Continued epitheliazation and nice granulation on the edges of the wound. Dry dressings are applied now only every other day. Therapy continues externally with dry dressings and volkmann splint, Internally: 12 g. Albucid orally, 3x15 dr. Cardiazol, 20 mg. Cortiron i.m.
19.12.42 A slight swelling is noticeable on the left leg; it stretches from hand-width above the knee all the way down to the ankle. On the in and outside of the left thigh about a hand-width above the knee, slight pressure sensitivity was felt. The incisions on the left thigh are free of pus.
No special complaints.
Therapy: As on previous day.
20.l2.42 No changes.
Therapy: Externally: As on previous day. Internally: 12 g. Albucid orally, 3 x 1 cc Cardinzol-Sympatol s.c., 20 mg. Crotiron i.m.
21.12.42 Only very slight swelling noticeable on left thigh. No complaints. The incisions are free of pus, and as of today, only every ether day dressed with boric acid ointment.
The volkmann splint is to be remove. Internal therapy as on previous day.
29.12.42 During the last couple cf days on marked changes were noticed on the left thigh. On the wounds, free cf pus, prolific granulation is noticed. The patient still feels rather weak. He followed during the last couple cf days the therapy as outlined on 20 December 1942. A slight temperature increase was noticed during the evening hours cf the 26, 27, and 28.
30.12.12 The patient is free of fever. No swelling in the left leg. The wounds of the incisions are clean and dry. Some parts show prolific granulation. No special complaints. The patient feels remarkably better.
Therapy: Internally: 20 g. Tibatim i. v., 20 mg Cortiron i. a., 3 x 13 dr. Cardiazol.
1.1.43 No change.
Therapy: 10 g. Tibatin i.v., 20 mg Cortiron i.v., 3 x 15 dr. Cardiazol.
12.1.43 During the last 12 days the wound's on the left thigh healed completely. The wound is without dressing. No swelling noticeable on the left leg. The patient feels well and spends a couple of hours every day out of bed. Temperature and pulse are fairly normal.
"18.1.43 The status of the patient continues to improve remarkably during the last couple of days. No complaints whatsoever. We is to be released from the hospital to light duty as of today.
Summary After injection with Purelin an abscess farmed on the left thigh.
Likewise forced an abscess on the right upper arm after an i.v. Purelin injection. Both abscesses were opened. On the left thigh large and deep-seated necreses developed. Blood vessels were destroyed. There were strong hemorrhages; ligation of the vena saphena magna had to be performed to bring about a stoppage. The wounds continued to discharge pus for several weeks. Internally large doses of albucid and Tib atin were administered.
The cleaning of the incisions progressed comparatively quickly as compared to that of biochemically treated patients. The patient recovered fully and is again available for work.
Sulfenamide was given during the course of the diseases as follows:
Tibatin i.v. 124 g Albucid orally 336 g "Appendix Several weeks after discharge the patient was readmitted.
Diagnosis: Ikterus 13.
2.43 Urine: Character opal, bilirubin; positive, some leucocytes, some epithelial cells, bact. +, mucin, oxalate +.
17.2.43 Bilirubin in blood serum 1.6 mg %, Direct examination negative.
23.2.43 Bilirubin in blood serum 2.63 %.
3.3.43 Bilirubin in blood serum 1.3 mg %.
15.3.43 Takata-Ara positive, Gross comparative reaction to T.A. Bilirubin in bl d serum 4.0 mg %. There is a distinct swelling, of the liver without pressure sensitiveness, and strong yellowish discoloration on the whole body. No special comploints. Temperature and pulse remain steadily normal.
30.3.43 Bilirubin in blood serum 1.5 mg %, Takata-Ara +.
6.4.43 Bilirubin in blood serum 3.45 mg %. The patient gets insulin glucose and is put on a diet.
12.4.43 The yellow discoloration f the skin aim st completely disappears. There is but a slight discoloration of the sclera. General condition is good."
MR. SHILLER: That is the case history of a fortunate experimentee who recovered. My associate, Mr. Hardy, will now present the evidence of the LOST or mustard as experiments.
MR. HARDY: At this time the Tribunal should have Document Book 13 in its possession. Number 12 deals with the Typhus Experiments. We will deviate from the normal course and take this up at this time.
Prosecution charges in its indictment defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Blome, Rostock, Gebhardt, Rudolf Brandt, and Sievers with special responsibility for and participation in the LOST experiments. These experiments were conducted between September 1939 and April 1945? at Sachsenhausen, Natzweiler, and other concentration camps for the benefit of the German Armed forces to investigate the most effective treatment of wounds caused by LOST gas. LOST gas is a poisonous gas commonly known as mustard gas. We shall see in a moment that these experiments, as many of the others, were the direct cause of death.
I refer to page number one.
TIE PRESIDENT: Before we proceed with the reading of these documents the Tribunal will recess.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the document NO-372, the affidavit cf Rudolf Brandt which is to be presented, has been sworn, like a series of other documents and affidavits, before a United States civilian. It cannot be seen if that person is entitled to give an oath. In the same document book, under NO-590, an affidavit has been sworn to before a Canadian civilian, and the affidavit NO-881 has been sworn to before a neutral civilian.
Now, it should be shown that all these persons are entitled to give an oath because otherwise the oath is not properly administered. Therefore, because of the lack of proper information I object to the presentation of this document.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, in answer to this objection, I wish to state that the problem exists here in that the employment of translators is one which requires employment of French civilians, Swedish or Swiss civilians in order to have your documents properly translated.
In the first case I am not familiar with the name Standing, but I assume he is one of the Swiss civilians working here in the translation section, and he is duly authorized by the Chief of the section, Mr. Millard, to certify a translation.
How, it will be absolutely impossible for anyone, other than the original translator to certify a German document or a French document, whichever the case may be, to be the official translation, other than the translator himself. That case exists throughout. However, to relieve Dr. Servatius, in connection with the second document he mentions, NO-990, the Prosecution will not read that here at this time inasmuch as the witness, Ferdinand Hell, himself will take the witness stand tomorrow. We have been able to brind him here to Nurnberg and due to that fact we will not read that affidavit into evidence.
However, the others are substantially correct to satisfy the Director cf the Language Division and arc official employees f that division. Mr. Favarger, in the last document, is an employee of the Prosecution, a French civilian, and he has conversant knowledge of the French and English languages.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand the objection of counsel, it is not to the certification of the translation but to the person who purported to administer the oath to the witness. The first document, Number NO-372, signed Rudolf Brandt, was apparently sworn to by Walter H. Rapp, and no authority for Mr. Rapp's administering an oath appears on the document. If I understand counsel's objection, it is to that point.
MR. HARDY: Well, again on that point, sir, we have Walter H. Rapp, Chief of the Evidence Division of Office Chief cf Counsel, duly appointed to act in that capacity by the Chief of Counsel. We also have, in that last affidavit, Favarger, who is an employee of the Office of Chief of Counsel, a nuetral civilian, who is authorized as an investigator as well as a translator and research analyst to take trips on behalf of the Office of Chief of Counsel, and on such trip he obtained this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: In that connection, in the first place, Mr. Rapp's title does not appear after his name when he administered the oath, and in the second place the Tribunal is not advised, so far as I know, of the authority of one holding Mr. Rapp's position to administer an oath. Certainly when anyone signs an affidavit as having been the person administering the oath, the title of his office which empowers him to administer that oath should appear upon the face of the affidavit.
MR. HARDY: That is quite correct, your Honor, If you want, I will have these affidavits rectified to meet with your request. However, I don't believe we have followed that throughout in the other affidavits that we have presented. I am not sure, I think we have followed this system continually here.
THE PRESIDENT: This is the first time the matter has been called to the attention of the Tribunal by any objection on the part f counsel for the defense.
MR. HARDY: Well, as I say, I can have the documents altered by Hr. Rapp and Hr. Favarger if the Tribunal so requests.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you any other affidavits that arc properly verified by the person administering the oath, which you can proceed to read while these arc being corrected?
MR. HARDY: No, I am sorry, your Honor, I don't. This will interrupt the continuity of this presentation, without reading at this tine the affidavit of Rudolf Brandt, and in the event that the Tribunal so sees, we would request on adjournment until tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: You are prepared to show proper authority on the part of one holding Mr. Rapp's position and of the ether persons who have administered these oaths to lawfully under the rules of law governing the operations of this Tribunal, administer an oath to a person?
MR. HARDY: I will have to investigate the situation, your Honor. At this time I am not prepared to answer.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, it is my opinion that if any official of the Prosecution is entitled to receive an affidavit f a witness and to certify it, then the same privilege should also be extended to defense counsel and for the further reason, because generally after all, it is believed that the defense is not to occupy a verse position than the Prosecution.
I make this suggestion for the reason that today, upon my return from my Christmas vacation I have found a ruling of the Tribunal which orders us defense counsel, that we are to have affidavits by witnesses certified either by the Landrat, that is the political official in Germany, or by a local mayor if it is a case of dealing with a smaller city, or by the chief mayor if it should be a larger city or by the president of a civil court, or by the competent representative of the American Military Government.
I will have to correct myself. It is even stated An the ruling, "and by the competent representative of the American Military Government". Gentlemen, I state quite openly that I am not able to carry out this ruling; and I furthermore state that I shall not even try to do this because with this I would make demands upon the witnesses with which I cannot burden the witnesses. Your Honors, may I just give you some brief reasons for this? It is not pleasant here for a German. If in such a trial he is called as a witness, the witness has to be afraid that as a witness he will be named through the press and every German today is afraid that his name will be at all mentioned in connection with such a trial. And this fear is not quite without reason because in the First trial, the big Nurnberg trial, we have seen cases where witnesses were arrested after they had been called here as witnesses; and these cases have also been mentioned in the press. If any of the present defense counsel today communicate with a German and request him to submit an affidavit to us, in nine out of ten eases we can count with certainty that he will try to avoid this, and he will answer, or he can tell us either "I do not km w anything about the matter," or "I do not want to have anything to do with the matter because I value my liberty more than the ten or twenty defendants." And perhaps if he is a polite man, then he will add, "Will you please turn to the colleague Meier or Huber, perhaps he may be in a better situation to know something about the subject than I am."
Now, by virtue of the ruling of the Court, we ask the witnesses that first of all they are to go to some high official of the German authorities. Already that in itself in many eases, perhaps, requires a trip that may take hours and waiting for hours until the man can be heard. When he has finally finished with that, then he has to do a second thing because now he has to look for hours until he can fined the competent official cf military Government; and then perhaps as is common practice, he can be sent from one office to the ether and finally in the evening he may finally knew that he has not found the competent official cf Military Government.
Gentlemen, I am convinced that if I ask any German to burden himself with anything like that, if I request him to fulfill these conditions, then I will not be able to obtain one single affidavit.
Gentlemen, let me put myself into his position. If any defense counsel in any other trial would write to me and would ask me for an affidavit, do you really believe that I would perhaps run around here in Nurnberg for hours and would try to find somebody who would be in the position to sign my affidavit? I would not do it. And amongst a hundred people to whom we may write perhaps 99 will refuse to do that also. Your Honors, I would now request yeto consider these misgivings which I have stated from the experiences of our practice and the experiences of the first trial, and I ask you to consider those points once more; and particularly with the view to the fact if perhaps it would not still be possible to find a more simplified form of obtaining affidavits.
I personally feel that the procedure in the first Nurnberg trial has really proved itself worthwhile, namely, that the affidavits arc certified by the defense counsel who has to present it. After all, the main purpose for submitting affidavits is that the person who gives it, that is the witness, knows that he would be jailed or imprisoned if he gave any false testimony. It is my opinion, Your Honors, that if the defense counsel who, by virtue of his office has to work here, has to certify the signature with his own name, this perhaps should also suffice in the present trial just as it sufficed in the first trial. Defense counsel naturally are prepared to do everything which the Tribunal may decide on in order to bring this trial to a smooth and fair conclusion, but what is demanded from us now, I for myself cannot comply with it, and I doubt if the other defense counsel will not finally occupy the same point of view as I.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning at which time counsel for the Prosecution may present the authority of the officers who have taken the affidavit to administer the oath, and the matter suggested by counsel for the defense. The Tribunal has no desire to place undue burden on counsel for the defense in preparing their defense and that ratter will be taken under serious consideration by the Tribunal.
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 3 January 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in Session.
God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the defendants all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: All the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note the presence of all the defendants in the courtroom for tho record.
The Prosecution will proceed.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, objection has been raised by the defense counsel as to the admissibility of Document NC-372 which is an affidavit signed by the defendant Rudolf Brandt before Walter H. Rapp. An attempt has also been made to object to the admissibility of two other affidavits sworn to by Ferdinand Holl and Rene-Colombin Magner. These are documents NC-390 and N)-881 respectively. The ejection to the admissibility -
THE PRESIDENT: On which page of the document book are those found?
MR. HARDY: Pages 58 and 62, Your Honor.
The objection to the admissibility of these two documents is, of course, premature as they have not been offered in evidence. As I understand it, the objection to the Rudolf Brandt affidavit raises the question of the authority of Walter H. Rapp to administer an oath. It is therefore pertinent to inquire whether a statement under oath is a prerequisite to admissibility in this instance. If so, it will then be necessary to consider whether Mr. Rapp possessed authority to administer on oath. We submit first that the admissibility of the Rudolf Brandt affidavit does not depend upon an oath. Article 7 of Ordinance No. 7, states, and I quote, "The Tribunals shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. They shall adopt and imply to the greatest possible extent expedition on non-technical procedure and shall admit any evidence which they deem to have probative value."
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.