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 w ell 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 Gcbhardt. I may again repeat that these documents are of course also evidence on behalf of defendant Oberhauser 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 0 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 la of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt and I am acquainted therefore with the organizatory structure and branche of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt, and consequently also with the medical service cf 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 TIaffcn 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 ether 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 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 arc 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. Kogan by the porsecution 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 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. Kogan 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 cocument 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 Genxken 20. This you find on page bb cf the Document Book and it is also an excerpt from the cross-examination of witness Kogan 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: "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 Rudofl 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 ho 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 road 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 groat 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 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 Strassbourg 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 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 sec 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 arc 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 sub mitted 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 Socialistice 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 supplemen tal 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.)
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 28 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Oberhauser, who is absent due to illness. Medical certificate will be presented at the earliest possible moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court, save the defendant Oberhauser, absent on account of illness according to Medical certificate by the Prison Surgeon.
Counsel may proceed.
Dr. Sauter, I do not find that your Supplemental Document Book III has been made available to the Tribunal. I wonder if it is here for the defendant Ruff.
DR. SAUTER: Just a moment.
MR. HARDY: Supplemental Book III for the defendant Blome you mean, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ruff.
MR. HARDY: That has already been introduced as Exhibit No. 20.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents which you propose to offer in behalf of the defendant Ruff begin with his Document Book IV, is that correct?
DR. SAUTER: That is right, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, proceed.
DR. SAUTER: As counsel for the defendant Ruff I shall begin putting in the documents in his Supplemental Volume IV. The first one in this volume is Document No. 22, which will be Exhibit No. 21.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, Dr. Sauter calls to my attention that he has three further documents to introduce in the case of Blome. And, it is suggested, inasmuch as the record yesterday ended up with documents of Blome, that today he continue with the three documents of Blome and then start Ruff. In that way the record will have some continuity.
THE PRESIDENT: Excellent suggestion. Counsel will proceed with finishing the documents Blome. Have these documents been furnished to the Tribunal? Does the secretary know, or are they available? The Tribunal does not have these documents you mention, counsel.
DR. SAUTER: In order to bo perfectly sure I have brought the necessary number of the English translation with me and can give them to you without any difficulty.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, counsel.
DR. SAUTER: I shall then say the rest of what has to be said in the Blome case. Previously I put in Supplemental Document Book IV in the Blome case which contains three continuous documents, namely 24, 25, and 26, all of which pertain to one subject. These arc excerpts from several annual volumes from the Medical Journal entitled "The Philippine Journal". The have dealt with these excerpts already in the Rose case, and when Professor Ivy was on the stand, who also made statements about those experiments which are mentioned in this Philippine Journal - the experiments carried on by Strong. In the session of 21 March I gave no exhibit number to these documents 24, 25, and 26, because at that time there was no translation of them and the Court ruled that it would be expedient to give them an exhibit number after the translation was ready.