We see, therefore, the test of admissibility of evidence is whether or not it has probative value. Now, the objection has been made to an affidavit signed by a defendant. We submit that a statement signed by a person following his arrest has substantial probative value, whether sworn or unsworn. This is very clearly an admission against interest which is entitled not only to be admitted but is worthy of considerable weight. We have had very little time to search the voluminous records of case number 1 for the IMT on this point, but we have found a number of statements signed by one or who ether of the defendants which were admitted in evidence although apparently without objection. At this time I have copies of these exhibits, one with USA Exhibit No. 9 which is an affidavit of Julius Streicher, sworn to by Julius Streicher and approved by attorney for the defendant, Dr. Harx. Another, Document 2836-PS, USA Exhibit No. 4, an affidavit by Herman Goering, attested in the same manner, and so on. I have here several such affidavits that I will pass up to the Tribunal for their perusal.
(The papers were handed to the Tribunal.)
Mr. PRESIDENT: Without any about, Mr. Hardy, a statement signed by a defendant is admissible as against him and as an admission against interest. A statement concerning such an affidavit involves the admissibility of such a statement as against other defendants. These statements which you have exhibited to the Tribunal, several of them at least, were signed and evidently approved by the counsel for the party who made the statement. It does not appear from the statements themselves whether they were offered simply as admissions against evidence by the party who made them, in which event, of course, they are perfectly competent.
MR. HARDY: We submit that most of these statements were signed by defense counsel as well as defendant in this case but clearly does not bear upon the admissibility. Howover, in this case of the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt it is likewise, as Your Honor says, an affidavit testifying as a witness as well as an admission against interest showing his complete knowledge and his tie-up with the entire program and admission of these experiments.
We submit, therefore, the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt is admissible whether or not it be regarded as a statement under oath. The prosecution, however, does not wish to rest its argument on this narrow ground. It is our position that this affidavit was sworn to and should be considered by this Tribunal as a sworn statement. The affidavit shows on its fact that it was signed and sworn to before Walter H. Rapp. Rapp is described in the jurat as a U.S. civilian, identified by the number B-416387, and signed by the Adjutant General's Office of the War Department of the United States. This is certainly the most previse identification we could give. Through that number he can be identified among thousands of persons under the jurisdiction of the War Department. Now we can see that the jurat does not describe his position with the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes and may perhaps be criticized in that respect. This has been remedied as I have had Walter H. Rapp with the description of his position and initialed it on the criminal affidavit.
In any case, the lack of such description does not make the documents inadmissible. He is, in tact, the Director of the Evidence Division of the Office of the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, duly appointed by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, Brigadier General Telford Taylor; and, as such, he is charged with the duty to aid in the production of evidence, and invested with all the necessary powers to fulfill this duty, including the authority to administer oath. By the same token, other employees of O.C.C. who are charged with the duty in aiding with the production of evidence are invested with the same powers. And, this situation is not new or strange to the defense counsel; that is the defense counsel representing the defendants in case Number 1, a number of affidavits were admitted in evidence before the IMT where the oath had been administered by a civilian employee of the Office of the Chief of Counsel. For example, I have here in my hand an affidavit which was Exhibit No. 922 before the IMT, and which was signed and sworn to by one Kurt Smith before Doctor Robert M. Kempner, OCC also, Exhibit No. 645, before the IMT is the same. It is noted that it was witnessed by two civilians. For the foregoing reasons, your Honor, the prosecution states, at this time, Document No. 372 is admissible.
DR. SERVATIUS: (For the defendant Karl Brandt) Mr. President, the trial and procedure which has been chosen by the Prosecution, in order to give reasons for the indictment, is supported to such an extent on affidavits of this kind. The defendants are present here and could be heard in the case. I have objected to the presentation of such documents because they violate the so-called Golden Rule; that this is not always the best evidence to be resented. Now, finally it is discovered that the Tribunal before has turned down my objection. Now, it is discovered that many of these affidavits have been administered by official persons who are not entitled to carry out and administer this oath. It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to have an oath administered in such a valuable document, which is presented by the prosecution, in such a form. According to the German law, it is not permissible to present such evidence to the Tribunal if the oath has not been administered by the Judge.
Here are the persons who have administered the oath -- they are just plain civilians whose qualifications are perfectly unknown. The representative of the Prosecution has previously presented an affidavit here which was sworn to by Doctor Kempner. As far as I know, Doctor Kempner is the Attorney Kempner, who worked in the previous trials for Justice Jackson; and in those cases, they have been highly qualified persons. I am afraid that these affidavits of the defendants have not been given with the necessary judicial security which might be expected. All the affidavits which I have read over have been sworn to, and the person before whom they were sworn to, therefore, plays a major part. I, therefore, consider it necessary not only to identify the persons who have administered the oath, but also that their qualifications be stated so that we can determine to what extent the attachments might be justified. Every jurist knows that statements which are given at the police station before a police official can frequently be attacked in court, and the criminal psychology occupies itself with these questions in detail. This is a chapter which I do not need to explain to the Tribunal any more in detail. I only want to point out my doubt that such a procedure be obliged. After all, it is an official procedure. The witnesses are here and they can be placed before the Tribunal. People who are not jurist I do not consider comparable with the procedure of such importance as we are having here.
THE PRESIDENT: It will not be my opinion, personally, that the Prosecution could call a defendant to the stand and put him on as a witness without his consent, unless he would ask to testify. That covers part of the objection raised by Doctor Servatius.
Is there any further argument on the part of the defense counsel?
(Apparently none.)
Of course, if the prosecution offers his statement, by a defendant, such as this, it would clearly be admissible against him. As I think I stated previously this morning, the question would be how far that would be evidence against other defendants.
I inquire of the Prosecution if this Exhibit, which is under discussion, is offered only as an admission in interest against the defendant Rudolf Brandt or whether it will be the Prosecution's desire to consider it as evidence against every defendant?
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal pleases, we certainly offer this document and ask that it be considered against any and all of the defendants as to whom it may contain evidence. It seems to me that the fact in question is whether or not this document has probative value. If that question is determined in the affirmative, then I think it is admissible under Ordinance No. 7. Now, inasmuch as it does contain admissions against the man who signed the affidavit, I should think that quite aside from its admissibility it would give the document tremendous weight in the mind of the Tribunal. This man, in making this affidavit was, him self, admitting participation in the particular experiment which is concerned. At the same time, he proceeds to tell the full story as he knew it; and, of course, such evidence reaches other defendants in the dock. Simply because that is so, I certainly see no reason to limit the applicability of this document, and certainly the Prosecution does not offer it simply as an admission against the one defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will take a short recess and discuss the matter.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In record to the question before the Tribunal the Tribunal is of the opinion that the statement signed by the defendant Rudolf Brandt, being Document NO-372, now offered in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 252, should not, in its present form, be received in evidence as against any defendant other than Rudolf Brandt. However, if the Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution can and will file with the Tribunal a certificate disclosing that the "U.S. Civilian Walter H. Rapp", who is purported to have administered tic oath to Rudolf Brandt, was authorized to do so, either as an officially designated member of the staff of the Prosecution or in some other competent official capacity, the Tribunal will admit the signed statement of Rudolf Brandt and give to it probation weight as the Tribunal feels it is entitled to have. Meanwhile, if the Prosecution is now in position to make the assertion to the Tribunal that such a certificate can and will be filed by the Office of Chief of Counsel the signed statement, Document NO-372, will now be received in evidence provisionally and a ruling as to its admissibility will be reserved until such time as such certificate is supplied.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we are prepared to supply the certificate which is required by the Court's ruling and, accordingly, should like at this time to have the Exhibit provisionally admitted and we will file the necessary certificate as soon as it can be prepared.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement of the Prosecution the offered Exhibit will now be received in evidence subject to the statement made by the Tribunal.
The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. HARDY: This document appears on Page 1 of your Honors' document book; Document NO-372 which is offered provisionally as Exhibit 252.
"I, Rudolf Emil Hermann Brandt, being duly sworn, depose and state:
"1. I am the same Rudolf Brandt who has already sworn to an affidavit on the 30th August 1946, concerning the low-pressure experiments which word carried out at the Dachau concentration camp, on persons, women of whom did not volunteer, as well as certain out or affidavits concerning medical experiments which were also carried out on subjects who did not volunteer.
"2. For the same reasons explained in ear graphs 1, 2 and 3 of my affidavit of the 3-th August 1946, I am able to give this evidence concerning experiments conducted on human subjects.
"Experiments with LOST (mustard) gas.
"3. Towards the end of the year 1939 experiments were conducted, at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, on persons who were certainly not all volunteers, in order to ascertain the efficacy of the different treatments of wounds inflicted by Lost gas. Lost is a poison gas which produces injurious effects on the epidermis. I think it is generally known as mustard gas. Since war had broken out it was deemed necessary to determine the best treatments for injuries caused by Lost gas in case this gas might be used against the Reich. Therefore experiments were conducted on inmates of concentration camps. As far as I understood, the experiments consisted of inflicting wounds upon various parts of the bodies of the experimental subjects and infecting then thereafter with Lost. Various methods of treatment were applied in order to determine the most effective one.
"4. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. August Hirt, professor at the University of Strasbourg and collaborator in the "Ahnenerbe", had before 1942, undertaken experiments on Lost-injuries on the orders of the Wehrmacht. My attention was called to Hirt's reports in Himmler's office. In the second half of 1942 Hirt, together with Oberarzt Dr. Karl Wimmer who served in the Luftwaffe, initiated experiments or inmates of the Natzweiler concentration camp.
The inmates fir those as well as for other experiments were simply chosen by Pehl's office, the Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), in order to be employed for such purposes. The experiments on human subjects with Lost gas had been carried on during the years 1943 and 1944 in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp as well as in the Natzweiler concentration camp. The result was that some of the inmates died.
"5. In March 1944 the Fuehrer ordered SS-Brigadefuehrer Dr. Karl Brandt, Commissioner for Health and Sanitation, to encourage medical research in connection with gas attacks. Brand sent a copy of this decree to Himmler requesting him to distribute it to the competent persons in the SS and the induce them to enter into communication with Brandt. Accordingly, since it was a question of experiments, I distributed copies of the Fuehrer decree to SS-Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz, Reichsarzt SS und Pelize to SS-Standartenfuehrer Welfran Sievers of the "Ahnenerbe" and SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Juettner, Chief of the SS Operational Main Office. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Pehl of the Economic and Administrative Main Office also received a copy of the decree of the Fuehrer.
"6. Thereupon Sievers informed Dr. Brandt of the details of Hirt's investigations with Lost on human subjects, although I think it possible that Brandt, already in 1942, was, generally speaking, acquainted with Hirt's work, as Brandt in that year was appointed Commissioner for Health and Sanitation. Hirt carried on his experiments on human with subjects injuries caused by Lost gas during the year 1944. I remember that the experiments were made in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
"7. Inmates who were subjected to experiments with Lost and other experiments were in many cases not of German nationality Poles and Russians as well as Gipsies and Jews were frequently employed.
It is a fact that Himmler's racial policy required the use of non-German nationals except in cases in which very serious political or criminal offenses had been committed.
"8. Besides Karl Brandt and the other above-mentioned persons, Handloser and Rostock also must have keen aware of these experiments. Also Professor Kurt Blome, Deputy Reich Health Leader and Deputy Reich Leader of Physicians under Dr. Conti, must have been informed of these experiments.
(signed) Rudolf Brandt" I now request the Tribunal to turn to Page 4 of the document book.
This is Document NO-199 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 253. It is a letter from Grawitz to the Reichsfuehrer SS pertaining to these experiments with Lost and referring to a remedy called F 1001, dated 5 January 1940:
"Enclosed please find the final report of the Experimental studios in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen re remedy F 1001.
Signed by Grawitz SS-Brigadefuehrer The Reich Physician-SS" We turn now to the next page.
The report contained here is also part of Prosecution Exhibit 253:
"22 December 1939, Oranienburg "Final report:
regard the 23 cases vaccinated with L. on 13 October 1939.
"70 days after the vaccination the areas of vaccination are, for the most part, healed up. Six of the cases treated still show scabs approximately the size of a ten pfennig piece. The scabs formed about a fortnight age and are fixed very firmly. Upon lifting them healthy granulation tissue can be seen beneath. In the other cases the skin ever the vaccinated areas has turned bluish-red, but is not sensitive to touch. Some cases evince considerable itching and starting upon application of cold. The general condition of the subjects vaccinated is not influenced.
Signed by Dr. Sonntag SS-Untersturmfuehrer" Do now turn to Document NO-198, page 6 of Your Honors' document book, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 254.
This is another letter from Grawitz to the Reichsfuehrer SS, dated 5 January 1940:
"A preliminary report from the concentration camp Sachsenhausen on the application of tie Helzmann "Lost" remedy is submitted as enclosure. From this it is evident that no predominant importance is to be attached to the Helzmann remedy.
(Signed) Grawitz" I read now the report, page 7:"Obg, (Ordensburg), 22 December 1939.
"Preliminary report, On 8 cases of cauterization by 'Oil-O' and their treatment with remedy 'H' or 'F 1001' with infection induced in 4 of the cases.
"Technique:
Both arms are cauterized in order to have a relatively wide chance of coming to a conclusion, while considering comparatively few cases. 'Oil-O' is spread upon a certain area of the skin about the size of a two mark coin with a platinum loop; for about 30 minutes this area will be dried by air and the arm then dressed with a protecting bandage. An infection is induced in the left arm on the third day in cases 1 and 4 and the fourth day in cases 7 and 8 by rubbing a miked, culture of Strepto, Staphylo, and Pneumococci into the area under the removed blisters or under the scabs that have become loosened during the change of dressings.
"Treatment:
This is applied to cases 1 to 4 by treating both arms with continuous damp applications of remedy 'H', diluted as prescribed, 1.9 to 1.12; while in cases 5 to 8 the right arm is treated with 'H' diluted as prescribed and the left arm with 'F 1001."
Next is a diagram of treatment showing the various cases as treated by the two remedies, 'F 1001' and the 'H' treatment.
"During the following 8 days bandages will be changed daily and thereafter each second day. Blisters and loose scabs will be removed. If unctuous films appear, they will, be brushed off with a 'Zephirol' solution.
"Course of experiment:
After cauterization with 'Oil-O' drying will take place in about 20 to 30 minutes without causing any pain at all. The skin above the cauterized areas is not changed in any way nor will it not evidence any peculiarities Yd thin the next hours. After about 7 to 8 hours a reddish spot the size of the area of vaccination will appear.
With its appearance an over increasing inflammation and itching set in. The area of the reddening will increase and fade in its center, thus causing the following situation after about 24 hours: In the center of the affected area an anaemic region can be seen which covers more than the area originally cauterized and which has at times assumed proportions of 18.7 centimeters. This will be surrounded by a hyperanaemic area of from 3 to 3 centimeters in extent. In all cases the formation of blisters can be observed after 24 hours. The blisters will always be situated quite characteristically at the edge of the anaemic region forming a wheal to the hyperanaemic region. In removing these blisters the epidermis of the anaemic region will peel off in large shreds and the greatly extended and flattened papillae will lie exposed. The contents of the blisters will be of a jellylike, mucilagenous substance. As a rule the aims will be extremely swollen and the pain is extreme. The tissues will turn to a yellowish grey color during the following days. The suraaces of the wounds will freely exude and necroses Trill form which adhere very firmly to their base. Later, little isles of granulation tissues will appear which, however, will again and again disappear. In the cases observed the first permanent granulations did not form before the end of an approximately throe week period. At this time the surrounding hyperanaemia will have faded and a rather dark brown pigmentation will have appeared in its place. Now the healing process begins, starting from the edges, said the granules will become clean. "The infections induced in cases 1, 4, and 7, by a mixed culture of Strepto, Staphylo, and Pneumococci, will take somewhat different forms. Case 1 will develop symptoms of a sepsis producing high temperatures, chills, swelling of regional glands and a distention of the spleen. In cases 7, and 8, moderate temperatures will be observed. In all cases a strong influence on the general condition of the subjects results. Cocci were not to be demonstrated in the bloodstream. Smears were made after a period of 2 and 4 weeks. In all cases streptococci and staphylococci were found, in case 8 pneumococci also. There is less tendency for the infected cauterized areas to heal.
"Summary:
"1. Remey 'H' does not seem to be a specific remedy for cauterizations caused by 'Oil-O.'
"2. The application of remedy 'H' does not seem to have a sufficient bacteriacidal effect. From 2 cases of induced infection, one case developed septic symptoms. The healing tendency is reduced in all cases.
"3. The impression is given that the cauterized areas treated with remedy 'H' extended more than those treated according to the 'F 1001' dry method."
(signed) "Dr. Sonntag."
"SS Untersturmfuehrer" This report evidences the type of procedure used in this experiment and it can be well imagined that the inmated suffered.
I turn now to document number NO-200, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 255. This is a brief note from Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz, dated 29 February 1340, saying:
"Enclosed I am transmitting a letter of the physician Dr. Fritjof Dinand, Frankfurt a/M., Gaertnerweg 16, of 23 February 1940 with the request for notice and study."
"By order of (signature) Brandt" which shews the implication of Brandt in this connection.
At the bottom there is a notation: "Concerning: Remedy 'F 1001.'" The next exhibit and the one following.
... the next three exhibits, are letters which deviate from Lost at the moment but arc necessary here in order to show the sequence of correspondence between the defendant Sievers and Hirt.
The first is a letter from Sievers to Hirt dated 17 January 1942 and this is in regard to research and combatting of insects having an effect on men.
"Dear comrade Hirt:
"For the combatting vermin-insects which have an effect on men, as as mosquitoes, horse-flies, lice, bed-bugs, fleas, etcetera, the Reich Fuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, Heinrich Himmler, has ordered special measures to be carried out with the aim of preventing more than hitherto the spreading of the insects concerned, to exterminate them, and to prepare effective counter agents on human beings themselves.
"The Reich Fuehrer SS wants all known methods of combatting vermin and these which will soon be developed by further research work to be put to use before the beginning of summer for die benefit of our soldiers in time continuation of the operations.
"The extensive resources required for such a purpose are available. Any co-workers not available as yet, will be secured. "In this matter I have written to all vermin-combatting and research institutes in question, but I have, with few exceptions, received unsatisfactory information. "Recalling our Strassburg discussions, I therefore turn to you with the inquiry as to whether you sec any possibility of collaborating in this groat task; what I have in mind is that you put at our disposal your experiences in the field of vitamin-ingestion as a preventive measure. As is known, many people are not molested by the parasites at all, whereas others are molested badly. So perhaps there is a possibility of establishing general immunity by vaccination or by ordering certain drags to be taken by mouth.
"I should be very grateful to you for an answer as soon as possible, stating whether you can collaborate yourself, or for a suggestion as to what scientists known to you could be asked for help - they need not be vermin specialists at all, - since the Reichsfuehrer SS has declared this assignment to be a very urgent one. With kind regards, "Heil Hitler!"Sievers "SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer."
This document, Number NO-792, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 256, Your Honor.
The next letter is Hirt's answer this sequence of correspondence between Sievers and Hirt, which is Document Number No-792 and is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 257. This is dated 20 January 1942, addressed to "Dear Comrade Sievers."
"I just received your letter of 17 January regarding research on and combatting of insects afflicting human beings, and hereby give you my opinion in this respect.
"1. In principle I consider that research on and combatting of insects afflicting human beings should be made only by bacteriologists and hygienists and also the industry. I do not thing that I am the right man to achieve anything useful in this field. I recommend, however, to contact Prof. Rose (not an SS member), of the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, who as a tropical hygienist in China has many years of experience in this fields lately he Also supervised the transfer of the Wolhynia Germans to Germany.
I can also recommend SS Sturmbannfuehrer Prof. Pfannenstiel, Director of the Hygiene Institute of the Giessen University as a competent scientist....."
You see, here, that obviously Hirt has complete knowledge of the reputation of Professor Rose.
"2. The question of immunizing human beings against insect bites can, in my opinion, only be tackled by the manufacture of larce quantities of insecticides as a manifold moans for active and prophylactic immunization. The carrying out of the method proscribed is, decidedly, a job for the bacteriologists and hygienists. In principle, it may be possible that an active immunization of the troops can be achieved in the sense of a reduction of skin reaction to insect bites, a similar effect being known in the case of apiarists.
"3. I do not believe that the introduction of the vitamin therapy into the sphere of treatment mentioned, so to speak as antiallergicum, may be successful. Practical experiments on human beings without extensive observation would have no sense, as they would not form a basis for a definite opinion.
"4. The question of transmitting diseases by insects and/or parasites would have to be approached by our method of intravital microscopy. It would be a condition that in this respect arrangements would have to be made for the necessary preventive measures to be taken in the laboratory. It would also be necessary to find competent collaborators; this is a problem which cannot easily be solved within a short time.
"I regret that I am not able to give you a more satisfactory answer, and thus constitute an additional failure in your search up to now. But as matters stand, I can not, in the present case, promise more than I am able to do."
"With kindest regards, "Heil Hitler!"Yours, (Signature) "A. HIRT" There is an illegible stamp on the bottom, and the signature Sievers.
Now the next letter in the sequence brings in the work on Lost. This is document number NO-793, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 258. This is a letter from Sievers to Hirt dated 9 April 1942. "Dear Comrade Hirt."
"Dear Comrade Hirt:
"At Easter I was at the Fuehrer's Headquarters to see the Reichsfuehrer-SS. We, of course, also discussed your research work. In the meantime, the Reichsfuehrer-SS had read your two essays on "Intravital Microscopy in Luminescent Light" and on "Luminescent Microscopy and its Significance for Medical Research". He was very much impressed and again charged me to tell you that he considers this research work extremely important and definitely worthy of his patronage. It is also his desire that your research work be used in the fight against insects, especially in the investigation of the effects of insect bites on the tissue.
"In the meantime the Research Institute for Entomology has been approved and founded by the Reichsfuehrer SS. I would be very glad if we could have an opportunity to discuss these matters in more detail.
"But, the Reichsfuehrer-SS would particularly like to get some detailed information from you on your Lose experiments. Re are sure to be in a position to put at your disposal for the furtherance of these experiments unique facilities in connection with special secret experiments, which we are at present conducting at Dachau. Could you not some day write a brief secret report for the Reichsfuehrer-SS on your lost experiments?
"But, you should by no means go to Berlin for the time being, especially since the Reichsfuehrer-SS is staying permanently at the Fuehrer's headquarters. I, therefore, intend to pay you a visit at Strassburg as soon as possible. But, perhaps it would be easier for you to come to Munich, where I would have the opportunity of introducing you to the Chief of our Institute for Entomology and would be able to give you an insight into our secret experiments at Dachau. I shall be in Belzane until 23 April, on the 24th and the 25th I shall be in Munich. I would be glad to see you in Munich, in case you really feel well enough to be able to travel to Munich without danger of a relapse. In that case, please write to the "Ahnenerbe' in Berlin; that office can always contact me immediately at Bolzane. Otherwise, I plan to visit you in the beginning of May in Strassburg.
"I am especially glad to be able to tell you already today that the Reichsfuehrer-SS has at my suggestion promoted you retroactively to SSObersturmfuehrer and, effective 20 April 1942, to SS-Haupsturmfuehrer. Will you please accept my most cordial congratulations. The official notice will fellow in due time. Heil HITLER! With all good wishes and cordial greetings." (Signed) SIEVERS.
The next letter is another letter from Defendant Sievers, Document No. 794, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 259. It is addressed to Richard Brandt, dated 27 June 1942.
"Subject: Use of mustard-gas for combatting rats.
"Ref.: Your letter of 13 July 1942 -A 19/95/1942 "Dear Comrade BRANDT:
"On request SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Prof. Dr. HIRT, Strassburg tells me:
"Mustard-gas in a dilution of 1:100 is dangerous for men if it contacts the body in an adequate amount. Above all, mustard-gas is still dangerously effective on clothing material, as is known, even in a very great dilution, especially in connection with dampness. Mustard-gas brought upon the skin in a dilution of 11:100 still brings about a reddening: Possibly it causes little cysts without effecting necrosis. That is, the effect is much weaker than with pure mustard-gas. In spite of that, brought upon the clothes in sufficient quantities, especially in the regions of perspiration, as the armpit, or the inguinal region, it can have exactly the same effect as concentrated mustard-gas. For this, only a trace of it frequently is sufficient. This I in experienced a laboratory accident with a chemical student, who touched his armpit with one of the rabbits only for a second and thereby ensued a reddening which spread over the entire body the following day, however, without having further consequences. In my opinion, only a place which can be temporarily evacuated by human inhabitants can be used for gassing. The use of mustard-gas in the vicinity of food stores, especially wheat dumps, has to be absolutely excluded because one cannot know to what extent the rats are carrying the mustard-gas there. Only a gassing of secret recesses would be possible in the application of the respective measures for precaution. How this will work cut technically, I cannot, determine of course proper experts would have to judge on that.
But, probably the case may be the same as with other poisons used for extermination of rats (Phospher-arsenic, strychnine etc.) that means every type of combat with poison has two sides. In spite of this, your idea to try the extermination of vermin by means of poison gas does not seem strange at all, but an expert on poison gas would have to determine, if there are no other means less harmful for human beings, which would kill the rats.
With kind regards, Heil Hitler! (Signed) SIEVERS.
P.S. "I shall talk over this matter thoroughly one of these days with Prof. HIRT, and I want to see which poison gas expert we might use for the solution of that problem."
Here, the Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe Sievers is, and this is page 20 of your Honor's Document Book, Document No. 097, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 260, again writing to Richard Brandt. The dated is dated 2 June 1942:
"Subject: SS-Hauptsurmfuehrer Professor Dr. A. Hirt, Strassburg.
"Dear Comrade Brandt!
"Enclosed herewith is a short report - in two copies - on the Lost experiments, which is to be submitted to the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Hirt could prepare this report from his minutes only, bee use, he had sent away already all his records for reasons of security. Professor Hirt has informed me that he hopes to be able to resume his laboratory work, at least partly, in about two weeks. I, therefore, announced my visit to him for the 16th of June, in order to discuss with him more intensive application, continuation and promotion of his research work, as desired by the ReichsfuehrerSS. With best regards, Heil Hitler! Yours," (Signed) Sievers.
I read the report:
"Report on the Lost experiments, conducted by order of the Wehrmacht.
"The first series of experiments conducted during the short period of my absence from my field unit dealt with the treatment of Lost-injuries "Based upon the fact that the Trypaflavin - an Acridine pigment, which I have employed for the coloring of living cells, penetrates into the nucleus, and, if adequately dosed, paralyzes the cell-proliferation, I arrived at the idea of using this pigment for the treatment of Lost-injured tissues.