"My dear Professor: By order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, the department head in the Institute for Military Scientific Research of the Waffen-SS, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher has carried out experiments dealing with the freezing of the human body which are important for the conduct of war. Since the Reichsfuehrer SS wishes Dr. Rascher to obtain admission to the faculty, the latter intends to do so by submitting his thesis on "Experimental tests on phenomena occurring during the freezing of the human body." The Reichsfuehrer SS is willing to agree to this, but considers it necessary that the secrecy regulations laid down for such experiments also be complied with in carrying out the admission to the faculty. Professor Dr. Hirt, furthermore, is familiar with the details of Dr. Rascher's work. The Reichsfuehrer SS therefore requests that the work be examined by competent members of your medical faculty and a decision be made whether the admission to the faculty can be carried out."
This document shows us that the University of Strassburg was, in fact, an SS university, and we will see that, among others, the Defendant Karl Brandt had some relationship with members of the faculty in Strassburg.
I come now to -
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to return a moment to your Exhibit 120 referring to Dr. Blome.
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice in that exhibit, on page 154, Professor Blome is described twice in connection with cancer research.
MR. MCHANEY: That is right, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: And on the next page, 155, he is also described twice as Commissioner for Cancer Research.
MR. MCHANEY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Now I do not understand clearly the meaning of the form of this letter. Is it your assumption or opinion that Dr. Blome was also in charge of these other five items which are listed on page 154?
MR. MCHANEY: That is certainly the contention of the Prosecution, Your Honor. If Mr. Travis will pass me that exhibit; it is 120. The Reich Research Council, Your Honor, consisted of a number of so-called leading scientists in Germany who were working there and who had a research organization under them so to speak. It was a rather loose research organization; that is to say they might be dealing with a number of different scientists who had no relation one to the other. Now Kurt Blome was known as the Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research and was appointed to that position in the Reich Research Council, theoretically, by Hermann Goering. So that was his title; he was the Plenipoteniary for Cancer Research.
THE PRESIDENT: Does it appear who prepared these documents 120? Do the bear the signature of Kurt Blome?
MR. MCHANEY: They do not, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice at the head of this column it says: "Requested by;" And then "Schwarz, Seel, Rascher, Hirt, von Borstell", and then below that "Cancer Research", worked on by: Blome," and the same on the next page.
MR. MCHANEY: Well, sir, the best explanation of that is that this handwritten note up here, I am quite sure, was written on this document after it was captured. This is, in fact, a research card taken from the files of the Reich Research Council, a large number of which were captured. Now there is a hand-written note up on the left hand side of the translation which says: "taken out of the file after being requested," and although the translation doesn't show it, that is dated June 10, 1945, and it quite apparently refers a request made by someone who was interested in picking up this particular research card and was pulled out, undoubtedly, by some German worker who was familiar with these files and who was retained after the end of the war. The card itself is a card which gives the research assignments under the Bearbeiter, who is Professor Dr. Blome. His name appears on the exhibit up here at the top and under here they describe the research assignments which are being carried out under the auspices of the Defendant Blome.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to know the basis for that assumption,
MR. MCHANEY: Well, sir, perhaps if I passed up this exhibit it would be a little clearer what I mean, I take this card to mean that all assignments on this sheet are under the Defendant Blome, since it carries the words: "Worked on by" and then proceeds to list and describe research assignments under that.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President --
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Counsel, until we have had an opportunity to examine this exhibit. We will hear you in just a moment after we have had an opportunity to examine this exhibit.
(Examining document.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from Counsel.
MR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I would like to make a request to take a look at the photostats. It would make things easier for me because otherwise I will have to request the photostat through my office and it would be easier if I could see it now at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much. I only wanted to see if this photostat bears any signature and that does not seem to be the case; there is no signature. Thank you very much.
MR. MCHANEY: If your Honor please, of course the discussion goes to the weight to be given to this document. That is to say it is only of probative value and does not go to the admissibility. However, in connection with its probative value, I would like to make clear again that this document was secured from the file at the trials in Frankfurt and it represents a file card listed under the name Kurt Blome; and the file card shows that Kurt Blome, as chief or Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research, had these research assignments under him as noted.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be admitted in evidence for what it is worth, subject to argument at any time.
MR. McHANEY: We come now to Document 2428-PS which will be Prosecution Exhibit 122, and this is a deposition taken from one Leo Maklowsky by the War Crimes Branch at Dachau. It was taken immediately following the -- or at least following the liberation of that camp by the American Forces. This is listed in the Document Book as a translation of Document 2428-PS whi is a mistake because this is -- the original depostion was taken in English, and the Court will notice that they swore in an interpreter before inducting the questioning of Leo Maklowsky. We had hoped to be able to bring Father Maklowsky here to testify because he is one of the few living survivers of the water-freezing experiments in Dachau. Unfortunately we have been unable locate him, and so I offer instead this deposition.
If the Tribunal please, I am informed that they do not have that document ready to offer at this time, but it will be down shortly from the document room, so I will pass this and offer -
DR. PELCKMANN: May I request the Tribunal -- Attorney Pelckmann for the Defendant Schaefer. May I request the Tribunal to have the English original of this testimony read to you. In the document room for the International Military Tribunal several days ago on the occasion of another testimony I have rechecked the signatures, and I have not been able to find any. I have only seen the note of the American official who was interrogating the witness to the effect that it was not possible for him to procure the witnesses becuase they have been absent in the mean time, and as a result of this no signatures could be procured. It is possible that this is the case also with this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is not at this time in court. Discussion on the admissibility of the document will be reserved until the document is brought in.
MR. MC. HANEY: I move then to Document NO-538 which will be Prosecution Exhibit 122. This is a portion of a deary kept by the Defendant Sievers. Exhibit 122 consists of the first six months of this diary, and it es a very interesting document on a great number of points. I would like to read at this time a few of the excerpts. We will have occasion to refer to this document at other points in the trial since it bears upon a number of different experiments.
The eintry of 12 January 1943 reads as follows: "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher:
Item 1. (a) advises that he has been put in the reserve liable to recall at any time of the Luftwaffe.
(b) Necessary that he be given leave until his transfer.
(c) Instigation of necessary motions.
2. (a) Procurement of necessary apparati and instruments from Holland.
(b) Instructions to SS Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Schneider.
3. Procurement of memoranda on reaction of troops to extreme cold.
4. Discussion of the until now neglected results of the use of Castein water. Continuation would not pay.
5. Procurement of memoranda on the conference concerning the effects of cold in Nuernberg."
The next entry on the same date is:
1. SS Unterscharfuehrer Hamann, Mr. Wolter of the Economic & Administrative Department concerning procurement of apparati for Dr. Rascher's research."
The next entry reals: "Continuation of discussions with Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher. "An entry on the 15 Januare 1943 is: "1. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schnitzler: (a) Continuation of work by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher."
Your Honors will recall that Schnitzler was an official at the Dachau Concentration Camp.
"16 Januare 1943. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher reports on the results of his discussion with the Reichsarzt-SS."
Your Honors will recall that we have put in as an exhibit a report of that discussion. On the next page of the English Document Book, that is, page 163, item 2 under 27 Januare 1943 reads: "Because the camp is temporarily closed, Dr. Rascher is to work with SS Hauptsturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Harburg, and proceed to Strassburg." Under 28 January 1943, we find an item stating that "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: The General Inspector of Sanitation for the Luftwaffe has declared himself opposed to the continuation of Rascher's work. Attitude to be taken," and we have read into the record a letter from Sievers which amplifies on that thought. On 23 Januare 1943: "SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Brandt: Report on attitude of Professor Dr. Hippke toward Rascher's research work." Then: "Mrs. Rascher (by telephone): Apprisal on the report to Professor Dr. Hippke. 1 February 1943. Department of Sanitation of the Waffen-SS, SS Brigadefuehrer Dr. Blumenreuther. Procurement of apparati, instruments, tools and chemicals for experiments by SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher."
I will call to the Court's attention that the Chief of the Department of Sanitation of the Waffen-SS was the Defendant Genzken, and Blumenreuther was one of his subordinates in that capacity. On 12 February 1943: "SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher reports by telephone on the successful outcome of negotiations with SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, "Marburg." On 18 February 1943 concerning SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: "1. Charged with execution of experiments with an available plant-extract to cure cancer.
2. position to be taken in the proceedings instituted against Rascher.
3. Transfer to Waffen-SS. Rascher is also to write an application of his own.
4. Record of freezing experiments with animal heat."
And with respect to the Adjutant's Office, Reichsfuehrer SS:
"1. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Schnitzler: Insertion of SS Court into proceedings instituted against SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher by the Luftwaffe Court."
It appears from these entries which I have just read that Sievers for one was very much concerned that Rascher be court-martialed by the Luftwaffe as a result of this tug of war over his services. This, of course, did not, in fact, occur.
On the next page the entry for the 12 March 1943:
"SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher:
1. Transfer from the Luftwaffe to Waffen-SS was approved today in accordance with verbal advice from Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Hippke.
2. Report an status of his work.
3. Serrum production, in accordance with letter of 7 March."
And down at the bottom of the page on 6 April 1943 concerning SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher:
"1. Neff, who has again been declared eligible for military service, will have to be made a member of the police force.
2. Discussion of Hippke's letter to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.
3. Entlistment of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Kuehn of the War Economic Board in the Reich Research Council in the procurement of apparati."
And Item 8 under 6 April 1943 indicates that they were still at this time continuing certain low-pressure chamber experiments. Item No. 10 says that "Assignment to the Reichsarzt SS does not alter attachment to and necessity of reporting to the Ahnenerbe." Your Honors will recall that there finally was some difficulty between Rascher and Grawitz about to whom he was to report and as to whether or not he should continue to work under the auspices of the Ahnenerbe.
I drop down to an item under 7 April 1943, item 15:
"Assignment of Dr. Rascher to Reichsarzt-SS. R." -- who is Rascher -
"remains under command of the Ahnenerbe and must be transferred to it."
Down at the bottom of the page, 17 May 1943, item 5:
"SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher (by telephone): Report on discussion with SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Gebhardt."
Document 3546-PS is next and will be Prosecution Exhibit -
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Court will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is now in session.
MR.McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we would now like to introduce Document 3546-PS as Prosecution's Exhibit 123. This is the Sievers Diary for 1944. The Document which went in as Prosecution's Exhibit 122 was the Sievers Diary for the first six months of 1943, and unfortunately we have not found the remaining part of the diary for the last six months of 1943, but we do have here the full diary for the year 1944 and that is Prosecution's Exhibit 123. I would like to read just a very few excerpts from this document since it is now covering the year 1944. Those do not have many references to freezing problems. The first excerpt is from an entry made on 6 January, item 2 (c) where is states:
"Writing Reichsfuehrer-SS to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl concerning support of scientific research work".
Item (d) is "Space for execution of freezing experiments".
And then we skip to an entry made on 14 January where we see the entry RFR which is an abbreviation for the Reich Research Council. The German word for Reich Research Council is Reichsforschungsrat.
"RFR, among others, Engineer Becker re securing of apparati for Bruecher and Dr. Rascher, SS Sturmbannfuehrer Lolling by telephone re malaria control, Auschwitz".
The next item is an entry made on 15 January. That again refers to the Reich Research Council, Dr. Graue.
"(1) Securing of metals for Dr. Rascher's work.
(2) Authorization for building of experimentation plant by Borchers Brothers, A.G."
An entry on 21 January, item 8, reads:
"SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Ministry Council, Dr. Brandt". That is a reference to the Defendant Rudolf Brandt who was Minister of Interior under Heinrich Himmler. Item 8 reads:
"Freezing experiments, Dr. Rascher, promises, SS Obersturmfuehrer Berg and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Meine, discussion of current matters, among others Bygdoe, freezing experiments, Thaerigen".
And then I skip to an entry on page 171 of the English Document Beck. An entry made on the 22nd of March which reads:
"SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher: Business discussion, among other things pelygal production. Results of experiments with agar capsules. Preparations for freezing experiments during the winter month '22 and 45'. Demand for prisoner command for Schlachters".
The reference to polygal production will become clear to the court at a late stage in the trial, and I think these are the only entries dealing with freezing experiments, but, as I have stated, we will make continued reference to these diaries of the Defendant Sievers which very, very clearly points out that Sievers was connected with practically all of the criminal experiments with which this case is concerned. I would now like to offer into evidence Document No.647 which is not in your Honors Document Book, but we have translations here to hand up. This document has been made available to the Defendant's Information Center for the requisite twenty-four hours, and this will be Prosecution's Exhibit 124 I ask the court to insert it in the freezing document book which you now have before you. This is a note made by the Defendant Sievers and dated 16 December 1942 and your Honors will recall that a number of the freezing experiments took place, particularly dry freezing experiments, after the date here mentioned. The subject of this memorandum is "Cooperation with the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS and your Honors will remember that this institute was under the comman of the Defendant Mrugowsky who in turn at this time was subordinote to the Defen dant Genzken. The reorganization of the Medical Service of the SS occurred in August 1943, after the date of this instrument, and it was only on the occassion of the reorganization that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS was transferred to the deceased, Dr. Grawitz. The memorandum reads as follows:
"With reference to my letter of 9 June 1942, regarding vermin control a meeting took place first on 21 October 1942 with the participation of SS Standar fuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky and SS Untersturmfuehrer Dr. Scharlau, Knesebeckstr., 43Under discussion was the cooperation not only in the field of vermin control, b also in the research-sphere of Rascher and with regard to the use of Gastein water in cases of freezing, as well as invarious operational fields of the Hygi Institute, as had already been laid down in the interview with SS Untersturmfue Dr. Scharlau on 6 November 1941 (K-Enterprise; release of the archeologist Hund A further meeting took place then at the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS on 20 November 1942 in which SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky, SS Standartenfuehrer Sievers and lecturer Dr. May took part.
Dr. My promised on that occassi to send in his research plan".
I would like to say at this meeting, first mentioned here on 21 October 1942, and at least from that date, the defendant Mrugowski was in contact with the defendant Sievers, and it was understood that the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS would cooperate with the deceased Doctor Rascher in his Dachau experiments. If you will also recall, one of the entries in Sievers diary, stated that they were securing apparatus from Doctor Blumenreiter who was a subordinate of defendant Karl Genzken, for the purpose of the Rascher experiments.
The second page of Document No. 647 reads as follows:
"SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Medical Office of the SS, Charlottenburg, Knesebeckstr. 43/44, is working on behalf of the Reich Eastern Ministry (Reichsministerium Ost) on fever mosquito control in the areas in the East occupied by us.
"The fever mosquito control in the Ukraine has been handled in peace time by the Tropical Institute in Moscow and several stations for that purpose have been established in the various districts. These control stations ware now being re-organized in the various districts under the supervision of the SS.
"SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Mrugowsky is going down there within the next few days in order to determine where the control measures are most urgent. It is to be aimed at, that at least the main road to Kiew and one of the great ore mines, where ore is being mined by us, are protected against Malaria.
DR. FLEMMING: I contest the authenticity of the document that was last read into evidence. On the secon page of the document there is no date nor signature. On the photostatic copy in front of me there can be found neither a date nor a signature.
MR. McHANEY: It the Tribunal pleases, the observation made by the defense counsel for Mrugowsky is quite correct in so far as the second page of this document contains no signature. However, it seems apparent to me that both of these documents wore found together. The original is certified as being located in the Berlin Document Center. The first page of the document is signed by the defendant Sievers, and I do not see that the lack of a signature on the secon page necessarily shows that the document is not a genuine authentic copy of a document captured, of course, in military operations.
DR. FLEMMING: I should like to ask that the counsel for the Prosecution submit a report regarding the capture of this document. As far as I can see from this photostatic copy, different typewriters were used in writing this document -- No. 647. The type on the first and second page differ, as far as I can see. Therefore, it cannot be said that these documents belong together.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, in order to simplify the matter and to remove any ground for controversy, I suggest that we remove the second page of the document which we have offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 124, and simply put in the first page which is signed by the defendan Sievers, and which bears a date, and which there is not controversy about the authenticity. In this case you can simply remove from your Document Book the second page of the translation of Document No.647, and if we care to investigate the source of this document, and then reintroduce it we can do so at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: The second page of Prosecution's Exhibit 124 may be removed without prejudice to the page being offered at some later date. Exhibit 124 will consist of one page only.
MR. McHANEY: And, now, I would like to retur to the deposition of Leo Michalowski, which is Document No. 2428-PS, page 159 of the English Document Book; and I now offer this as Prosecution's Exhibit 125. The defense counsel for Schaefer, I think, was about to make some objection to the introduction of this document. I think it is admissible on any one of a number of grounds.
Firstly, I think the document is admissible because it was accepted into evidence before the International Military Tribunal as an exhibit by Great Britain. I am told by Mr. Hardy that this note is with the original document before Judge Sebring now.
Second, this deposition was contained in a report made by an official committee of the United States Army on the Concentration Camp Dachau. The Army set up a number of investigating committes which, after the capture of various concentration camps, immediately conducted very extensive investigations, making a great number of written statements from the inmates of these concentration camps, and this is such a document.
In fact, it is simply one statement from a very voluminous report on the Dachau Concentration Camp, the whole of the report being 2428-PS.
DR. PELCKMANN: Dr. Pelckmann, counsel for the defendant Schaefer. I should like to make some remarks on that matter. There is something which I found out in connection with tho investigation of this document. The counsel for the prosecution does not contest that the document bears no sig nature. This document, PS-2428, consinsts of three volumes. At the end of Volume 3 the man in charge of the investigation states that a number of witnesses, who allegedly had made statements, were not to be reached and that, therefore, they could not sign their statements. Among those people is this testimony of the father, which was submitted here. If this document were to be admitted because of other reasons, namely, because it is part of a report of the American Army or other American authorities, then the entire report would have to be submitted.
However, I doubt that the Tribunal will recognize this reports as an official report in the sense of the Charter if it takes into consideration that the biggest number of the statement on which this report is based bear no signature whatsoever. In addition, I don't believe that this is a report which can be considered to be a report of the Government authority in the sense of the Charter. It is merely an investigation of the Investigation Committee which had put this report on in three volumes.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I observe once more that this document which is now being offered was introduced before the I.M.T.: and un der Article 9 of Ordinance Number 7, this Court shall take judicial notice of official Government documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and the record and findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations.
The document now before tho Court is part of the records of the International Military Tribunal and is clearly admissible under Article 9. Moreover, the document now before the Court is signed by Captain L. Walker, Clyde L. Walker, an investigator-esaminer; and while this copy is apparently not signed by the deponent Michalowski, certainly in any event this document is admissible.
DR. PELCKMANN: I contest that the document was submitted in its entirety before the International Military Tribunal. I want to ask the counsel for the prosecution when this document was submitted in its entirety. According to my recollection, only excerpts from this document were submitted. I merely wish to point out that at the end of this particular statement it can be seen very clearly that there is not signature of the witness available; and I should again like to ask the Tribunal to refer to Volume 3, where the investigating official himself states that he could not obtain signatures.
MR. McHANEY: I should like to say that it is certainly true that this full document was not introduced, at least in its English version before the I.M.T. That was done for the reason that they were not interested in the full statement of Michalowski. Therefore, they introduced excerpts from this statement; but clearly if the excerpts were damissible, the statement as a whole is admissible. And as for putting in all of 2428-PS, it is, of course, a ridiculous assertion because it is a very large volume of documents; and we for one arc interested in none of them except this one.
I can't believe that the defense counsel for Schaefer is interested in any of the rest of them, either. As a matter of fact, this document, as far as I can see, does not run against the defendant Schaefer. Therefore, can't quite understand the great controversy being raised about the admissibility of this document on the part of his counsel.
DR. PELCKMANN: With reference to my last formal objection, I have come forward to reply. The defendant Schaefer is also charged with conspiracy; and this extends to all facts. The other assertion of counsel for prosecution, namely, that because excerpts wore admitted into the I.M.T. thereby a sanction is made for this Tribunal I believe is a completely incorrect statement. If this High Tribunal should find that admission of evidence to the I.M.T. had been carried out erroneously; that judicial procedure had not been carried out, then I believe that this Tribunal has a perfect right to say and has a perfect right to state that it would not admit this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that from the statements before the Tribunal this Document was admitted in evidence before the International Military Tribunal is not necessarily binding.
It may have been admitted without objection as far as this Tribunal knows.
The objection of counsel for the defense to the offer of this document will be sustained without prejudice to its being offered again if other supporting evidence may be procured.
MR. McHANEY: This completes the presentation of documentary evidence on the freezing experiments conducted at Dachau; and Mr. Hardy will continue now with the introduction of testimony and proof on the malaria Experiments
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the prosecution charges in the indictment the defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostock, Gebhardt, Blome, Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, and Sievers, in Count Two, Paragraph 6, Sub-paragraph C, and in Count Three, Paragraph 11, with special responsibility for and participation in the malaria experiments.
As will be shown in the course of this presentation, those experiments were also conducted at the Dachau Concentration Camp; and in this connection a Military Government Court of the United States of America, sentenced Karl Schilling to death by hanging in the case of the United States versus Weiss, Ruppert, et al.
At this time the prosecution respectfully requests that the Honorable Tribu call the witness August Heinrich Vieweg to the witness stand. Due notice has been filed with the office of the Secretary General; and the defense counsel have been duly nitfied that this witness has been summoned to appear before this Tribunal to testify to facts concerning the experiments at the Dachau Concentration Camp.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will take the stand. Mr. Prosecutor?
MR. HARDY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this man a German national?
MR. HARDY: This man is a German national, yes sir.
FRANZ RIETWEG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you will stand at your place in the witness box, hold up your right hand, and be sworn. Repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Onmiscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will with hold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, what is your full name?
A Franx Rietweg
Q Witness, when and where were you born?
A I was born in Lucern on the loth of April, 1966.
Q What is your occupation?
A I am a physician.
Q Witness, will you kindly tell the Tribunal where your present place of abode is?
AAt the moment I am in prison in an internment camp in Hanneborge.
Q Will you kindly tell the Tribunal for what reason you are a prisoner in the internment camp?
A I was an Obersturmbannfuehrer in the Waffen on SS.
Q When were you at Dachau --?
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, your Honor, this witness is apparently the wrong witness.
Q Would you kindly repeat your full name again, please?
A Rietweg.
Q How do you spell that, Mr. Witness?
AR-i-e-t-w-e-g.
MR. HARDY: I'm sorry, your Honor, the Marshal has called up the wrong witness as Vieweg. I have called up August Heinrich Vieweg.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will stand aside.
MR. HARDY: If Your Honors please, I will proceed with the presentation of the malaria experiments and when the witness arrives, we can use him at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: You may go ahead.
MR. HARDY: At this tine, Your Honors, the Prosecution respectfully requests the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the official review of the proceedings in the Dachau trial, under Ordinance 7, Article 9. In accordance with the rules of the Tribunal I shall introduce the entire findings of fact contained in the official review of tho trial with respect to malaria experiments. These particular facts have been given Document No. 856, and have been translated into the German language and made available to the defense counsel. This document is also offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 125. I shall read from the document. This is contained on page 1 of Your Honors' Document Book. Do you Have the malaria documents with you?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have not seen them.
MR. HARDY: They were delivered two days ago to the General Secretary.
THE PRESIDENT: They have not reached the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I suggest that we send the General Secretary after the copies. They should be in the General Secretary's office.
(The documents are procured)
MR. HARDY: I shall proceed to read Document No. 856, "EXTRACTS FROM THE REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES VS. WEISS, RUPPERT, ET AL, HELD AT DACHAU, GERMANY.
HEADQUARTERS THIRD US ARMY AND EASTERN MILITARY DISTRICT Office of Judge Advocate.
REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS OF GENERAL MILITARY COURT IN THE CASE OF UNITED STATES VS. WEISS, RUPPERT," and I will not read the rest of the names.
"TO: Commanding General, Third United States Army and Eastern Military District, APO 403, United STATES Army:"
Now, if Your Honors will please turn to page 2, paragraph 2:
"Series of experiments concerning the treatment of malaria were conducted under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling. 300 to 400 persons died as a result. The facts elicited with respect to these experiments are set out in detail infra in connection with Dr. Schilling."
We now proceed to Section "C" of the Review, Paragraph 15, which concerns the facts against the individual defendant. Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number did you assign to this exhibit?
MR. HARDY: I assigned the number 125.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit is a review by the reviewing authorities of the findings?
MR. HARDY: It is by the reviewing authorities on the findings in the trial hold at Dachau, Germany, in the case of United States vs. Weiss, Ruppert, et al.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this exhibit contain the findings of the Court:
MR. HARDY: This exhibit contains the findings of the Court at the end and this is an official review of the trial and the only publication as a result of the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: It contains the findings then which are merely quotations from the sentences of the Court?
MR. HARDY: If you will turn to page 8 in Your Honors' Document Book, second paragraph, there is stated the Court's sentences in this particular case, in regard to Schilling, and then it is affirmed by the Reviewing Authorities, after having been sent on to be reviewed, and signed by Lieutenant General, L. K. Truscott.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this also contain what you perceive to be pertinent documents and documents upon which the sentences wore based or not?
MR. HARDY: This contains, Your Honors, the facts introduced from the arguments of the Prosecution, as well as the Defense, and then the statement of the Reviewing Authorities of the Court:
THE PRESIDENT: Now as I understand it, you are asking this Tribunal to take judicial notice of the entire proceedings which culminated in this judgment, is that correct?
MR. HARDY: I am asking the Court to take judicial notice of the particular section pertaining to the malaria experiments in the case of Dr. Schilling at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the testimony upon which these findings were based available so that this Tribunal will have the opportunity, if it cares to do so, to examine this testimony?
MR HARDY: Yes, that testimony can be made available, Your Honors. There are limited copies on file with the Judge Advocate in Weisbaden, and I am certain I can produce copies for Your Honors' consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest you give consideration to that. As I understand it, this is not a copy directly of the findings of the court-martial or military commission or whatever it was that tried the defendant, but it is a copy of the action of the reviewing authorities upon these findings?
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be admitted, taken in view of the statement cf the Prosecution that the evidence upon which the judgment of the Court was based, may be made available.
MR. HARDY: I shall proceed on page 2, Your Honors, of the document book, the last paragraph, entitled paragraph 15:
"15. Dr. Klaus Karl Schilling. A special experimental station had been set aside in the hospital for the performance of malaria experiments under the supervision of the accused, Dr. Schilling. Schilling performed his research for the purpose of determining immunization for and treatment of malaria. Requests for prisoners were made by Schilling. One such request, which was admitted into evidence, stated that Polish prisoners were requested. A list of inmates were prepared in the camp physician's office, the inmates being of all nationalities which were represented in the camp, and was sent to the labor office which made a copy of the list. There the list was confirmed by the Schutzhaftlagerfuehrer" - that is the SS Camp Commandant- "who sometimes made a few changes in the list. These lists appeared about once every month since about 1943. None of the 1200 selectees ever consented or volunteered. Priests were often selected for these experiments. An inmate, a priest named Father Koch, related his experience in that connection. He was first X-rayed and then sent to the malaria station. He was put into a little room where he received a box with mosquitoes which he had to hold in his hands for about half an hour. That occurred every day for one week. Every afternoon another box of mosquitoes was put in between his logs while he was in bed. Each morning a blood smear was taken from his ear and his temperature was measured each day and night.