Q Now, in order to see if I can refresh your memory as to whether or not you ever had a discussion with Dr. Conti about your intention to experiment on human beings at Posen, I am going to introduce Document No. NO-3061 which will be offered for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 464. This, if the Tribunal please, is a penciled note made by Dr. Conti in his cell here in Nurnberg prior to his suicide last November, the suicide note that he left to the interrogator.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I object to the use of this document at this time. In December I made application to use the so-called testament of the former Reich Physicians' Leader Conti. Then I received a decision of the Court on the 8th of January, 1947, which says that the Prosecution intends to submit this document himself. In paragraph 2 it says that in this case the document must be submitted twenty-four hours before it is produced in court. I must rely on this ruling of the Court, and I, therefore, ask the Court to rule that this document if it is to be submitted by the Prosecution be submitted only after twenty-four hours, that it can be made the subject of an examination only after twenty-four hours.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Court, I won't discuss the admissibility of this document at this time inasmuch as I am only marking it for identification and not offering it formally as an exhibit. I trust that I will offer it formally as an exhibit to come three or four weeks from now, and Dr. Sauter is receiving a copy now and that will be sufficient time to comply with the twenty-four-hour ruling of the Court.
Furthermore, Your Honors, the Prosecution selected to retain this document for cross-examination purposes, and as I understand, the rules of evidence do not compel us to supply the Defense Counsel with a copy of a document we are going to use for cross-examination purposes twentyfour hours before such time as we use same.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, now Mr. Hardy, you are asking that this be marked for identification only. Of course, by merely marking it for identification only it does not in any sense become an exhibit in the trial and never could become an exhibit in the trial until it was formally received in evidence and given an exhibit number. You understand, that, of course?
MR. HARDY: That is right.
JUDGE SEBRING: Now what is the purpose at this time for having it identified?
MR. HARDY: That was the procedure we established when we started when the defense started their case at the suggestion of the Tribunal.
JUDGE SEBRING: I understand, but you are now asking the witness about certain aspects of it and it was not quite clear to me what your purpose was. I seem to have missed that.
MR. HARDY: I asked the witness if he had discussed any intention to experiment on human beings in his institute at Posen with Conti and he said he never talked to Conti in that regard and in this dying declaration of Conti he has stated that he talked to Blome about experiments to be performed at Posen.
JUDGE SEBRING: This is not a dying declaration in the sense that a dying declaration is recognized in the rules of evidence. The point I am making is there that he states, assuming this to be Conti's statement and assuming it to be true, he says:
"Blome always told me of his intention to experiment on human beings, and that the discussion I had planned did not materialize because Blome was constantly traveling and because the war became so awful, was surely not a serious omission. He must have known what he was doing. Furthermore, I never learned whether he started the experiments."
MR. HARDY: That is the section about which I want to put a question to the defendant. May I pass the original exhibit up for your Honors to look at?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, as far as I can see from the copy which I have been given, it seems to be only an excerpt or a heart of another document, to which the author refers.
I do not see any evidence of the authenticity of the signature. It is quite obvious that there was no official who could certify to the signature, and there is no certificate, and, therefore, in my opinion, no use can be made of this document. I object to the use of this document for this reason as well. He starts the document with the sentence: "I part from life because I made a false statement under oath." That is the Conti on whom the Prosecution wants to base their evidence, but I do not believe that this document can be used since Conti is dead, and in this document, as I can prove, he is again not telling the truth in the face of death, and if the Prosecution wants proof of that matter they need only look at the Dachau records and they will see what part Dr. Conti had in the Dachau experiments about which the defendant knew nothing at all. That was another lie and I don't think we need to go into that. I am of the opinion that this document is inadmissible.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honors, that consistent with the ruling of the Tribunal yesterday to an objection that this is not the time to object to this document and that no objection could be made thereon until such time as the Prosecution formally introduced it as an exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution has offered no identification of this document whatever. The original which has been exhibited to the Tribunal indicates nothing except there is a document, and what that document is.
MR. HARDY: Didn't the original have a certificate?
This matter can be easily handled, your Honors. A certificate can be had. However, in answer to Dr. banter's objection about not having a notary, it is simply impossible for a man writing a suicide note to commit suicide with a notary present. I don't know how that is possible when you are in solitary confinement.
JUDGE SEBRING: Before this document may be used even to frame a question the document should be established before the Tribunal in some manner.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Doctor,Blome, you have stated that the testimony of the witness Walter Schreiber before the International military Tribunal was incorrect. That you never told Schreiber that you had any plans or had made arrangements for human experiments in the Institute at Posen. You also stated you had never chatted with Conti about these matters. You had no intention of experimenting on human beings in your institute at Posen. Now, in view of this testimony of Schreiber and Conti, and the documents that have been offered here in evidence, do you still state you did not experiment on human beings in your institute in Nesselstedt near Posen?
A I give the following answer to that: I did not say that I discussed never such a thing with Conti. I said I considered it impossible that I discussed such a thing with Conti because of the poor relationship between us. That as far as your statement about Dr. Conti goes, as for the value of the statements of Professor Schreiber, I have gone into that in detail. In the direct examination I disproved frofessor Schreiber's statement and I believe credibly. Now you ask me at last quite exactly whether I deny having carried out human experiments in Posen. I say once more definitely no scientific work was done in Posen and certainly no permissible or inadmissible human experiments were conducted there. There quickest confirmation is the accuracy of my statement. As I said before you can get it by inquiring of the Polish Government by telegraph.
Q Now after you fled from Posen and took the plague cultures with you, according to the testimony of Schreiber which you deny, did you experiment on human beings in any other place, for example Sachsenburg?
A I can tell you the following: First I did not flee iron Posen. On the way to Sachsenburg in case another fauleiter had already left Posen, I went to the East of Posen and was in my so-called Institute for twenty-four hours, and there very calmly after the last German had left and as it was proper I left the Institute. There was no question of flee ing.
I was never at Sachsenburg. I do not even know it and my associate Dr. Cross did not work at Sachsenburg. I asked that rooms be made available at Sachsenburg but for reasons which I shall explain I did not make any use of them, as neither I nor my associate, Dr. Gross, was at Sachseburg. This indicates that no human experiments, nor experiments at all, not even animal experiments, were conducted on my behalf at Sachsenburg, and I state once more very emphatically, in the entire field of biological war research to my knowledge, with my support, on my orders, or with my knowledge, not a single human experiment was conducted, whether admissible or inadmissible.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution having finished its cross examination of the witness Blome counsel for Blome may proceed with redirect examination.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, because of the nature of the charge against Dr. Blome it has come about that the direct examination of this defendant lasted a long time. And, the cross examination on the part of the Prosecution likewise lasted a long time. In consideration of this and of the fact that the cross examination did not bring to light anything acre or importance I can dispense with a redirect examination. This concludes my examination of the defendant Dr. Blome and I have only new a few documents to submit in addition.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
These documents which counsel will offer, will they require any explanation by the defendant Blame or may the defendant Blome new leave the witness stand?
DR. SAUTER: The witness can leave the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Blome, a witness in his own behalf is excused and may take his place.
DR. SAUTER: Before I turn to the documents that still remain I could perhaps be of assistance in one matter to the Prosecution. The Prosecution mentioned yesterday in connection with various entries in Siever's diary the abbreviation R.G.V. and explained this, saying that in its opinion they thought it meant R.G.F. were the initials for Reichs GesundheitsFuehrer. Let me tell the Prosecution that the interpretation of these initials is wrong. What it really means is "Reichs ' Guschaefts Fuehrer", in other words, Reich Business Leader. That was the title that the Defendant Sievers hold in tho Ahnenerbe. In other words, this abbreviation had nothing to do with the Reichs Gosundheits-Fuehrer, (Reich Health Leader) Dr. Conti, nor with the Defendant Dr. Blome.
I wanted to say this so that tho Prosecution would have an easier job cf translating these initials.
Then I must correct a type graphical error that distorts the meaning, namely, in Dr. Blome's Document Book, Document 7, pages 19 to 26. Perhaps I could dictate this dictation of the typographical error into the record. On 21, at the top, it reads: "A few lays later --" as the witness Schroiber stated, Page 21 of the German Document Book, Blome Exhibit II, Document No. 7. It reads there, as I was saying: "A few days later I learned from the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate Generalarzt Schmidtbruecken who was no direct superior." That is an error. It should not be "no direct superior " but "my direct superior". It should rend then: "Generalarzt Schmidtbruecken was my direct superior." I make this correction so that it would not be overlooked later and later it will be set down in Blome Supplementary document Book, but I preferred to straighten it cut right now because the defendant of Handloser would have been injured had the error been allowed to remain.
Mr. President, the rest of the documents in the Blome Document Book I appraised to a large extent in the direct examination. There remains only the appraisal of tho following documents in Blome Document Book: Document No. 8, which has Exhibit No. 14; then Document 10 receives Exhibit No. 15. That is in tho first supplementary volume and two documents in tho supplementary volume No. 2, documents 15, which gets exhibit no. 15, and document --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please begin again the description cf the documents in Blome's Supplementary Book?
DR. SAUTER: I shall repeat. In Blome Document Book 1, the last document is document No. 8, which becomes exhibit no. 14 an affidavit in the port of one Wittmann.
That is Exhibit No. 14. Then in the Supplementary Volume 1 for Blome, document No. 10 - an affidavit on the part of one Dr. Dingeldey, receives Exhibit No. 15. Then in the second Supplementary Volume, which contains only two documents --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel the Tribunal does not have that Second Supplementary document Book.
DR. SAUTER: You should have had it a long time ago but I can submit it to you later because later on I must introduce a few more documents. Let me say then that these are documents 15 and 16 in this Second Supplementary Volume and I will show them to you at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel, the offer of these exhibits maybe postponed until that time. Will the Secretary General investigate the Second Supplement of Blome's Document Book and see that it is furnished the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Very well. I return now to Document No. 8, Exhibit No. 14, an affidavit on the part of Adolf Wittmann. This affidavit has been sworn to and the signature certified. This Wittmann was an executive expert in the Reich Chamber of Physicians and he had the same position in the Reich Office for Health of the NSDAP. That is the same office of which Blome was the Deput Leader. In No. 4 of this affidavit the witness concerns himself with the command relationships. His testimony agrees with that of the defendant. And now I should like to read No. 5 because it is of interest as records relation between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome:
"5) From my long years of collaboration with Dr. Blome it is known to me that the relationship between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome was very bad and loft much to be desired. They were complete contrasts as far as personality goes: I have learned to know Dr. Blome through the years as an open, honest and decent character, while Dr. Conti gave the impression of being a coldly calculating, mysterious individual, extremely ambitious and terrifically suspicious of everyone, including Dr. Blome.
"The collaboration between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome suffered very much from these contrasts. In the course of years I learned again and again that Dr. Conti withheld from Dr. Blome a number of important events, although they were things, which, in my opinion, Dr. Blome, as deputy of Dr. Conti, should have known about. I also heard again and again from different medical consultants of the Reich Chamber of Physicians when they talked to me about official matters, that they were surprised at the ignorance of Dr. Blome as far as certain happenings were concerned which they themselves, as consultant had been assigned to work on by Dr. Conti, but of which Dr. Blome had receive no knowledge through Dr. Conti. Also, about 1949, I read a note by Dr. Conti to Dr. Blome, the meaning of which was that he, Dr. Conti, reserved the right to sign all important matters himself, or it might have read, reach the decision himself. Dr. Blome was only authorized to sign in other, less important matters. This notice of Dr. Conti's struck me at that time, since, according to my judgment, this did not do justice to Dr. Blome's position as Deputy Reich Physicians' Leader.
"Generally, both gentlemen, Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome, were not present at Munich together; if one of them was there, the other was not there as a rule, and returned only when the other was not there any more.
"6) The conditions were the same at the Main Office for Public Health of the NSDAP which shared joint personnel with the Reich Chamber of Physicians. This Main Office and the Reich Chamber of Physicians were established in the same building, partly in the same rooms. The task of this Main Office was to make suggestions for the regulation of the health policy and for the tasks of health vocations, whereas the execution of such suggestions was partly the task of the state health authorities, partly of the vocational societies (for physicians, dentists, veterinaries, etc.)
"7) In both offices, the Reich Chamber of Physicians as well as the Main Office, the medical consultants continually complained about the fundamental contrasts between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome; they complained that they often did not know which point of view they were to represent in the detailed questions of their sphere of activity; the consultants often said that their technical work was thereby made very difficult.
"8) I know from conversation with Dr. Blome that he repeatedly and energetically expressed his opposing point of view to Lr. Conti and that the often tried to ask the party Chancery for help or assistance when he did not succeed in persuading Conti do not know anything about the success of such efforts.
"9) The following circumstance seems especially characteristic of the relations between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome: When Dr. Blome came to live in Munich in the autumn of 1941, approximately at the same time two confidential agents of Dr. Conti (2 physicians) from the office in Berlin came one after the other to settle down in Munich. Very soon I was under the impression, from my own observations, that these two men had the task of watching over the activity of Dr. Blome and perhaps also of the other experts of the Munich office. Quite by accident I found out later that for some time mail had been coming regularly in large envelopes from Dr. Conti in Berlin to one of the two men (a certain Dr. Roehrs.) The name of the addressee, Dr. Roehr was printed on these envelopes sent by Dr. Conti. I therefore came to the conclusion that such letters crom Dr. Conti to Dr. Roehrs were sent often.
By making inquiries I found out that Dr. Roehrs had ordered the Post Office and Registration Office at the Reich Chamber of physicians not to open such envelopes, but to deliver then sealed, whereas it was the custom to open all the incoming mail except letters marked 'secret' or 'confidential'. When I found out those facts I told Dr. Blome about it. He became very angry and indignant and shared my opinion that he was being watched by Dr. Conti in this way and that he was to be excluded from all important transactions of the office of the Reich Physicians' Leader.
"Such dealings continued and were not done away with. I have not the slightest doubt that these letters were official matters, for such large maid packets used to come in several times a week, according to my observation. In discussing such events, Dr Blome complained to me frequently and express: his opinion that he, as deputy head of the Reich Chamber of physicians, shoe.' be informed of rail occurrences because he was responsible.
"10) Dr. Blome told me once, I believe in 1943, that he had placed his offices at the disposal of Dr. Conti. Also, in case his resignation from his offices should not be accepted, he asked to be allowed to take his turn with Dr. Conti in going to the front. He told me and the consultants of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, that the reason for this was that his fundamental differences with Dr. Conti made profitable collaboration impossible. Later Dr. Blome told me that Dr. Conti had refused his request, saying that during the war everyone had to remain at the post to which he had been assigned. Or another occasion Dr. Blome told me that during the course of a discussion with the chief of the Party Chancellery he had also put his offices at their disposed and had asked for another position, but again he had been unsuccesful.
The next paragraph, number 11, I do not have to read into the record but I ask that judicial notice be taken of it. It clarifies the two contrasting opinions of these two gentlemen concerning population policy. Then there follows number 12. It reads:
"12) It came to my knowledge during my work at the Reich Chamber of Physicians, that Dr. Dingeldey, one of the consultants at the Reich Chamber of Physicians, on his own initiative, talked to various influential person alities of the Party, particularly the Reich Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick, and Reichsleiter Rosenberg, in order to enlighten them about the view of the people, about tho mismanagement inside the Party, and about the undignified behavior of leading Party personalities.
Dr. Dingeldey himself repeatedly told me of these efforts of his and also informed me that he had previously discussed these steps with Dr. Blome. Dr. Blome had expressed complete agreement and welcomed that Dr. Dingeldey, also was giving these explanations to the loading personalities, because he, Dr. Blome, himself could not achieve anything.
"13) Concerning the question of Professor Dr. Blome's attitude to questions of medical professional ethics. I can, on the basis of my activity in the Reich Chamber of Physicians, swear to the following on oath: In discussions with myself and with the medical consultants, Dr. Blome always so that the laws of the medical professional ethics must be held high, doctors must make professional ethics the alpha and omega of the practice of their profession. For instance, he frequently compared the medical profession with the clergy, and said that man in distress never reveals himself to people in other callings as openly as he does to a priest or a doctor. It was therefore the physicians' duty wholly and fully to justify this faith which their patients put in then. I was the physicians' duty not only to help there patients in their physical suffering, but also to assist and help them in their mental distress. Dr. Blome spoke in this way not only to me but also to other doctors, when I happened to be present, and he expressed this same view also in speeches at which I was present."
(signed) "Adolf Wittmann" Mr. Wittman, at the beginning of his statement, in No. 3, states that from February 1937 until the capitulation he worked in the Reich Chamber of Physicians under Dr. Blome.
That is, then, Blome Document No. 8, Exhibit No. 14.
How, in the Supplemental Document Volume 1, of the Document Book Blome, I came to Document No. 10, Exhibit No. 15. This is an affidavit of Dr Dingeldey, whose name was just mentioned in the affidavit just read. This affidavit also is sworn to and the signature appropriately certified.
Dr. Dingeldey says in his introduction that he was a librarian and consultant in the Reich Chamber of Physicians; that he was born in 1893. I do not believe I have to read No. 1; it contains an outline of Dr. Dingeldey's career. No. 2 I can also omit reading, I believe. It discusses Dr. Blome's official positions, which has already been made perfectly clear by the defendant's and other persons' testimony here. No. 3 concerns itself with the relations between Dr. Conti and his deputy, Dr. Blome, and says:
"3) If I am asked on what terms Dr. Conti and his deputy Dr. Blome were with each other, I could only say from my own experience, that it was rather disagreeable, and that the differences of opinion between the two men made a regular cooperation extraordinarily difficult. At the beginning, before Dr. Conti took up his position as lead of the Reich Medical Chamber, Dr. Blome repeatedly advised us (the technical advisers of the Reich Medical Chamber), that it was absolutely imperative that we obey the orders of the now Head, Dr. Conti. But shortly afterwards, relations between Dr. Blome and Dr. Conti became strained....."
I need not read the rest of that paragraph. It agrees with the previously real statements of the witness, Wittmann. I now continue at the end of this "Dr. Blome, on the other hand, showed a frank and honest character during all the time we worked together; he treated us in a friendly way and we had the impression that he was certainly not dishonest with us.
"4) In the course of time, the relations between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome became worse and worse. I was never present at private discussions between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome, and I never heard anything about them from Dr. Conti, he never talked to me or to other technical advisers about his personal affairs. Dr. Blome, on the other hand, took us into his confidence; he was so filled with the difficulties resulting from his relation to Dr. Conti, that he referred to them time and time again.
and often opened his heart to me as he used to do among his friends. Through this information by Dr. Blome we often received confirmation of the existing difficulties which we had already expected and feared from the beginning.
"5) The main difference between Dr. Conti and Dr. Blome was with regard to the way in which the Medical profession was to be organized. Dr. Blome always tried to free the medical profession and its organizations as far as possible from party political influences; he therefore tried to dissolve the common leadership of the Reichs Chamber of physicians (Reichsaerztekammer) and the leadership of the main Office for Public Health (Hauptamt fuer Volksgesundheit) because the letter was an outspoken Party office. Dr. Conti, on the other hand, had a plan of socializing the medical profession and of making the physicians into public officials. This plan was strongly opposed by Dr. Blome. He was interested in maintaining the medical profession as an independent profession..."
I shall omit reading No. 6 which follows and I ask you to take judicial notice of it. It also describes, as Wittmann also did, the time aggravations of the relations between Conti and Blome. I continue now with No. 7:
"I myself jointed the party before 1933, out of pure idealism, because I believed in the ......."
MR. HARDY: Would it be possible to have the important sections of this long affidavit incorporated into the record without necessitating the reading of it aloud in open court, as was done in Tribunal No. 2, whereby the court reported takes the sections mentioned by counsel and incorporates them into the official transcript in liew of reading them aloud, as a time-saving device?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not advised as to whether or not Tribunal No. 2 has the electric recording device. I think that if counsel for defendant desires to read these matters into the record he should be allowed to do so. He will not ready anything into the record that he does not deem necessary, I am sure.
DR. SAUTER: I ask the court to take judicial notice of No. 7 in which Dr. Dingeldey describes his effort with the knowledge and on orders of Blome, his efforts to straighten things cut and to improve the relations with Dr. Conti in which efforts, however, he was unsuccessful. I can read one paragraph from this Number:
"Only Dr. Blome had more self-control than I and did not demonstrate externally his disappointment about the development of the Hitler Regime as I did. From numerous conversations which I had with Dr. Blome after 1939 I know for certain that he, for instance disliked the war policy of Hitler as decidedly as I did."
Then No. 8 treats the same question as the privious affidavit did, namely, why Dr. Blome despite all those difficultieo remained in his office and why he did not simply withdraw. Since this has already been clarified, I think I need only refer to this No. 8.
Now No. 9 concerns Dr. Blome's attitude regarding medical ethics. I should like to read that Number. about Dr. Blome's attitude towards medical ethics. "From my own observations I can state the following: Dr. Blome had a very high ethical opinion of the medical profession. He often told me that he wanted clean, decent, helpful plysicians; he was especially anxius about this. He emphasized repeatedly that a physician should always be up to the mark with his scientific knowledge, and that a country doctor should always be the cultural center of his village. He repeatedly told me that the motto of a physician should always be to help and to cure, no natter whether those in need of help are Christians or Jews."
That is a direct quotation from Dr. Blome.
"Once he said to me -- " and again this is a direct quotation:
"The thousand-year-old Reich may perish, but medical science and medical ethics will remain forever." By the "thousand-year-old Reich" he meant the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler who always spoke about a thousand-year-old rule of national Socialism.
"On another occasion he said to me: "In a hundred years no one will speak of this politician or that but a great physician or scientist will be spoken about in three hundred or four hundred years."
No. 10 I also should like to read. It concerns Blome's attitude toward Euthanasia. In other words, it is a matter on which the Prosecution has laid particular stress. No. 10:
"I have never heard that the Reich Chamber of Physicians or the Main Health Office of the NSDAP had anything to do officially with the question of Euthanasia. I knew nothing of the incoming or outgoing papers of both offices as I was a librarian and this did not concern me. Here important matters were discussed regularly by the technical advisers, sometimes at general conferences, but mainly, however, by the individual technical advisers unofficially among themselves. If our office had anything to do with such an imortant matter as the Euthanasia Program, it would certainly have been discussed repeatedly among we technical advisors.
"My attention was drawn to the Euthanasia problem for the first time during the war through a letter by Professor Dr. Klare -- " and let me remark that this is the same Dr. Klare whose affidavit I put in evidence, Document No. 2, Document Book No. 1 for Blome. This affidavit new continues:
"This physician, had been working formerly in Bavaria. No had a sanitarium for children suffering from tuberculosis in Bavarian Allgaeu, and I made his acquaintance then as representative of the pharmaceutical factories.
This acquaintance developed into a lasting friendship, and I corresponded for years with Professor Dr. Klare. Professor Dr. Klare wrote to me then that he had heard that insane people were being killed in the lunatic asylums, and that this was being done secretly without any special law. Professor Dr. Klare was averse to such a solution and was of the opinion that this Euthanasia problem must be regulated by a special law. In this way I found out about the Euthanasia problem. At that time I also saw the file "I accuse" which dealt with the Euthanasia problem. I am asked: how is it possible that the Reich Chamber of Physicians and its Deputy Director, Dr. Blome, had nothing to do with Euthanasia and did not receive any official information about it, although Dr. Conti had played an important part in the Euthanasia program, as State Secretary at the Reich Ministry of the Interior.
"I can explain this in the following way: I know that Dr. Donci was State Secretary at the Reich Ministry of the Interior and as such was in charge of the Public Health Administration. He was not, however, represented in this capacity by Dr. Blome. As far as I know, Dr. Blome was not com.wtetent and had not rights as Senate Secretary at the Reich Ministry of the Interior."
I shall not read No. 11. It concerns matters of the population policy. I ask you, please, to take judicial notice of it.
This affidavit, as I said, is correctly sworn to and the signature certified. This concludes for the time being my treatment of the Blome case. I must reserve for myself the right to submit a few additional documents in the future which have not yet arrived, and, perhaps, authority to call the witness, Porwitschky, who so far has not been found apparently.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal now has the second supplement to Blome's Document Book containing Documents 15 and 16. Counsel may offer those documents now if he desires to do so.
DR. SAUTER: There is a second supplementary volume to the Blome Document Book which has new been submitted to the Court which contains only two documents. The first is Document Blome No. 15, which carries Exhibit No. Blome 16, and the other is Document No. 16, which I give as Exhibit No. Blome 17. The first of these documents, Document Blome No. 15, is a verv brief report by berstabsarzt Professor Dr. Wirth, a man who has frequently been named in the course of this trial. This is the same Professor Wirth of whom there is to be found an affidavit in the Blome Document Book Supplementary Volume, Document No. 12, Exhibit No. 13. This document, which I shall now read and which is very brief, is an excerpt from a book that has been submitted to the Court in another connection, and of which other passages have been put in evidence by their defense counsel. This passage which I am about to put in has not yet been read. It is an excerpt to a Report on the 4th Conference "East" of the Consulting Physicians on l6 and 17 May 1944 at the SS-hospital Hohonlychen. Lecturer: Professor Wirth about "Enemy Sabotage with Poisons". This document is being introduced by me in connect in with the general case of biological warfare. Professor Wirth says on "Pages 49 - 51:
"The use of poisons for purposes of sabotage has been clearly prohibited to the Germans by order of the Fuehrer. The enemy has, however, already used this dirty method reportedly during this war. It is therefore necessary, as a defense measure, to face these facts reasonably and with an open mind. Sabotage by the enemy consists mainly in poisoning food and drinks, which are to be supplied to the troops, and also to individual important civilians. International over-dosing with very strong drugs, such as morphine, pantopen, etc., by the foreign nursing staff, as was ascertained in some cases, seems to play a lesser role. The intentional poisoning of chemical processes in the technical field is of no importance medically and will not, therefore, be discussed here."
The number 2 concerns itself with the capillary poison colchichine which is also used as poison for purposes of sabotage.
Then number 3, "The effect of atropine can easily be recognized in the manifestations of actual poisoning, and, as has been proved, was often added to morning coffee by the Russian auxiliary staff.
Occasionally it was found injected into eggs with the result that liquor made with such eggs was poisoned with atropine."
And then number 6 says, "Furthermore, the coline derivate, doryl, and, among the anorganic poisons, sublimate and potassium cyanide should be mentioned: these have also been used as poisons for purposes of sabotage."
And now I come to my last document for the time being, Document 16, Exhibit Blome 17. This is an excerpt from a book "Publications by the Berlin Academy for further Medical Training No. 6". Then the book is entitled "A cross section of the latest results of medical science" 'presented by their originators. It is "A series of lectures sponsored by the Berlin Academy for further Medical Training, Berlin."
In this book you can see what efforts Blome made, even during the War, to advance medical science and inform about results obtained in the whole medical profession. I should like to read now just one excerpt which is on page 5, an article by Dr. Blome himself, under the title of "Health Guidance and Science". To save time I shall not read the article word for word, but shall ask you to take judicial notice of the contents of this article so that you may be given a picture of Dr. Blome's efforts in this field and his attitude in these matters. If I may briefly summarize the contents, Blome first of all emphasizes the fact that the health authorities and medical science should stand in closest relationship, that the health authorities should always be informed of latest scientific developments, and further that only sufficiently trained and certified doctors should be allowed to practice. Then, the defendant Blome makes further remarks to the effect that the freedom of medical science should be respected and that the experiments should not be made to impose on scientists a certain line. The scientists should make their discoveries and knowledge available to the general practitioners. And, then Dr. Blome points out the particular importance of early diagnosis, namely the diagnosis which is necessary in the case of cancer and tuberculosis if the disease is to be effectively combated, for certain groups of diseases can be the were effectively combated the earlier they are diagnosed.
And Dr. Blome says in this connection that Germany has justly done away with the right of letting practitioners practice so that not any quack or any ignoramous can have access to sick persons. He concludes with the words which I will read: "Science must remain science and must not degenerate into wild experiments and into a more or less irresponsible empiricism."
Herewith, Mr. President, I for the time being conclude my defense of the defendant Blome. I thank you for the large period of time that you have made available to us for this presentation.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel reserves the right to offer further evidence in behalf of his defense, which privilege is reserved to him. I would like to make clear one matter. Then document is admitted in evidence before the Tribunal, whether it is read or not, that document becomes a part of the record in this case and may be used by counsel for either side for any purpose -- be referred to in brief or argument or examination of a witness. Correctly speaking, the Tribunal does not take judicial notice of such documents. It takes notice of thorn as part of the record before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal in preparing its judgment, after consideration, gives to all evidence in the case such weight as the Tribunal deems they are entitled to. It is a matter of small consequence, but the term 'judicial notice' is used concerning certain extraneous matters which need not be offered in evidence, such as laws, or treaties between countries, or many documents. Now, certain of those documents if that class the Tribunal takes judicial notice of them without requiring that they be offered in evidence. But, as to a document which has been offered and received in evidence, that is before the Tribunal for consideration, whether it be read into the record or not. Anything to add? Certain documents of which the Tribunal take judicial notice are the Control Law No. 10, Ordinance No. 7, certain matters of common knowledge, and that is provided in Control Law No. 10 which governs this Tribunal's procedure -- that the Tribunal shall take judicial notice of such matters.