This document, which is Prosecution Exhibit 259, is the only exhibit which the Prosecution will offer on the malaria experiments. On page 10 we have Document NO-003 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 260. This is a letter dated 9 September 1942, from Pohl to Himmler, and on page 12 of the document book we see that Pohl had instituted the carrying out of experiments on concentration camp inmates with poisonous or slow poisonous food. At about the middle of the page, where he says, "As to 16) We shall have to make two groups of food experiments. First, such which cover the examination of poisonous ingredients of our food or such as are slowly growing poisonous."
"The prisoners can very well be used for these experiments. Secondly, however, experiments will perhaps be necessary concerning the amelioration by food. These experiments cannot yield valuable results when made on racially inferior people, i. e., inferior as to the bodily structure and psychical state. For this, volunteers have to put themselves at our disposal as usual, researchers who do not only note physical phenomena in themselves, but also psychical changes. Both of them play a part in appraising food."
Document NO-1422, on page 15, will be Prosecution Exhibit 261.
Early in 1943, the defendant Karl Brandt, a defendant in the Medical Case, had written a letter, as I recall, to Karl Wolff, who was on the staff of the Reichsfuehrer at that time, and asked Wolff to arrange for experiments on concentration inmates with a certain type of concentrated food which the Wehrmacht was studying. As I recall, the Fortress of Stalingrad was under severe attack at that time by the Russian forces and, of course, the Wehrmacht was trying very earnestly to supply their troops in Stalingrad by air; and this concentrated food was one of the ways in which they hoped to do that.
In any event, the scientist, the defendant Pohl, decided that Dr. Schenk had already really explored the field of food nutrition as far as it needed to be done, and he so advised Karl Brandt in this letter, dated 20 March 1943.
Wolff had forwarded Karl Brand's letter to the defendant Pohl, and this is Pohl's response. He states that ever since the beginning of the war; that is, Pohl stated that he had Dr. Schenk working on food problems and that he had been at the front lines, and so forth. On page 16 of the Document Book, the second paragraph from the top, he says:
"I would thus say that we are able to determine exactly and in every respect what the forces need. Nevertheless, in other connection, and with other aims in view, I am having nutrition experiments conducted in a concentration camp and shall be glad to work out there any special problems, if you have any such problems."
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, it isn't claimed that any tragic results followed this particular experiment?
MR. MC HANEY: Indeed it is, Your Honor, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The concentrated food experiments?
MR. MC HANEY: No, not the concentrated food experiments. They were not carried out, so far as I know. We do claim, however, that the poisonous and slow poisonous food experiments which were sponsored by our defendant Pohl did have deadly results. This letter shows that the food experiments by Pohl were in fact carried out, and we draw that conclusion from the paragraph I have just read, because he tells Karl Brandt that he -- Pohl -is now having experiments carried out in the concentration camp.
I turn now to page 16, which is document NO-1610, and will be Prosecution Exhibit 262. This is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to Pohl, and also distributed to the Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz, and to the RSHA. It is dated 2 August 1943; and Brandt advises Pohl that, on principle, the Reichsfuehrer -- that is, Himmler -wishes to be informed personally of any experiments being carried out on concentration camp inmates, and Brandt here requests Pohl to inform him once more just exactly what experiments Pohl was personally sponsoring.
And on the next page, page 19, we have -- which is part of the same document -- Pohl's reply to Rudolf Brandt, dated 16 August, and he states in the second paragraph of the letter, that such "investigations in which I have taken a personal interest are being carried out on:
"1) the large-scale nutrition experiments in Mauthausen and "2) the feeding of Biosyn vegetable sausage."
The last paragraph shows that Schenk, who was attached to the Amtsgruppe B of the WVHA, under Georg Loerner, was supervising the nutrition experiments which we now see were carried out in the Mauthausen concentration camp. This is the last exhibit in this book on the food experiments. However, the Prosecution will have additional proof to be offered at a later date which will show the consequences of these experiments.
I turn now to page 21 which begins a few documents on the sea-water experiments. Document NO-177 will be Prosecution Exhibit 263. This is a memorandum dated Berlin, 23 May 1944, which summarizes, or constitutes, the minutes of two meetings held in the RLM on the 19th and 20th of May 1944, and in these two meetings it was decided that experiments to test a new type, or new method of rendering sea-water drinkable, be carried out on concentration camp inmates.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Mc Haney, Document 2176-PS is not offered? The affidavit of Professor Busek?
MR. MC HANEY: One moment please. Oh, did you find that in the index?
THE PRESIDENT: It is in the index but not in the body of the book.
MR. MC HANEY: Yes; well, I must say that this is a document which somehow has managed to become lost in some corner. I have personally read it some months ago, a sort of extract from a very voluminous report by the Third Army on the Mauthausen Concentration Camp, and Professor Busek made some reference to the food experiments.
We have been unable to locate the document. We will offer it if we find it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
MR. MC HANEY: We will offer other proof in any event.
Document NO-177, then, is Prosecution Exhibit 263. On page 22, I might say, preliminarily, that the sea water experiments were sponsored primarily by the Luftwaffe. I think these councils were also composed, as I recall, of representatives from the Navy, but it was the Luftwaffe who was particularly interested in that sea water problem, due to the fact that their aviators had to bail out over the Mediterranean or the North Sea and managed to stay afloat in emergency equipment, such as a life raft, but sometimes they were on the water for an extended period of time and had insufficient quantities of fresh water to drink. The Luftwaffe had developed two methods of rendering sea water drinkable. One of them was a method sponsored by the Defendant Schaefer in the medical case, which required the use of a rather substantial quantity of nitrate of silver, which was a short commodity in Germany during the war, and also required a rather large apparatus to distill the sea water which gave rise to some disadvantage to its use in emergency equipment in an airplace, because it was rather bulky. Consequently, they tried to develop some other method which would overcome those difficulties and one which gave some hope for this was developed by a person named Berka and was known as the Berka process or Berkatit and this method used little material and was easier to handle than the Schaefer process, so they were interested in using it, if it was in any way effective. As a matter of fact, it, I believe, did not remove the salt for the sea water, but simply disguised the taste, but it was hoped that even so a man might tolerate it for a certain minimum period of time which would permit him to be rescued and not die of thirst, so they went ahead and tried out the Berka Process in Dachau in August of 1944, and this is the matter here which laid the plans and carried out those experiments. On page 22, I should like to read some of the report, because it clearly points out that they had full knowledge that Berkatit was extremely dangerous and upon the advice of their doctor that it would cause death if used in close to ten days. They, in any event, went ahead and tested this drug and the first full paragraph on page 22 reads, "At this meeting Captain Dr. Becker-Freysing reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Colonel Dr. von Sirany, and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being" and they probably mean "unobjective and conclusive enough for a final decision.
The Chief of the Medical Service is convinced that, if the Berka method is used, damage to health has to be expected not later than 6 days after taking Berkatit, which will result in permanent injuries to health, and - according to Dr. Schaefer - will finally result in death after not later than 12 days. External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death. As a result of the preliminary discussion it is agreed to arrange new series of experiments of short duration. A commission was to be set up for the arrangements of these series of experiments."
Then it outlines below the series of experiments to be given and it states under paragraph 1 that "persons were to be given sea water processed with Berka, persons to be given ordinary drinkingwater, persons without any drinking-water at all," and, finally persons to be given sea water processed by the Schaefer method and says further "In addition to these experiments a further experiment should be conducted as follows: Persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, 2nd as diet also the emergency sea rations. Duration of Experiments: 12 days. Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experiment subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by Reichsfuehrer SS."
In short, since they were apt to kill a number of them, they would only use concentration camp inmates. On page 26, we see a distribution list. The Tribunal will note that a copy of this matter was sent to the Reichsfuehrer-SS.
On Page 28, Document NO-179 will be Prosecution Exhibit 263. This is a letter from Grawitz.
JUDGE PHILLIPS 264. Exhibit 264.
MR. McHANEY: Yes, that is correct, 264. This is a letter from Grawitz to Himmler dated 28 June 1944, dealing with the sea water experiments and giving us the usual series of Gebhardt, Gluecks, and Nebe, concerning the experiments. Paragraph 2, in paragraph 2, the subordinate of the Defendant Pohl, Gluecks, stated that "Referring to the above letter, we report that we have no objections whatsoever to the experiments requested by the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe to be conducted at the experimental station Rascher in the concentration camp Dachau. If possible, jews or prisoners held in quarantine are to be used."
We see some rather, what would appear to be, stupid comment in here by Nebe. He suggests using gypsies and then Dr. Grawitz, being a very marvelous doctor, apparently objects that the use of gypsies would not give reliable results because they have a different racial composition, so the whole operation was finally resolved by saying they would use gypsies and three others for control, and it appears a great bulk of them were gypsies.
On page 30, Document NO-183 will be Prosecution Exhibit 265. It is a letter from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz stating that Himmler had adopted the suggestion of Nebe that gypsies should be used and in addition three other prisoners.
On page 31, Document NO-911 will be Prosecution Exhibit 266. This is an affidavit.
DR. SEIDL: (Attorney for the Defendant Oswold Pohl) May it please the Tribunal, I object to the admission of Document NO-911. In the index this document has been described as an affidavit. However, and regardless, it is not an affidavit at all. The statement of this Josef Tschofenig has neither been sworn to nor has his signature been certified. The document does not comply in other ways with the prerequisites which have to be given if it is to be recognized as an affidavit by the Tribunal in accordance with the existing rules and regulations.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Seidl's objections are accurate in accordance with the photostatic copy appearing in the Exhibit folder, but his statements are not accurate in accordance with what we actually have. We had offered a similar statement to this in the medical case, which was taken from the files of the Austrian Police which had conducted the investigation into this matter. It is true that they were not certified. That is, the signature was not certified and it did not appear that an oath had been secured. However, upon objection in the medical case, we immediately returned the statements to the authorities in Austria and all of them had been re-signed after an oath had been administered and properly certified at this time to the translation in the document book, but, as frequently happens, in this Exhibit they have picked up the old document rather than the new and it has the same number. I would like to have the document provisionally accepted at this time and the prosecution will get the correct affidavit today.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 33 we have an elligible something or other. Does that show that the document was sworn to?
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We can't read it.
MR. MCHANEY: I shall read it, for you, if you like. "Before me," then comes the number, "280957, Lt. E. D. Nicholson, appeared Tschofenig, Josef, to me known and in my presence signed the foregoing," and the German words which mean "order" or "affidavit" consisting of 2 typewritten pages written in the German language and swore that the same was true, the 22nd day of January, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, Seidl, does that not meet your objection?
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, in our Document Book this certification is not contained. We only have an order here on 7 February 1946. It has not been sworn to nor does it bear any certification whatsoever. However, the prosecution had this witness called and he has sworn to this affidavit afterwards and then I withdraw my objection.
I should like to read a short extract on page 31. It is at the last few lines of the second paragraph which states: "Sixty gypsies brought from Sachsenhausen concentration camp especially for this purpose were selected for these experiments. Professor Beiglboeck came with a staff of three Luftwaffe assistants and the experiments began, as far as I know, in various methods, starvation diets to begin with, sea water and salt diets, salt injections, and so on. The tortures led to enfeebling of the body which resulted in loss of consciousness and as far as I know in one death." He goes on to state that the experimental subjects became so thirsty that they threw themselves on the floor rags used by the hospital attendants and sucked the dirty water out of them and tried in every conceivable manner to secure potable water.
Turn now to page 34, Document NO-371, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 267. It is an affidavit of Rudolf Brandt concerning the epidemic jaundice experiments carried out at Sachsenhausen in the middle of 1943. The affidavit speaks for itself and I shall not read it, especially since the following letters corroborate in every respect the affidavit of Brandt.
On page 36, Document NO-010, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 268. This is a letter dated 1 June 1943 from Grawitz to Himmler and in this letter he states that a Dr. Dohmen of the Army Medical Expectorate itself, that he has discovered a virus which caused epidemic jaundice and that he has made animal to animal experiments and now wishes to make animal to human being experiments to see about the infection when experimenting on human beings, to see whether this virus could likewise bring on an epidemic jaundice.
I might say that this jaundice became one of the most serious diseases for the German army. Not so much that because it caused a great number of fatalities in and of itself, but in that it became so widespread and was, as named, undertook to reach epidemic proportions. Here again it is apparent that this disease rather unknown in Germany but having attacked it in the East caused considerable difficulty and that they had consider able difficulty with this disease, and we have been finding in captured documents that the Service was very much interested in trying to find the cause of it.
Whether it was caused by a virus or whether it was contagious and so forth, it is an effort in that direction and wish to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that cases of death must be anticipated, Dr. Grawitz said, and he asked for prisoners condemned to death for these experiments.
On page 38, Document NO-011, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 269, is the approval given by Himmler on 16 June 1943 for these experiments to be carried out. He made available eight criminals condemned in Auschwitz, that great institution of the judiciary; eight Jews of the Polish resistance movement should be used in the experiment and made available in Sachsenhausen. A copy of this letter was sent to the defendant Pohl.
Turn now to Document NO-228 on page 39, which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. 270. This is a rather long affidavit by the defendant Fritz Ernst Fischer in the medical case and which, of course, concerns these so-called sulfanilamide experiments carried out at Ravensbrueck concentration camp during the period, roughly, August 1942 to around the end of 1942 or the early part of '43. I shall not read from this affidavit. I, however, recommend to the Tribunal this affidavit as it gives quite a clear picture of the sulfanilamide experiments. Here again we have an effort made to solve the military medical problem, as apparently German medical circles were somewhat disturbed by the British and American propaganda as to the tremendous effectiveness of the sulfa drug, and the Tribunal will recall they were frequently referred to as the secret weapon, but strangely enough that propaganda had some effect and also on the soldiers themselves because on being wounded they come to expect they would be treated with the sulfa drugs, and if they were not, their confidence in the German military medical authorities was somewhat shaken, but in any event some of their very good scientists undertook to discover just how effective the sulfa drugs were.
Another little incident which gave impetus to the selection so far as the SS was concerned was the assassination of Heydrich in June 1942. Heydrich was shot while riding in an automobile in Prague but I think he was leaving Prague on his way to Germany and the bullet went through the back part of the automobile and through the cushion seat and penetrated the back of Heydrich. Apparently the wound itself was not of a fatal character. As it happened, in any event, the chances are that Heydrich would have survived but as it was the bullet upon entering the back of the car went through the cloth and carried with it a piece of cloth and also horse hair used for stuffing in the car seat and such things as that and gave rise to a very serious infection for the whole length of the bullet wound. The defendant Dr. Gebhardt was called in to treat Heydrich and he defends his treatment with some vigor before the Military Tribunal No. 1. In any event, Heydrich died and, as the Fuehrer described it, it was a military disaster so far as the German nation was concerned. That is the way Hitler described the loss of Heydrich, as a military disaster of the first quarter. Gebhardt was criticized among the medical circle because he apparently had not used as much sulfanilamide as they thought he should have used, and there is some indication that this experiment at Ravensbrueck was followed very shortly after the death of Heydrich at their subsidiary purpose; at least, for the justification of Gebhardt's treatment, he persistently maintained all along that the sulfanilamide would not mend or would not prevent a deep-seated infection, and that the only proper way of treating such an infection was by the traditional operative technique, and that what he claimed is precisely what he proved on the experiments at Ravensbrueck. In other words, the result was that sulfanilamide is not a positive preventive of infection. After the men is wounded you cannot give him sulfanilamide and expect that the infection will be prevented. In the course of this experiment as I recall they operated on roughly 70 Polish women, and before the Polish women were used they operated on some German men, about ten in number, but they in turn turned to the women in Ravensbrueck. The defendants who were impli cated in this experiment admit that at least three people died as the result of the experiment.
The prosecution has presented evidence that five died and that I think in addition the five were killed after the experiment, that is, that they were shot.
On page 53, Document NO-2465, which will be Prosecution No. 271, an extract of testimony of the defendant Karl Gebhardt from the medical cases. This has been included in the document book simply to show that there was a conference in July 1942 when the sulfanilamide experiments were discussed. Bluecks, the subordinate of the defendant Pohl and chief of Amtsgruppe D, WVHA, was present.
On page 56, Document NO-861, Prosecution Exhibit 272 --
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Pohl. May it please the Tribunal, I object to the admission of documents NO-861 and NO-874. There are two affidavits here, one from Zofia Maczka, which witness was called before Tribunal - Military Tribunal No. 1 in the case against Karl Brandt, as a witness. In the course of her interrogation before the Military Tribunal the witness has repudiated her affidavit on very important points. The witness is now located either in Stockholm or in Warsaw. Due to the distance involved it would be appropriate to have this witness called here once more. I, therefore, request that these affidavits not be admitted in evidence and I would ask the prosecution, just like on the previous documents, to present an extract from the court session which contains her testimony and which also contains the statement which the witness has repudiated, if that was stated here exactly right, where the presentation of Document NO-2465 by the Prosecution has also presented part of the court record.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Seidl, is it your claim that this witness in her testimony before the Tribunal I repudiated this affidavit or made contradictory statements?
DR. SEIDL: The witness Zofia Maczka was heard by Military Tribunal. She was examined there. Her two affidavits were not presented to her by the prosecution at that time. She testified to the state of affairs only from her own knowledge. She then repudiated several statements which she had made in her affidavit. She has corrected them there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the transcript of her testimony before Tribunal I is available to you, is it not?
DR. SEIDL: We have a copy of the transcript, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you are at liberty to offer that testimony, that transcript, to show that it is different from the affidavit.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I make my suggestion for the purpose of simplifying the procedure. If the Prosecution by itself presents the correct record and refrains from submitting these two affidavits to the Tribunal, then this will expedite the trial, and all argument about the creditability and the correctness of the various documents will no longer be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: What is there to this point, Mr. McHaney!
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I do not recall that the witness, in any substantial manner, contradicted her statement in any significant matters. She may have done so in some insignificant way. I am not prepared to say. We put in the affidavits rather than extracting her testimony because it was considerable more convenient for us. We already had the translations of these documents. They were in proper form. All we had to do was include them in the book, and, just as the Tribunal has suggested, if Dr. Seidl feels that there is anything to be shown by offering her testimony, or any part of her testimony, he is certainly at liberty to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Veil, of course, the Tribunal cannot exclude this affidavit upon the ground that there may be a contradictory statement somewhere else. The Defense may bring in any contradictory statement in this woman's testimony before Tribunal I and show that it differs from the affidavit. We can not assume that it is different. We have not even seen that testimony. You can show it to us if you wish.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, I shall then read those parts, these etracts from the transcript which show that the witness in the course of her examination before the Tribunal has made other statements on very important points. I want only to point out one example right here, which I can remember very well. At the end of Document 861, the paragraph before the last--page 58 in the German text and page 63 in the English document book.
"A few abnormal protective prisoners (physically ill) were chosen and brought to the operating table and amputations of the whole leg (at the hip joint) were carried out, or on others amputations of the whole arm (with the shoulder-blade) were carried out. Afterwards the victims, (if they still lived) were killed by means of evipan injections and the leg or arm was taken to Hohenlychen and served the purposes known to Professor Gebhardt. Ten such operations, approximately, were carried out."
All these statements Were repudiated by the witness in the course of her examination, and only the fact remained that in the case of one prisoner who had been condemned to death a shoulder blade was removed and was inserted into another patient.
THE PRESIDENT: All you have to do is show us that by a transcript of her testimony in which she repudiated this statement. Bring in your transcript and show us where she stated something differently.
DR. SEIDL: In my presentation of the defense of Oswald Pohl, I shall present this extract.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the defendant Tschentscher):
May it please the Tribunal, I also want to address the Tribunal in connection with this case. With regard to a document which has just been presented, I have exactly the same question. I have reached the conclusion that it would be most appropriate to present the contrasting statement and testimony given in the medical trials However, the President has just asked attorney Seidl if he stated that in the other trial the same witness had contradicted and repudiated his testimony or if the testimony had only varied to some extent. However, I am not now quite certain how such an objection can be treated if in the previous trial the witness has actually repudiated his entire testimony.
I refer now to Document NO 371, Prosecution Exhibit 267, by Rudolf Brandt, who in his personal testimony repudiated this affidavit in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that Brandt testified differently than the woman did in the affidavit?
DR. PRIBILLA: No. What I am trying to say is that the Prosecution presented an affidavit by Rudolf Brandt and that Rudolf Brandt himself later on repudiated this affidavit in its entirety.
My question to the Tribunal now is: Should I act differently from the way Dr. Seidl has decided, or would it be appropriate in this case also for me to present the affidavit which has been repudiated?
THE PRESIDENT: When you get to presenting your defense, when you offer testimony in defense, then you may show that Brandt's affidavit was repudiated or that it is wrong or that he stated something else at another time, or attack it in any way you please.
That should be done at the time of your defense.
DR. PRIBILLA: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
MR. McHANEY: The affidavit which I have just introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 272 states that 74 Polish women were used in the operation of the sulfanilimide experiments, and also an analysis of the document shows that the affiant states that five of such experimental subjects died as a result of the experiments and that six were later shot.
A. Supplementary statement by the same affiant, Zofia Maczka, is on Page 65 of the document book, Document NO 874, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 273.
We come now to a different subject. On page 67 of the document book, Document NO 2467, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 274, is an extract from the defense of the defendant Karl Gebhardt in the Medical Case, concerning certain experiments with a drug called Polygal. I think that several days ago I explained to the Court that Rascher conducted experiments in an effort to test a blood coagulant which was known as Polygal. During the course of the experiments prisoners were shot in order to see whether the coagulent would arrest the flow of blood. This extract from the testimony of Gebhardt, we submit as proof that persons actually were shot during the course of the blood coagulation experiments.
On page 70, Document NO 615, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 275, is a letter from Pohl to Dr. Rascher concerning a report which Rascher published on the blood coagulation experiments, and Pohl takes Rascher to task because he had mentioned the address Dachau 3 K in this published report, and, as he states, it was quite possible that people could conclude from this report that experiments on prisoners were involved, and he reprimands Rascher for having done that. Note that a copy was sent to Rudolf Brandt and to Sievers, Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe.
On page 72, Document NO 656, Prosecution Exhibit 276, on page 76 of this document we find a letter from Sievers to Pohl, which reads in part as follows:
"Re: Large scale production of the haemostyptikum 'Polygal' "Dear Obergruppenfuehrer:
"Favorable agreements concluded some days ago concerning availability of working space and machines for the production, enable us already now to start production of the coagulating medicamentation 'Polygal' with the most insignificant means. The quantities required for the intended large-scale experiment will thus be available."
He goes on to state that a number if prisoners are necessary to carry out the production and asks Pohl to take care of that.
Turn now to Page 78, Document 3546-PS, which will be Prosecution Exhibit 277. The Tribunal will recall that we have previously submitted in evidence Sievers' diary for the year 1943. This is the Sievers' diary for half of 1944. I am sorry, this covers all of '44. We had half of '43. I guess that is the way it was. I would like to call a few passages from this to the Tribunal's attention.
Under the entry of 6 January, on Page 78, under Note 2c, we see the entry, "Writing Reichsfuehrer-SS to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl concerning support of scientific research work," and the entry, "Space for execution of freezing experiments." The Tribunal will recall this is the year 1944, and they are still talking about freezing experiments. The ones which were carried out with the cooperation of the Luftwaffe occurred between August and October, 1942.
The entry under 9 January on Page 78, "Report on conference SSObergruppenfuehrer Pohl in connection with production of polygal." Under 21 January we also see a little note about freezing experiments for Dr. Rascher.
On Page 79 under the entry for 28 January, the Tribunal sees the word in Item 2, "Institute R." That is the Department Rascher of the Institute of Military Scientific Research under Sievers. The entry for 31 January at the bottom of Page 79, we see the entry, "Economic and Administrative Main Office with SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Rascher to see SS-Standartenfuehrer Lolling." Lolling was in Amt D-3 of the WVHA.
On Page 88, the entry for 15 June 1944, we find the entry, "SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl: Production of polygal and settlement with Feix. Report on Rascher case. With SS-Standartenfuehrer Mauer - Assignment to work of prisoner-scientists." Mauer was in Amtgruppe D and in charge of labor committment. By this time in June 1944 Rascher had been arrested rand tried for some of his misdemeanors by the SS and so the story goes was subsequently executed. I assume the Tribunal has probably heard that story. In any event we see that from this diary that the production of the polygal was actually taken over by Pohl's organization.
On the next page, Page 89, under the entry for 27 June, at the top of the page, we see the note, "Report on production of polygal. Discussion with SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl on 15 June 1944. Renaming: Styptoral."
On Page 91, the entry for 6 October, we find the entry under Item 3, "Production: Own business or in connection with Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH." I would like to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the Deutscher Heilmittel was a pharmaceutical laboratory under the control of Amtgruppe W of the WVHA, so the question is here being posed by Sievers as to whether the blood coagulant shall be produced directly by Silvers or whether they will turn it over to the Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH, which was controlled by the WVHA.
On Page 92 we see that the Deutscher Heilmittel in fact did take over the production. Under the entry for 8 December we see that Sievers had a talk with SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Riecks, Manager of Deutscher Heilmittel-GMBH, Prague, concerning the production of styptoral, and a similar entry immediately under that.
We turn now to Page 94, NO-409, the Prosecution Exhibit 278. This concerns itself with certain sepsis or phlegmen experiments carried out in the Dachau concentration camp. This report is dated August 29, 1943. This shows that they were concerned with trying to study the best method of treating various diseases which were for the most part artifically brought on.
Here they were using what they called biochemical means for the treatment of sepsis, and as it states on Page 95 the cases of sepsis were mostly artifically provoked, and also immediately under that, "All sepsis cases died." The tabulation on Page 94 shows that concerned at least eight people. On Page 96 in the same report where they sum up they state that, "Finally it must be said, that from a total number of 40 cases there are 1 positive case and 4 positive cases with certain reservations, contrary to 35 failures of which 10 ended fatally," and he remarks that the experiments are being continued. The last paragraph of the same document also mentions certain sepsis experiments in the concentration camp Auschwitz, and he points out that all three of these cases ended in fatalities.
The following document on Page 97 will be Prosecution Exhibit 279, which is Document NO-994. I shall not read this document, but I think the Tribunal certainly should. It is dated. It shows the course of one of these sepsis experiments during the month of November, 1942, from the moment they injected pus into this man's thigh and later into his arm up until the time he finally was sent from the hospital some months later, and it is in a number of respects a rather remarkable document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a single case history?
MR. McHANEY: Yes.
This completes the documents in Book No. 8.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take up the next document book after recess.
THE MARSHAL: This Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)