become Genzken Exhibit No. 19. This you will find on page 43 of the Document Book. Here we have the cross-examination of the same witness, Dr. Kogon by defense counsel Dr. Seidl. As it is well-known Balachowsky had submitted an affidavit to the prosecution, document No. 484 which was Exhibit No. 291. On page 65 of the document 12 of the prosecution, there Balachowsky speaks about a Main Committee on typhus research and alleges Genzken was a member of that committee.

Other documents have already established that no such main committee existed. It has been proved that Dr. Balachoswky had not sufficient knowledge about the situation in Block 50 and Block 46, and it is for that reason I am going to submit that document, No. 19. I merely read the last question on page 43.

Q: On the basis of your statement, I must assume that Dr. Bachalowsky also was well informed about the conditions in Block 46 and Block 50?

A: Not so well not even approximately so well as I was.

The next document will be Genzken Document 19-C, which will be Exhibit Genzken 20. This you find on page bb of the Document Book and it is also an excerpt from the cross-examination of witness Kogon by defense counsel Seidl:

Q: I shall now come back to these medical experiments at Buchenwald that were carried out there. You testified that Dr. Ding from 1943 was chief of the Division for Typhus and virus Research at Buchenwald, is that correct?

A: Yes. The time within '43 must be stated more accurately. I tell you the Department for Typhus and Virus Research was later on decided upon by the Hygienic Institute at Berlin, rather than at the time when Ding-Schuler took over these functions practically.

Q: When was the Department for Typhus and Virus Research created?

A The Department which received that title later on, according to my recollection, was created in November 1941, within the framework of the Department for Special Tasks of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and that was only for a clinical station there. The plan for the foundation on the station for the production of inoculants for typhus started in Autumn of 1942. The execution itself ran from the end of January 1943 to the 15th of August 1943. The common title, Department for Typhus and Virus Research, at Buchenwald, was, according to my recollection, finally decided upon at the end of 1943, at the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, Berlin.

Since the common title was only finally decided upon at the end of 1943, one finds that only at that period of time was the production of vaccine started.

The next document will be Genzken 19-D, Exhibit 21, which one finds on page 45 of the document book. This is the direct interrogation of the Witness Ackermann by the prosecution:

Q: Was Dr. Mueller, whom you mentioned, subordinated to Dr. Lolling?

A: Dr. Mueller, like every other doctor in the concentration camps, was subordinated to Dr. Lolling.

This establishes that every Doctor in the concentration camps, including Dr. Ding, was subordinated to Dr. Lolling, the head of the concentration camps. Dr. Lolling and his department were part of the W.V.H.A., Sub-department D-3. Dr. Lolling and his department, D-3-, were not part of the SS-Fuehrungsamt.

In addition I submit Genzken document No. 19-E, which will become Genzken Exhibit No. 22 and can be found on page 46 of the document book. This is the continuation of the interrogation of the Witness Ackermann by the Prosecution, I quote:

Q: Do you know if this camp was subordinated to the W.V.H.A. in Berlin: the economic and administrative head office in Berlin?

A: After all letters, at least those from the medical section, had been read and after we sent them to D-3 and Lolling had repeatedly come there for inspection, we had to assume that the W.V.H.A., with whom we were in direct contact regarding economic matters, actually was the superior organization of this SS institute.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please read again Document No. 19-E slowly and I shall ask the interpreter to interpret without the benefit of the manuscript.

DR. MERKEL: (reading)

Question: Do you know whether this camp was subordinated to the W.V.H.A. in Berlin, the economic and administrative head office in Berlin.

Answer: Since all letters, at least from the medical department, had been sent to D-9, to Lolling's office and Lolling had come there repeatedly for purposes of inspection, we had to assume that the W.V.H.A., with whom we were in direct contact regarding economic matters, actually was the superior agency of this SS institution.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

DR. MERKEL: Finally, in order to prove the same matter, I am submitting the document 19-F, Exhibit 23, on page of the document book. This is also an excerpt from the examination of the witness Ackermann and I quote:

Q: Do you remember with what Amtsgruppe of the W.V.H.A. you were in contact?

A: Mainly as a medical department we were always in contact with the department D-3, the referat of which was Dr. Lolling, which was the competent organization. We also wrote to other departments and I cannot remember what departments they were exactly.

This concludes my submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant, Dr. Genzken.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, these documents which you are about to offer, do they run from No. 22 through No. 32; does that comprise all of them?

DR. SALTER: No, I am afraid that is not correct. The documents which I now intend to submit, run from No. 17 to No. 23.

This is the supplemental volume 3, it begins with an affidavit of Dr. Professor Werner Knothe, repeat supplement 3 to document book Blome, starting with document 17.

JUDGE SEBRING: Well, counsel members of the Tribunal have supplemental 3 in their rooms. If you would start this afternoon on supplement 4, then we will take up supplement 3 in the morning.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, supplemental volume 4 was already submitted by me when dealing with my evidence. If you remember, these were excerpts from the Philippine Journal, which were already submitted. Mr. President, the supplement No. 3 is available here in the English translation and you can have it.

THE PRESIDENT: Let us have some of them, sir. Counsel, are you offering documents on behalf of the defendant Ruff or Blome?

DR. SAUTER: For the defendant Blome.

THE PRESIDENT: We had not received those documents until this moment, I was misled by supposing that you referred to other documents. Proceed.

MR. HARDY: If Dr. Sauter would permit and is not in a position to put in the bocks on Ruff maybe at this time we could, put in the documents on Rudolf Brandt. He is all ready to go and we could delay on Blome until the morning.

DR. SAUTER: I am also in a position to submit Dr. Ruff's documents immediately, would you prefer that?

JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Dr. Sauter, when I directed my inquiry to you, it was with regard to the Ruff documents. We have here before us Ruff Documents Nos. 22 to 32, inclusive At the time I directed my inquiry, we did not have the Blome document book.

Are Nos. 22 to 32 Documents Ruff all of the supplemental documents to be put in on his behalf?

DR. SAUTER: Yes. If you desire, I can immediately start with the case of Ruff.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection, Mr. Hardy, to starting with the Blome documents?

MR. HARDY: If he has any more than the one supplement I just have one, I don't have all the Blome documents and this is rather confusing to me. I cannot scan my files and know what is to be used. Is he going to put in more than the one supplement document book on behalf of Dr. Blome?

DR. SAUTER: No, only the supplemental Volume No. 3, volumes 1, 2 and 4 were already dealt with. I have only document volume 3.

THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel then proceed with Blome documents?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. President.

The next document, on behalf of Blome, are documents in Blome supplemental volume 4. These are the documents Blome Nos. 24, 25, and 26. I repeat Nos. 24, 25 and 26, which all had the common exhibit No. 18. I am now continuing with the presentation of the Blome documents, starting with document No. 17. I repeat Document No. 17, which will receive the Exhibit No. 19. I repeat Document No. 17 will be given Exhibit No. 19 in Blome's supplemental volume. This is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Knothe, who comes from Goslar.

I am not going to read these affidavits, nor shall I read the others, but I shall merely confine myself to a brief statement of the contents. This Professor Knothe, who signed affidavit No. 17, was for many years the chairman of the German X-ray Association.

He states in this document that Professor Blome had won great merit in many fields, particularly in the field of combatting tuberculosis and also in the field of combatting cancer. Ho states about what Blome did and I quote:

tried to raise the level of the general practitioner and organized them to a great extent.

I think that this will suffice and I ask to take notice of the entire contents of the document book.

The next document in Blome supplemental volume III is an excerpt from a German book entitled "Medical Micro Biology" by Dr. Miller. This is document No. 18. It will receive exhibit number Blome 20.

The original of this book was already received by the Tribunal on the occasion of the submission of the evidence on behalf of Karl Brandt, and I am referring to document 121 of Karl Brandt, that is when you received this book which was submitted to you by defense counsel of Dr. Karl Brandt this excerpt which was submitted to you as No. 18, Exhibit 20, is from a book which has been published after the Hitler period in the year 1946. It discusses various means of combatting and treatment of tuberculosis. I submit this book because of the accusation raised against the defendant Blome to participate in the extermination of thousands of Poles. From this document, of which I ask the Tribunal to take notice, the Tribunal will learn that the suggestions and views as they were expressed by Dr. Blome in his letter to the Gauleiter [regional or district leader] Greiser, conformed with the views of the German professional society at large, and that one cannot speak of any crime against humanity having been committed by the defendant Blome.

The next three documents in Blome supplemental Volume three are Blome documents 19, 20 and 21, which belong together; Document Blome No. 19 will receive Exhibit No. 3. This exhibit number had already been given to that document at an earlier date. This document has already once been submitted and received exhibit No. 3.

THE PRESIDENT: Was the document submitted in evidence or was its admission held for a subsequent decision?

DR. SAUTER: As far as I know it was already admitted into evidence because otherwise it would not have received an exhibit number. At the moment I am not sure.

THE PRESIDENT: Then why is it offered again, counsel?

DR. SAUTER: At that time, Mr. President, I submitted all of these three documents. They all refer to the well known assignments given by the Reich Research Counsel, the assignment given to Dr. Hirt at Strasbourg and the assignment given to Dr. Rascher at Dachau.

When the defendant Blome was examined, there seemed to have been some controversy as to whether these two assignments had to be credited to Blome or to Geheimrat [Privy Councilor] Dr. Sauerbruch. In the meantime I have obtained the photostatic copies from the Prosecution and I am now submitting the three photostatic copies to the Tribunal. These documents have already received an exhibit number at an earlier date.

MR. HARDY: I believe at the time, Your Honor, defense counsel, used them and he did not offer then formally and they were given numbers.

THE PRESIDENT: They will be received in evidence.

DR. SAUTER: I state once more that document No. 19 in Blome document book III will receive exhibit No. 3. Document No. 20 will receive exhibit No. 4 and document Blome No. 21 will receive exhibit no. 5.

This brings me to document Blome 22 which will receive exhibit No. 21. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Strakosch, who is well known in Germany. This affidavit was signed on the 8th of March 1947 and certified in the proper manner by a German notary. I shall not quote this affidavit but merely confine myself to pointing out that Professor Strakosch was a man of mixed descent of the first degree who got into difficulties in the German Reich for racial reasons. He turned to Blome for help and was supported by him very actively. This enabled him to continue his medical activities without any difficulty also in the Third Reich. I may perhaps quote one sentence from that affidavit. It says on page 12 of the German text, and I quote:

I can further confirm from my own experience that Professor Blome was not one of the fanatical and ruthless types of the Hitler regime. He always was rather popular because of his courteous and conciliatory nature, and, also, when a physician at Rostock, he had numerous patients from the ranks of his personal adversaries. According to my experience and personal impressions he always had the intention of smoothing matters out, and in his political conviction he was an idealist but certainly not a profiteer.

THE PRESIDENT: What number, doctor?

DR. SAUTER: This is document No. 22, Exhibit No. 21. The next document is No. 23 and will receive exhibit No. 22. This is a short affidavit, signed by the defendant, Professor Dr. Blome, dated the 1st of April 1947 which has been certified in the proper manner by defense counsel. This document only gives a few illustrations as to how Professor Blome was regarded by recognized and well known physicians who are still well known and recognized in Germany today and I ask you to take notice of it.

MR. HARDY: I must object to this affidavit Blome which concerns three or four letters he has received and about which his defense counsel makes the statement and thinks it is admissible. I request the Tribunal to peruse this quickly and see why I am objecting to this.

DR. SAUTER: I ask you to overrule the objection. I don't see why a defendant should not be able to submit an affidavit about facts like that. This is a trial wherein the Prosecution has obtained an affidavit from every one of the defendants and often even more than one affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: It appears that there is at least one statement in the affidavit to be considered. The exhibit will be admitted and those parts of the affidavit which are incompetent will be disregarded by the Tribunal.

MR. SAUTER: This, Mr. President, brings me to the conclusion of supplemental volume No. 3.

There are two more documents which I want to submit to you which I have already included in Blome volume I. When at the time I submitted these documents the Prosecution objected to the fact that the signature of the well-known Professor Dr. Bergmann and that of the well-renowned Professor, Mr. Martius were not certified in the proper manner.

I represented the point of view at that time, that people of that reputation could not be asked to go to a notary. The Tribunal, however, decided against my point of view and did not accept these documents. As a result I had to undertake the very unpleasant duty of taking these two gentlemen to have their affidavits certified by a notary. These two gentlemen have done so and these two documents therefore are now in perfect order from a formal point of view and I am submitting them to the Tribunal.

One is Document Blome No. 3, which comes from the first document volume. This will receive Exhibit Blome No. 23. This is an affidavit signed by the world wide renowned Professor von Bergmann, who enjoys the same reputation in the United States as in Germany and who is now the head of a large medical clinic at Munich. In this affidavit (and considering the brevity of time, I shall not quote, although it is of extensive importance for the defendant Professor Blome) the scholar confirms that the defendant Dr. Blome performed a tremendously meritorious service for furthering progress of the German medical profession during Hitler's rule. For that reason I do not believe that Blome can in any way be responsible for any excesses having been committed in Germany. I am now submitting this affidavit signed by Professor von Bergmann of 22 January 1947, which was certified by the notary in the proper manner, which will be No. 3, Exhibit Blome No. 23.

A similar situation prevails in the case of the next document which is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Martius from Goettingen dated the 7th of February 1941, which was submitted at that time as Blome Number 13 and will now receive Blome Exhibit Number 24. This is a very short but very important affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Martius. It confirms that the defendant Blome made great endeavors to elevate the level of the scientific spirit in Germany and was always trying to remove any National Socialistic excesses from the profession. I am handing this document to the Secretary General and this brings me to the conclusion of my submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant Dr. Blome.

MR. HARDY: The Martius certificates one each document are in order, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits referred to by the counsel for the defendant Blome are in evidence.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, would it be possible for defense counsel to ascertain which of defense counsel will be ready tomorrow morning with their document books?

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that Dr. Sauter is ready with some supplementary books on behalf of defendant Ruff.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, my document book is ready and in case you have no English translations available, I shall bring them along with me, and I shall thereby be able to assist the Tribunal. If you like I can start the first thing tomorrow morning.

MR. HARDY: Rudolf Brandt's documents will be ready.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that.

DR. WEISSGERBER: Mr. President, I am representing the counsel Dr. Kaufmann and shall be able to submit supplemental documents on behalf of the defendant Rudolf Brandt tomorrow morning.

I have found out recently that the translation of the supplemental document book on behalf of my client, Sievers, has not yet been concluded.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, tomorrow morning I shall be able to submit document volume number 2 for Mrugowsky which has already been before the Tribunal at an early date but has been postponed until all the submission of evidence had been concluded, since it dealt with human experiments as they were conducted by foreign nations. My supplemental volumes 2 and 3 are still in translation and I have not yet received them back. One of these document books only contains excerpts from the record of the Pohl trial. The presentation will only last a very short time since it merely contains excerpts from records. The other document book contains a number of affidavits and its presentation will last approximately 15 to 20 minutes.

MR. HARDY: Then we can delay the Mrugowsky presentation of documents until they are all ready.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we will not call those while there are others which are complete and ready to be presented.

DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I have four supplemental document volumes in both the German and the English language. They are ready and with your permission I shall submit them tomorrow morning.

THE PRESIDENT: We shall proceed with these documents tomorrow morning, probably taking up Dr. Sauter's first. He has just completed his offer on behalf of defendant Blome, but we will proceed in order as may prove convenient.

The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 O'clock tomorrow morning.

THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 28 June 1947.)