Q You are a dentist, are you not?
A Yes.
Q You are not a scientist?
A No.
Q And, Becker-Freyseng actually had no reason to tell you about this, did he?
A No, I only asked him because I was curious about the personality of the physician who had been there. However, I am convinced that if such an experiment on human beings had been carried out that Becker-Freyseng would have also told me something about it because since we were living in the same barracks, we frequently discussed all possible questions in the evening.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no further questioning of this witness, the witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused).
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before Dr. Marx proceeds with his introduction of his documents from document book No. 1, I have noticed that several of these documents are character reference affidavits, and in keeping with the ruling recently made by Tribunal II, whereby they ruled that certain documents of this nature can be incorporated into the record, without necessitating the reading of them before the open court. I have not had an opportunity to talk to Dr. Mars, but I suggest that we could complete this case more expeditiously if such a procedure of this nature would be followed. When he come to each document he might summarize it as to what it might be. It might be advan tageous if he stated or summarized it without reading it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal %...uld !ae inaccrd with the suggestion made by counsel for the prosecution. If counsel for the defense desires simply to note the exhibit, the document number, and have it introduced as the exhibit, giving a brief resume of that document, it may be received in evidence without reading.
DR MARX: May it please the Tribunal, I naturally whall try to limit the presentation of the documents as much as possible. However, it is impossible for the defense also to fail thread certain important places in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel is entirely correct. It was not the intention of the Tribunal to limit the reading of important documents. I was referring merely to character affidavits.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal; Mr President, the documents which I take upon myself to read fall into various groups. The numbers 1 to 3 contain descriptions of three priests on various confessions. It is an affidavit of the president of the Central Committee for the Internal Miss on of the German Protestant Church, Dr. Frick; a statement by the Apostlic Protonotar prelate Dr. Kreutz, who is president of the Charity Association of the Catholic Church; and an affidavit by the Jesuit Priest Ernst Lutze. These priests, Frick and Kreutz, know Prof. Schroeder from their common with the German Hospital Society, in which all of them were engaged. Mr. Lutze, who is a Jesuit priest, was a private first class in the medical service during the war; and he knew Prof. Schroeder when he was the medical officer of Air Fleet 2. These three priests have two confessions; and, though Schroeder himself ..../... is a Protestant, they make statements about the generally clear, human and positive attitude of Dr. Schroeder towards religion and his refutation of national socialism and its forcible methods.
The second group contains well-known scientists, who certify about the professional activity and the professional concepts of Professor Schroeder. In the third group of the documents I have taken it upon myself to present a number of documents which indicate the non-participation of Schroeder in the experiments with which he has been charged, about hepatitis, typhus, and similar other experiments.
MR. HARDY: Do I understand correctly that Dr. Marx at this time is offering exhibits 1, 2, and 3, or is he merely explaining that he is going to offer them, and offer them separately later?
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel was simply explaining the documents to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Thank You.
DR. MARX: That is the stage of affairs, Mr. President; and I only wanted to show into what groups the document book is divided. I am also of the opinion that this was clearly indicated. From the affidavit of Pastor Frick I take it upon myself to read tho following, which is Paragraph 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I understand that you are offering this document as an exhibit in the case and reading from it?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MARX: I offer the affidavit of the Pastor Frick as Exhibit 1; and I read the following from that document:
"Prof. Schroeder was known to me at that time in my office as president of the Central Committee for the Internal Mission of the German Protestant Church and as a member of the advisory board of the German Hospital Association. On official occasions we had manifold contacts so that I also became acquainted with him personally; and he won my esteem. I not only learned about the absolutely critical attitude he showed towards national socialism and its dangers and damages but also that he was a convinced Christian. In spite of the fact that he was watched by the well-known Nazi system of informers wherever he went and even in his private life, he never made a secret of his conviction and even admitted it in public with the greatest courage and did not hesitate to interfere on behalf of the Protestant Church, the Internal Mission, and the confessional orders of Sisters."
I request that this document be admitted in evidence; and it will become Exhibit 1 of my document book. I now come to the affidavit of the Prelate Dr. Kreutz.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I must object to the admission of this document into evidence. This document here does not comply with the regulations of the Tribunal in that an affidavit must be duly sworn to, either by a notary or in the presence of a defense counsel; and on the face of this document, it is merely certified to be a correct copy of the letter by the defense counsel and does not indicate whether or not any oath was given or whether this was signed in the presence of a witness in lieu of an oath. It is merely a signed statement and doesn't bear any assemblance to a document which would be admissible here.
DR. MARX: May it please the Tribunal, the objection on the part of the prosecution is justified in itself because the document does not comply with the rulings which the Tribunal has fixed for an affidavit. However, it can be declared admissible as evidence if the previous exchange of letters and correspondence is submitted and if it is stated for what reasons the Prelate Dr. Kreutz refused to give an affidavit. I therefore, request that I be given permission briefly to give information on the exchange of correspondence which preceded this statement; or may I read the letter which Dr. Kreutz addressed to me?
MR. HARDY: I might add at this time, your Honor, that Dr. Marx has two or three other documents of a similar nature in his document book; and it might be well that we take them all up at the same time and avoid my having to make objections later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has promulgated rules for the admission of these documents and that is that they be made under oath or by way of a statement in lieu of oath; and this document, at least, complies with neither one of those regulations.
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, here we deal with an Apostolic Protonotar and Prelate of the Catholic Church, who, solely on the basis of religious considerations, has refused to give an affidavit. After all, there cannot be any doubt that this statement conforms to the true*; and I therefore request permission to submit the correspondence which was written by Dr. Kreutz and myself in this matter and which indicates for what reasons Dr. Kreutz has refused to give a statement in lieu of an oath.
THE PRESIDENT: This precise question was presented to the Tribunal with a similar statement by a Catholic Protonotar a few days since; and the affidavit was rejected because it was neither made under oath nor did it contain any statement that it was made in lieu of an oath, under knowledge of the penalties of perjury for false swearing, or words to that effect. Is counsel aware of any legal authority for the admission of any such document as this? Any legal precedent or authority?
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I believe that if the correspondence containing the reasons for this were submitted, then the exhibit which has been offered would exceptionally be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel aware of any authority in German law for the admission of such a statement as this? The Tribunal would examine the correspondence referred to by counsel. Counsel will hand that correspondence to the Secretary General and the Tribunal will examine it. I assume, however, it is in the German language. Are there translations from German?
DR. MARX: No, we do not have the translation, Mr. President; but this could be done now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be glad if counsel will during the noon recess ascertain whether or not there is any provision in German law for the admission in evidence of such a statement as this. The Tribunal will again consider the matter when the Tribunal meets at 1:30. The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, as for the statement of Prelate Dr. Kreutz, I should like to withdraw it. The affidavit of Pastor Frick and of Ernst Lutze has confirmed these facts sufficiently.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if counsel procures the affidavit in another form, it may be offered later.
DR. MARX: Very well, I understand, Mr. President. I shall take the liberty if it is possible to offer the document later.
The following documents from 3 to 9 are affidavits of a number of scientists, of well-known scientists, with whom the defendant Schroeder worked for years. They testified to professor Schroeder's attitude toward the medical profession, science, and research, and in addition gave information about his attitude as a human being and his attitude toward the party.
I shall take the liberty of reading from the affidavit of Professor H. Buerkly De La Camp. This is on page 12 of the document book and it says on page 1, at the very bottom, the first paragraph:
"1. Mr. Schroeder had a very high conception of the profession of physician. He was one of the few high-ranking medical officers who were not only administrative officials of the medical service and superior officers, but who kept the standard of the medical profession high and who had remained physicians. I never again during the whole war met another highranking active medical officer who had such a deep and thorough understanding as Mr. Schroeder, although I came in contact with a very great number of these high-ranking medical officers."
I shall omit the last part but the next paragraph reads:
"I should like to stress especially, as regards the treatment of wounded prisoners of war, he always judged from the physician's point of view and always did everything and had everything done that was within his reach and that was possible in order to help the wounded prisoners.
"The hospitals within the jurisdiction of Airfleet 2 were exemplary. Mr. Schroeder's visits to hospitals were always welcomed by the physicians because he inspected the hospitals, their installations, and work as a physician and not as a superior officer."
And then I should like to speak of the political attitude of Mr. Schroeder as this witness sees it. It says that he had nothing to do with national socialism or any outgrowth of national socialism.
I offer this affidavit as Exhibit - I offered the Lutze affidavit as Exhibit No. 2 and Buerkle De La Camp affidavit as Exhibit No. 3. I ask that both exhibits be admitted.
The following affidavit of Professor Dr. Huenermann I offer in evidence and I would give it exhibit No. 4. I ask that this exhibit be admitted in evidence.
MR. HARDY: This Document No. 5 is similar to Exhibit No. 2, which does not contain any jurat as perscribed by the rules and regulations of the Tribunal, and, therefore, I object to the submission of this document in evidence.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, unfortunately, it was not added in the document that the Huenermann affidavit was certified by a notary at Dusseldorf.
MR. HARDY: I will withdraw my objection.
DR. MARX: The next affidavit is an affidavit of Professor Dr. H. Siegmund, Director of the Pathological Institute in Muenster, Westphalia. He is a Professor at the University of Muenster. This affidavit also deals with Schroeder's attitude toward the medical profession and the medical ethics. I offer this affidavit as Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document No. 6?
DR. MARX: Yes, in my document book it is No. 6. It will be given exhibit number 5, because one affidavit was left out of this statement, being Dr. Kreutz.
The next affidavit is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Strughold.
Mr. President, this Professor Strughold is a man who worked with Professor Schroeder for many years. Professor Strughold was in the United States for many years. He knows the American Universities from New England to the Middle West and now again he is working in a high position at the American Aviation Medical Institute at Heidelberg. He will be called to the United States again. I think that this affidavit has particular importance since Professor Strughold is well known for his reserve in judging other people and I believe that his words should be given special weight, because of his international reputation.
I merely offer this affidavit in Evidence as No. 6, Exhibit No. 6.
The next document is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Weski. Processor Dr. Weski lives in Berlin. He has also testified to his knowledge of the character and professional attitude of Dr. Schroeder. I offer this affidavit in evidence as Exhibit No. 7.
The next exhibit is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Wilhelm Toennis, Director of Miners' Union Hospital and Chief Physician of the surgical department. I merely offer this affidavit. I shall not read it. But, on page 2 under 3(b) I should like to read something. It says:
"Attitude towards the wounded and sick:
"In his care for the wounded and sick; Professor Schroeder continuously tried to get the best specialists for the hospitals and to assist them as much as he could in their work as well as with their equipment. He himself took every occasion to assist at operations, inform himself about the methods of treatment and their results, and to convince himself of the truth of the statements."
This would be Exhibit 8. I ask that it be admitted under this number.
The next exhibit is an affidavit of the University Professor Erwin Gohrbandt in Berlin, Medical Director of the Robert Koch Hospital. From this document I should like to read only paragraph 2 on page 2. It says: "Regarding Professor Schroeder's attitude toward the wounded and the sick, I wish to state the following: Professor Schroeder always used every endeavour to supply model billets and a model treatment of the wounded and sick. I often accompanied him on his hospital inspections. Everywhere whenever possible -- he assisted, made improvements etc. so that I hardly know another physician who took greater care of the wounded and sick than Professor Schroeder. He always insisted upon the same treatment for the wounded of other nations as that for the German wounded."
Further down it says:
"Professor Schroeder had no connections with the NSDAP nor did he entertain any. On the contrary, to me he frequently remarked that he declined to be drawn into this and often criticized the movement. As far as I know. Professor Schroeder neither belonged to the NSDAP nor to any of the affiliated organizations.
Professor Erwin Gohrbandt" I ask that this exhibit be admitted as Schroeder Exhibit 9.Now I come to the next document.
This is an affidavit of Frau Louise von Oertzen. She has known Professor Schroeder since 1937. She met him at the international hospital congress in Paris. She says:
"In my capacity as Generaloberin of the German Red Cross, Dr. Schroeder won my esteem through his ardent care for the work of the German and the International Red Cross and the welfare of its patients. I repeatedly inspected field hospitals together with him and noticed that he never treated the patients as a military superior but as a warmhearted and understanding physician. His attitude towards the nurses was likewise respectful and considerate."
I merely offer the rest of the document. I shall not read it. I offer it as Exhibit 10.
Now I come to Exhibit 12. This is an affidavit of Karin Huppertz.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, this exhibit is not in the proper form hence I object to its admission in evidence as it does not comply with regulations set forth by the Tribunal. It has no jurate at all. It has no preamble - nothing that bears semblance of a proper affidavit.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, this is an affidavit which is offered only provisionally. Karin Huppertz was approached as a witness for the defendant but she has not been able to get here yet. For that reason I wanted to ask to be allowed to call her as a witness later if she should come. This statement of Karin Huppertz was given before an American officer, Captain Mahoney.
THE PRESIDENT: No such certificate is shown in the English Document Book.
MR. HARDY: You are correct, your Honor. No certificate is shown but in as much as it had a jurate by an American officer I withdraw my objection, I will allow the document to be entered.
DR. MARX: I give this Exhibit #11. Now I come to the next document. That is an affidavit of Mrs. Hanna Reitsch, Flight Captain, of the 22 of December 1946. This affidavit, as well as the next one of Frau Marie Finner, concerns the human aspect of Professor Schroeder.
I merely offer these two exhibits, the Reitsch affidavit as Exhibit 12 and the Piner affidavit as Exhibit 13. From the affidavit of Frau Piner I should like to read something. At the end, the last paragraph here, she says:
"From 2 October 1943 to 30 August 1944, court martial proceedings were instituted against me, on a denunciation by SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hoefle for undermining of military morale. During these proceedings Prof. Dr. Schroeder defended me warmly and he also succeeded in having the proceedings against me discontinued, and no sentence was passed although the remarks made by me were proved."
Now I come to the next document. This is an affidavit of the architect Heinrich Hillmer in Hamburg. He is the head of the studio of the late architect Herman Distel. This goes into the activity of Professor Schroeder in connection with the construction of hospitals and shows how ardently he supported the building of hospitals in Berlin. I offer this as Schroeder Exhibit # 14.
Now I come to the next exhibit. It was the heading "Hepatitis". It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Heinrich Kalk in Berlin, 17 January 1947. I would like to read all of this affidavit. It is not very long and is no doubt necessary for clarification.
"I have known Professor Dr. Oscar Schroeder, former Chief physician general (Generaloberstabsarzt) of the German Luftwaffe, for about 12 years, through my medical activities, and through scientific connections. Dr. Schroeder was my military superior, as Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, during the war, since 1944. I, myself, was employed with the medical inspectorate of the medical service as a consulting specialist for internal diseases attached to the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe from the beginning of the war.
"Regarding the question of alleged Experiments of infection of hepatitis epidemica of humans, I declare the following:
"1) Neither Professor Schroeder, nor any other Branch of the medical service of the Luftwaffe, ever gave me any order to carry out experiments on human with hepatitis infection, and I never made such experiments.
"2.) I never approached Professor Schroeder with the demand, to carry out experiments on humans with hepatitis infection.
"3) It was my task, within the frame work of the activity of a consulting specialist for internal diseases, to care for medical treatment of and clinical research on soldiers suffering from hepatitis, taken to Luftwaffe hospitals, especially at the Luftwaffe hospitals at Greifswald and at Bucharest. In order to carry out this task, I approached hygienists and pathologists, for the purpose of working on competent special problems without, however, exceeding the limits of my activity by experiments with infection of humans.
"For the purpose of research on hepatitis, I worked together with Professor Dr. Duechner, chief of the pathologic institute at the Freiburg University, with Professor Dr. Herzberg, chief of the hygiene institute at the Greifswald university, and with Professor Dr. Haagen, chief of the hygienic institute at the Strassburg university."
This affidavit will be Schroeder Exhibit 15.
Now, I come to the affidavit of Professor Dr. H. F. Bock, pages 56 and 57 in my document book. Professor Bock is the chief physician at the Medical University Clinic at Tuebingen. I now offer this exhibit as Schroeder Exhibit No. 16.
The next exhibit is on page 58 to 60 in my document book. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Franz Buechner, Freiburg i. Br., Professor of Pathology and Director of the Pathologic Institute of the University of Freiburg of 9 January 1947. This is a very short document. With the permission of the Tribunal I shall read all of it:
Buchner: "I was neither a member of the party nor of its organizations. From my speech made in November of 1941 about the 'Oath of Hippocrates', which has since been published, my general attitude may be judged. For political reasons and also because of this speech, my call to Frankfurt/Main in the spring of 1942 and to Berlin in the fall of 1942, was rejected. In November, 1943, the SD at Freiburg demanded my immediate dismissal from office.
"Regarding the case:
"My cooperation with Professor Dr. Haagen consisted in the microscopical examination of his experimental animals.
"Nothing was known to me of an intention of Professor Haagen or of an order to him to perform any experiments on human subjects, within the framework of his experiments. I never received a letter of the kind directed by Professor Haagen to Professor Kalk (27 June 1944), much less any corresponding letter from Professor Dr. Schroeder or Dr. Becker-Freyseng or any other export specialist, with the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. Nor do I know whether within the framework of the research order any experiments on human subjects, in particular enforced human experiments have been performed at any time by Professor Haagen." I ask that this affidavit be admitted as Schroeder Exhibit 17.
The next document is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Zuckschwerdt of 21 January 1947. Professor Dr. Zuckschwerdt has the following to say:
"The Institute for medical research at Strassbourg was, as a part of the university, subordinate to the Dean of the medical faculty. The Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe had nothing to do with this institute. The task of the institute was research in clinical problems, to carry out which special experts and chemical and physics installations were required."
The next paragraph says: "As a surgeon I know of Professor Haagen's research work on hepatitis epidemica only insofar as he requested me to supply him with material for experiments, especially nasal smears, pharyngeal smears, gastric analysis, etc. of that small number of surgical patients, who were in my clinic (for instance 'appelicitis') and hepatitis. I never learned of 'jaundice-experiments on humans,' that is, the carrying out of artificial infection of hepatitis of healthy persons. Nor did I ever learn of any such command or order by any one in this respect."
I offer this exhibit as Schroeder Exhibit No. 18 Now I come to the subject of typhus.
First, there is an excerpt from the Diary of Dr. Ding - entry of the 17th of march 1942. An entry from the 8th of March. Document 265 of the Prosecution. On page 1331 of the German transcript the Prosecution concluded the responsibility of the defendant Schroeder in these experiments from the last entry by saying that the defendant Professor Rose was under the command of the defendant Schroeder at the time. From the entry in Dr. Ding's Diary of 17 March 1942, however, one can see that Professor Rose was section chief of the Institute Robert Koch in this capacity and not as a medical officer of the Luftwaffe.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that exhibit in written form? It does not seem to be contained in your document book - in the English document book.
DR. MARX: That is in the German transcript. That is on Page 36 - Document Book No. 12. That was not translated, I am sorry, Mr. President, because it is a Prosecution document. It is Document 287 - Document Book 12 - Document 287.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, is the portion of the exhibit to which you just referred -- did you read from the Prosecution exhibit that portion of it -- of the exhibit?
DR. MARX: Yes, that is Prosecution exhibit 287. Probably that is why it is not translated because the English text is already before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: My question was whether you read from that Prosecution exhibit?
DR. MARX: No, Mr. President, I did not read the Prosecution exhibit.
MR. HARDY: If it please Your Honor, I think it is most unusual for Dr. Marx to have these go in as exhibits and give them a number. He brought all these questions up to the defendant Schroeder when he was on the stand........
THE PRESIDENT: (interrupting): I did not understand that Counsel for Schroeder had offered those as his own exhibits.
MR. HARDY: He has them marked as exhibits in the document book index and I was wondering if he was going to continue to follow that course.
THE PRESIDENT: They are not contained in our English document book.
MR. HARDY: They are in the index and he has given some argument in the index. He says: "Exhibit 20 - referring to the Ding Diary."
JUDGE SEBRING: I think this might be done, Mr. Hardy. Did you offer the entire Ding Diary?
MR. HARDY: We certainly did, Your Honor.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I'm commenting on oral statements of the Prosecution in the German transcript, Page 1331 in the German transcript. May I read this passage?
"Excerpt from the Diary of the section for typhus and virus research at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS, 17 March 1942:
"Visit of Professor Gildemeister and Professor Rose, Section Chief for Tropical Medicine at the Robert Koch Institute, at the experimental station. All experimental subjects have contracted typhus except for two, where it could be ascertained later that they had already had typhus during an epidemic when they were in the police prison in Berlin. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding contracted typhus and is in the hospital in Berlin. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, post physician of the Waffen SS in Weimar, is, in the meantime, taking care of the stations at Blocks 44 and 49."
Then the further entry: 8th of March to 13th of March - "typhus experiments by initiation of Professor Rose." That does not apply here because we went to prove that in this matter Professor Rose was acting as section chief for tropical medicine at the Robert Koch Institute and not as a medical officer of the Luftwaffe. I offer this as Exhibit 19.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me understand, Counsel, just what you are offering as Exhibit 19. A portion of the Ding Diary which is already in evidence?
DR. MARX: Yes. That is an excerpt from the Prosecution document book, Document 265. In the German document book 12 on page 36.
THE PRESIDENT: The Ding Diary, being already in evidence, including the portion to which Counsel is now referring, it is not necessary - indeed, it is improper to offer that in evidence again. It will be available to Counsel to use in argument, whether by way of brief or oral argument or any reference which Counsel desires to make to it, but it is not properly offered in evidence a second time.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honor, that Counsel has the same thought in mind in connection with several other documents, and I think we might dispense with going through this procedure again.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I withdraw this document. Then I come to the subject of sea-water experiments and I submit an affidavit from the pediatrician, Dr. Ludwig Harrenhausen, who is at present in Marsburg, of the 9 of January 1947, and also an affidavit from Generalstabsarzt Dr. Friedrich Schmidt.
THE PRESIDENT: The first affidavit to which counsel referred is not in our English document book; the second affidavit, by Friedrich Schmidt is so included, but the first is not.
DR. MARX: I cannot understand that, Mr. President. It was turned in for translation as far as I know. I ask to reserve the right.....
THE PRESIDENT: The omission may be supplied and the affidavit offered but the next affidavit in the English document book is on page 72, that page following page 61, the other pages being omitted, and this is numbered Schroeder Exhibit #25; we have that
DR. MARX: This is an affidavit of the former Generalstabsarzt Dr. Friedrich Schmidt. As the Tribunal will remember, the Defendant Schroeder pointed out that Dr. Schmidt was commander of the Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe at the time -- and that he went to Dr. Schmidt to get experimental subjects from the students there. I shall read the paragraph which concerns this subject:
"I know officially that at the beginning of the summer term 1944, the office of the Chief of the Medical Services sent me an inquiry whether students of the Academy could be used as volunteers for sea water experiments. I do not remember details of this inquiry, in particular I do not recall the date and whether this inquiry was made orally or by telephone. This request had to be denied, as studies could not be interrupted during the term and as at the beginning of the university vacations the only students who were not required to do practical work in military or general hospitals (compulsory service for assistants), ordered to attend the officers' training school, or to work for their examination, had to be drafted to medical service at the front in accordance with the Academy's training schedule.
If it had not been for these difficulties regarding time, I would have had no objections to have my ensigns take part in the experiments as volunteers. I never heard anything more about the experiments and their execution. Before the end of the university vacations in the fall of 1944, all students of the Academy, except those who were preparing for their examination, joined the Medical Service in the field on account of developments at the Western front."
"Dr. Schmidt, General Stabsarzt."
I offer this as Schroeder Exhibit 19.
The next exhibit is a report of Professor Kalk, of the 13th of March 1945, about hepatitis research.
MR. HARDY: Obviously, this next exhibit purports to be a German document, a report dated 13 March 1945. Throughout the presentation of this case on the part of the Prosecution, we have in every instance submitted with the German document a certificate stating that this is an original German document and setting forth were the document was obtained; and it has been the procedure thus far that any submission of any documentary evidence, captured documents or otherwise, to contain or should have attached thereto such certificates in order to be admitted before this Tribunal. Now this obviously is a report by Professor Kalk and has no substantiation whatsoever. Therefore I object to the a mission of this document at this time.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I should like permission to submit the original report later if there are objections to the admissibility now; then I shall dispense with offering it at the present time if I may have the opportunity of doing so later.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection on the part of the Prosecution is well taken but counsel for the Defendant Schroeder may offer tho document later with the proper description, where it came from, where it was found, etc., authenticating the document, which should be offered to the Prosecution so that it may be studied in advance. Then when it is offered to tho Tribunal, the Tribunal will consider any arguments that are made by either side and rule on the admission or non-admissibility of the document.