Please accept this affidavit in evidence as Exhibit 59. Mr. President, the Prosecution has offered excerpts from the printed reports of the work conferences of the Consulting Specialists. These are documents 921 to 924, Exhibits 434 to 437. There is an omission in connection with these documents.
First of all, they do not present any unified picture. Secondly, if excerpts are taken and the parts left out are not known, a picture can be conveyed which does not correspond to reality. For this reason Professor Handloser, in Document Book 1, as HA Document 2 and Exhibit 37, has brought evidence regarding the purpose of these conferences, and in the same document book, on pages 17 to 20, has explained that on the problems of dysentery and freezing there were conferences every year in which medical knowledge was ascertained and supplemented. In the same document and also in Document 2-A, Exhibit 37, he drew up a typical agenda for such a conference from which it can be seen how many problems were discussed.
In order to give a true total picture of these conferences I have had Dr. Handloser take a few excerpts from these four books and have them translated and put in evidence. This has been done. Under NO922, that is a prosecution number, there are also those excerpts translated which are to be put before you by Professor Handloser.
Now, I think that in order to avoid confusion I should give this document, NO-922, a special exhibit number in the Handloser case. Moreover, Professor Handloser, has put in an affidavit which will make it unnecessary for me to go too deeply into this problem in my final brief.
Regarding the question of freezing, typhus, and hepatitis epidemica -- all concepts which we know from this trial - he has made remarks which he and I both believe will show the real integrity of the medical activities of the German Wehrmacht.
I offer the affidavit of Prof. Handloser, HA-75 which has not yet been translated, let me say again, which has not yet been translated.
It is here in the original. To avoid later repetition, and leaving the Prosecution the full right to object, I should like to put in this affidavit along with the other documents that have been copied, as Exhibit 60, and the excerpts from the conference reports will be put in as Exhibit 60-A.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this procedure is agreeable to me, but I don't have the extract of 922. I have the extracts of NO-921, 923, and 924, but I can't find the 922 extract.
THE PRESIDENT: I have here an extra copy of 922. Will the Secretary hand this to Counsel for the Prosecution?
MR. HARDY: I have it here, excuse me, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You have it now?
MR. HARDY: Yes. As I understand it, the extract from Prosecution Document NO-922 is being marked for conveneince as Handloser Exhibit 60-A.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that 60-A or was that 60?
MR. HARDY: 60 is the Handloser affidavit accompanying this.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, we haven't that yet.
DR. NELTE: I now put in the affidavit of the Generalaerzte and Generalstabsaerzte in Camp Muensterlager C. These affidavits cover the same material as has been covered by the other affidavits. I bring them to your attention, and thus Document 64 will become Exhibit 61. Through direct examination of the witness Generalarzt Hartleben, the Tribunal tried to clarify the questions involving the Medical Inspectorate. This question is of particular interest in the Handloser case. The Tribunal will recall that I pointed out when examing Generalarzt Hartleben that the court procedure that apply here are set down in Army Regulation 21, Part II, and when I offered to put the whole printed regulation in evidence I was refused by the Tribunal, but Handloser was asked to point out the passages in these regulations that appeared particularly important to him and to have them put in evidence.
Handloser has done so and now puts in an affidavit on court procedure in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. This is Document HA-65. This will be Exhibit 62, with the permission of the Tribunal.
In this affidavit those parts of Army Regulation 21 to which Handloser refers are reproduced, and I will give Army Medical Regulation number 2 to the Prosecution so that they will have a basis of comparison. I shall forego reading individual excerpts, but I ask the High Tribunal to look at page 5, Roman numeral II. These are the regulations concerning reports which are not made at specific intervals. This passage here is of particular importance for a matter that concerns this trial; namely, the reporting of special occurrences which have to be brought to the attention of the higher offices immediately and without delay.
Also I ask you to look at pages 9, 10, and 11. These are the regulations regarding the method of reporting medical research and papers on such research. That is Document No. 65, which will be Exhibit No. 62, with the permission of the Tribunal.
I now have an affidavit from the former Colonel Wolfgang Mueller, which he sent to me spontaneously; it is of particular importance, since he was a colonel whose rank was broken because of the events of 20 July. He was a department chief in the Army High Command and knew Professor Handloser there. When such a man offers to testify in behalf of Handloser, saying that he protected the interest of the Medical Corps with dignity against encroachments of the Party, that is important. I shall read only one sentence. He writes here, "I would not make this affidavit for Handloser if I had only the slightest suspicion that Dr. Handloser was one of the criminal Nazi physicians. On the contrary, historical research will show his merits in preventing the German medical profession from being permeated by Nazi ideas. Details of the above-described facts I put into my diary at that time. I shall shortly publish these facts in my book; Against the Lie about the Stab in the back". This Document HA 66 becomes Exhibit 63.
The Prosecution put in an affidavit by Oswald Pohl. This is Document NO-407, but I have not been able to ascertain the exhibit number. This affidavit is formulated in very general and consequently easily misunderstood terms. The Prosecution had Pohl state that doctors of the Luftwaffe, the Army, the Navy, and tine SS seem to have only little difficulty in getting Himmler's approval for such experiments. And further he states: "I assume that Grawitz, Gebhardt, Karl Brandt, and others were Himmler's advisors in such matters." When Pohl was examined about this he said: "I know of no fact that would justify attributing experiments in concentration camps and demands for concentration camp inmates for experiments to Professor Handloser or his office. Professor Handloser was certainly not one of Himmler's advisors in such matters. This Document HA 67 I wish to put in as Exhibit No. 64.
The next document, HA 68, is an affidavit by Dr. Albrecht Ziaja, a former generalarzt, who sent me this affidavit on his own initiative. He makes the same positive statements about Handloser's personality as all the other Generalaerzte have made. Document HA 68 I should like to put in as Exhibit No. 65.
The next document, HA 69, has not yet been translated. It is a very brief document from Generalarzt Wuerfler. The Tribunal will recall that the Prosecution put in a list of research assignments, NO-934, Exhibit 458. Since Wuerfler had already been heard and had said that if such a document had reached the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht he would have seen it, and sent this document, Prosecution Exhibit No. 458, to him and asked him to tell me in the form of an affidavit whether he had ever seen this document. The affidavit reads:
"On 10 March 1947 the attorney Dr. Nelte sent me Document NO935, 40 typewritten pages, and I have read through this document. I do not recall that this document ever came to the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht." Please accept this document, which will be translated within the next few days as Exhibit 66, without prejudice to Prosecution's right to object.
Now there comes a series of five letters, bearing numbers HA 76-a to e, which have not yet been translated. They were brought to my attention too late for me to have them translated in time.
THE PRESIDENT: They bear the number 67, not 76 according to you.
DR. NELTE: Yes. They are not yet translated - or are they?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't have them.
DR. NELTE: I believe there are two documents in question here, 76 and 67.
THE PRESIDENT: No Document 76 appears on this list - 72 is the highest number.
MR. HARDY: He is referring, your Honor, to Document 76 which is Exhibit 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see it.
DR. NELTE: Let me ask, Your Honors, whether I should make statements about this document now, without prejudice to Prosecution's right to object since he doesn't know these documents, or should I present it later?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may make his statement now.
MR. HARDY: It would appear to me, Your Honor, that these last few exhibits, that is 67, which is missing. Exhibit 70 I don't have, which will be Exhibit 68. Nos. 71, 72, 73, and 74 I do not have.
DR. NELTE: In the case against the defendant Handloser the Prosecution referred to the well-known typhus conference of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 29 December 1941, in which Professor Handloser did not take part but a representative of the Army Medical Inspectorate did, Stabsarzt Schrott. This is Document N0-1315, Exhibit 454. And it is a file note of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The Defendants Professor Mrugowsky has reports from Drs. Zahn and Demnitz on this same subject, Documents Mrugowsky 63 and 64, Exhibits 30 and 19, and an affidavit from Demnitz, Mrugowsky Document 62, Exhibit 18. These documents present a clear picture of what was discussed in this conference of 29 December 1941. This was a discussion with the pharmaceutical industry. Now in Document 1315, Exhibit 454, there is a discussion, as you may remember, of experiments planned on 29 December 1941, discussed between Professor Gildemeister and Mrugowsky, which had already been agreed upon. Let me point out that it was not agreed on at this conference because Mrugowsky was not even present. It had already been agreed upon before the discussion. Now the Prosecution states that this was the basis for the subsequent human experiments. The Prosecution further asserts the participants in the discussion knew of this and knew that Buchenwald experiments were to be made. Since there were also representatives of the Army Medical Inspectorate present, the Prosecution concludes that also the Army Medical Inspect orate and Professor Handloser knew what was going on in Buchenwald at this time.
Although this conclusion is refuted by a letter of 5 May 1942, Mrugowsky Document 10, Exhibit 20, and by his sworn testimony, the Defendant Professor Handloser wishes to dispose of any last vestige of suspicion in this manner by putting in these five documents. They bear numbers HA 76 a to e. I shall put them in as one document and ask that they be given Exhibit No. 67 a to e.
These letters of February and March 1942 will prove that the Army Medical Inspectorate, if it had known what was to go on in Buchenwald, and if it had been in agreement with this, namely, that human experiments were to be carried on in Buchenwald in order to expedite the production of typhus vaccine -- it would have been absolutely without any purpose for the Army Medical Inspectorate to have written the letters contained in this document. If it had known and approved what was going on in Buchenwald, then it would have waited for the results of this experimental plan. However, during this time it corresponded with the Behring Works and told the Behring Works, which had been given an order, that they should be sure to see to it that the vaccine to be delivered should contain only Rickettsia Prowazeki. The Behring Works did not answer these letters from the Medical Inspectorate saying, "Wait until the Buchenwald experiments are over." They answered on the 21st of March that the typhus vaccines were now being manufactured of Rickettsia Prowazeki alone, and thus the requirements of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Army Medical Inspectorate were being met. There are 5 documents here which I ask you please to examine most carefully. In my final brief I shall evaluate the contents and probative value of those documents.
MR. HARDY: May I see the original exhibit, Your Honor, those documents which were just mentioned?
DR. NELTE: These are copies from the files of the Behring Works, which have been certified by a notary.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution would like some of the German copies too, Your Honor, in addition to the English translations, inasmuch as they purport to be original German documents. This apparently is the Court Exhibit.
DR. NELTE: The German originals are not in my possession but are in the possession of the Behring Works. This is a case quite analogous to the one my colleague, Dr. Flemming, was confronted with, who also put in letters from the Behring Works, which had been certified by a notary on the basis of the originals there.
As I remember, the Tribunal accepted this certification by a notary as sufficient and accepted the letter in question in evidence, but I ask for your ruling as soon as you see the original.
MR. HARDY: I am not objecting to this procedure, Your Honor, inasmuch as the Tribunal has established that it would be all right in the case of Dr. Flemming's documents. I merely would like German copies of these now so that I could peruse them this evening, or my analysts could do so, so that I could go over them immediately, without waiting for translations.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the defendant Handloser see that German copies are furnished to the Prosecution this afternoon, if possible?
DR. NELTE: Yes. Next I put in a certified copy of a ruling by the German Reichstag on 26 April 1942. Let me correct an error in the copy. In the copy here it says 26 September 1942 but it is really 26 April 1942. This was in the Reich Legal Gazette, Part I, No. 44, page 247. This is a very well-known resolution of the Reichstag, with the force of law, dealing with the concentration of the total power in Germany in the hands of Hitler. This document is put in evidence in connection with the question of what significance the so-called State Order has in the totalitarian State. I do not wish to read this resolution, but I shall refer to it in my summation. HA-70 becomes Exhibit 68.
MR. HARDY: For clarification of the record, I believe this Reichsgesetzblatt extract is dated the 26 of September, not April.
DR. NELTE: I have already made that correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel just stated that the document was dated in September, not April. I understood the interpreter to say it was dated April, not September.
DR. NELTE: It is erroneously dated September and should be dated April.
MR. HARDY: Well, then, I would like to see the original exhibit, Your Honor. The translation has the 26th of September thereon.
DR. NELTE: I have already attempted to correct that. The original of this resolution probably cannot be found. This resolution is reprinted. It was published in the Reich Legal Gazette (Reichsgesetzblatt) which can be found in the library here. I assume that the Prosecution may take a look at it at any time. If not, I can produce it for the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Is Dr. Nelte certifying that Document HA-70, Exhibit 68, the date thereon should be the 26th of April and not the 26th of September?
DR. NELTE: That is right. I come now to my final documents which deal with Prosecution Document 1305, Exhibit 469. The Prosecution, in putting in this document, asserted that there was a general agreement between the Medical Inspectorate of the Army and the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS -- an agreement to test the Behring Work vaccines on human beings in Buchenwald. This document is a letter from the Behring works in Marburg to Dr. Mrugowsky, dealing with the testing of the Behring vaccine, and it says, and I quote: "Oberstarzt Dr. Schreiber has told us that the testing on human beings will be taken care of in the future through your office." In order to clarify this matter I have interviewed anyone who could know anything of value about this matter and whom I could get in touch with, in order to get affidavits from them. These are Professor Handloser, Generalarzt Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken, as Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate and the superior of Oberstarzt Dr. Schreiber, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt, as Hygienist in the Department for Science and Health, also Dr. Demnitz, director of the Behring Works in Marburg.
MR. HARDY: Is it my understanding from Dr. Nelte that Document NO 1305, Prosecution Exhibit 469, was introduced after Dr. Bernhard Schmidt had appeared before this Tribunal as a witness, or had it been introduced before that time?
DR. NELTE: It was put in later, or in cross-examination.
MR. HARDY: Then, your Honor, it seems to me that if this was put in before Dr. Bernhard Schmidt appeared before the Tribunal as a witness, defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine Schmidt on that document, and this would be a second opportunity to examine him on it by putting in this affidavit. The witness was here and testified here, and the document at that time had been put into evidence, according to defense counsel. Therefore I do not see any reason for further affidavits from people who have been here as witnesses.
DR. NELTE: At the moment I cannot say at what point in the trial the Document 1305 was put in. At any rate I do know that I asked Dr. Bernhard Schmidt about this matter. I believe that I got a full perspective of this matter when I made the acquaintance of Dr. Mrugowsky's Document Book and Demnitz' letter. In a matter as important as this, Your Honor, the formal rules of evidence must be set aside and a real effort should be made to ascertain what the situation actually was. So I ask that the documents that I am not putting in this matter, namely Documents HA-70, 71...no, I shall start again...HA 71, HA 72, HA 73, and HA 74, be accepted in evidence as Exhibits 69, 70, 71, and 72. I have just been informed that Document 1305 was put in evidence during the cross-examination of the defendant Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: I think my recollection serves me the same, your Honor. If the document was put in after the witness appeared here, then I have no objection to the affidavit.
DR. NELTE: This concludes my submission of supplemental documents for the defendant Professor Handloser, and thus my case for this defendant. I should like, however, to reserve the right, should it be necessary, to offer one more document which may be made necessary by the documents which the prosecution gave to us yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear counsel if he deems it necessary to offer in evidence any further documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Nelte, I have in my hand here a document apparently of the prosecution, NO-924, which presumably is an extract from Document NO-924. It is not quite clear to me what Handloser exhibit number you gave that extract.
MR. HARDY: It hasn't any number yet, Your Honor.
DR. NELTE: Yes, NO-924 is a prosecution document. Documents 921 to 924 are prosecution documents, excerpts from the printed conference reports.
MR. HARDY: Does defense counsel wish to have Documents NO-921, NO-922, NO-923, and NO-924 attached to the Handloser affidavit, which is Exhibit 60?
THE PRESIDENT: That was the purpose of my inquiry. I assume so.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
MR. HARDY: In that instance, could we number the extracts from Document NO-921 as Exhibit 60-A, the extracts from NO-922 as Exhibit 60-B, the extracts from NO-923 as Exhibit 60-C, and the extracts from 924 as Exhibit 60-D? Then I will be able to keep track of them.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be so numbered.
DR. NELTE: I have no objection to that. I thank you. I have concluded my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further documents to be offered by the counsel?
DR. KRAUSS: Dr. Krauss for the defendant Professor Rostock.
Mr. President, at this time I should like to put in three affidavits in the case for the defendant Professor Rostock. I do not know whether or not the Tribunal has the translations of them.
If it is agreeable to the Tribunal, I should like to but the three documents in now, even if they do not have the translations, giving a brief summary of their contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. The Tribunal has no copies of the documents that I know of.
MR. HARDY: He have no copies. Are they affidavits on character reference or what are they? If I could look at the affidavits to see if they are properly executed, I may allow this, but I would rather have them in English before we have them introduced, Your Honor.
DR. KRAUSS: I ask the Tribunal to rule on this. Either decision is acceptable to me.
THE PRESIDENT: I was endeavoring to ascertain whether English copies are available. I have seen none.
MR. HARDY: I should like to look at the German copies and see whether they are in order.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will submit copies in German to counsel for the prosecution, who will examine them.
DR. KRAUSS: The German originals are here and can be examined.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, they appear to be in order and have jurats thereon. I have no objections to their being put in now if copies are served on me with the numbers on each affidavit when they are served so that I will have a record of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and those for the Tribunal also, when we receive the copies, should bear the exhibit numbers which are assigned to them.
DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, first I shall put in an affidavit by the witness Margarete Baldow. This I put in as Rostock Exhibit No. 11. The witness Baldow was chief nurse at Professor Rostock's clinic. She had a precise knowledge of Professor Rostock's activities and personality. She states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock, even after taking over the Office of Science and Research, still remained the responsible chief of the university clinic, and that from a purely temporal point of view he spent most of his time and energies in the clinic and with his patients.
Because of her intimate knowledge of Professor Rostock's character, both as a human being and a doctor, the witness states that she knew of no participation of Rostock in illegal experiments and considers it quite out of the question that he even knew of any illegal experiments.
The second document that I wish to offer to the Tribunal is an affidavit by Professor Menzel. I offer it as Rostock Exhibit 12. Professor Menzel was business manager of the Reich Research Council. He has a precise knowledge of the organization of the Reich Research Council. He says in his affidavit that Rostock himself was not a member of the Reich Research Council, that he was merely the deputy of Professor Karl Brandt from 1944 on, and that Professor Rostock himself never participated in a meeting of the presidial council or of the chiefs of specialized departments (Fachspartenleiter) in the Reich Research Council. The affiant particularly states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock had nothing to do with the issuing of research assignments by the Reich Research Council. He also states that it was not Rostock's job to help determine the priority rating of the individual research assignments. The affiant also states that Rostock, as leader of the Science and Research Office, had no right to give orders to the Reich Research Council.
Third, I put in an affidavit by Margaret Georgi. I put this affidavit in a.s Rostock Exhibit 13. This witness is a doctor. In 1936 she received a long prison sentence for insulting the Fuehrer, and today she is recognized as a victim of Fascism. This witness says that in view of her political -punishment she could not find work in the Third Reich, that she had difficulties wherever she turned, and that Professor Rostock, in full knowledge of the fact she had been sentenced, employed her as assistant doctor in his clinic. She further states that during her activities as assistant doctor, in view of her political past, she was put at no disadvantage by Professor Rostock, but that she was promoted the way every other associate was promoted by Professor Rostock.
Mr. President, these three documents conclude my defense of Professor Rostock.
THE PRESIDENT: The three documents will be admitted in evidence as exhibits oh behalf of defendant Rostock, under the numbers assigned to the exhibits by counsel. Copies are to be furnished the Tribunal as soon as possible.
Do any other defense counsel have any documents to offer?
DR. SEIDL: Seidl for Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.
Mr. President, after the recess I shall be ready to put in supplemental documents for these three defendants. These documents are in Document Book 2. Moreover, there are prepared four loose documents which also contain affidavits. I should be obliged if the Secretary General will give the Tribunal the translations of these documents which are already prepared, and then I shall offer the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will furnish the Tribunal translations of these documents, to be taken up at the close of the pending recess.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their scats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: Counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.
Mr. President, in accordance with the suggestion made by the Tribunal, I have drafted an index where you will find all of the documents which have been submitted so far. Also you will find there all of those documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal today. In view of the short time at my disposal, I was not able to get a translation in time.
I do believe, however, that this index even in the German language will help to facilitate the proceedings.
On the first page of this index you will find a list of those documents which have been submitted in Document Book I and which have already been admitted by the Tribunal. This part of the index is finished and I ask you now to turn to page no. 2 where you will find those documents which are contained in the document book now before the Tribunal, which is Document Book No. 2. For reasons of expediency I have also inserted, in Column 1, the exhibit number provisionally for the convenience of the Tribunal.
In the second column you will find the documents in the order as they are contained in the document book, and then you find the page number and the description of the individual document.
The last document which I submitted to the Tribunal in April was Gebhardt Exhibit 16. The first document I am now submitting to you is Document No. 18 in Document Book No. 2. This will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 17, as it is listed in the index. This is an order of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, dated 17 May 1940. The defendant Karl Gebhardt in his direct examination defined his attitude toward that order. This order is being submitted in order to illustrate the tasks of the defendant Karl Gebhardt in his capacity as Consulting Surgeon to the Waffen SS. This document is offered as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 17.
The next document in the document book is an order of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, signed by the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, the defendant Dr. Handloser.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire of defense counsel just what is the source of these documents? The second document I believe I have seen the original myself upon the interrogation of Gebhardt many, many months ago. I won't object to that. But the other copies, these are certified copies by Dr. Seidl of original German documents. May he inform me just where those documents are kept in custody?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the original documents were returned to the defendant Karl Gebhardt after his arrest. He turned them over to me, and they are now in my possession. According to the usage of the Tribunal, that only copies or phtotstats are submitted, I thought it sufficient to submit only a copy. If however, it is desired, I can submit the original to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The originals should be submitted. A photostat, being a facsimile of the original, will serve a purpose, but a mere typewritten copy would not.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I shall submit the originals of these two documents to the Secretary General of the Tribunal, They are still in my possession. The document which I just mentioned is Document Number 19, is the second document in Document Book Number 2. This is the order of the OKW, dated 1 November 1944. The defendant has already defined his attitude toward that order in the witness box. This order shows the tasks which had to be fulfilled by the defendant Gebhardt in the last months of the war. I offer this document as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 18.
The next document to which I turn now is an affidavit signed by General of the Waffen-SS Karl Wolff. Karl Wolff, throughout a long period of time, was Chief of the Personal Staff of the ReichsfuehrerSS and therefore has a sound knowledge of the situation within the SS in general and also within the medical service of the SS. He further knows about the relationships between the defendant Karl Gebhardt and Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. I submit this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 19. Karl Wolff, among other matters, shows his attitude toward the concept of the "escort physician". He then states what Gebhardt had to do in his capacity as Consutling Surgeon to the Waffen-SS. He further makes statements about the position of Dr. Stumpfegger the later accompanying physician of Himmler and Hitler. This seems to me to be necessary because Dr. Stumpfegger has repeatedly been mentioned in this case in. connection with the experiments and in particular the bone experiments.
I now turn to the affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, which can be found on page 21 of the document book. This affidavit I offer as Gebhardt. Exhibit Number 20. This witness worked in the Defendant Karl Gebhardt's clinic at Hohenlychen for a considerable time. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this document. I should merely like to quote a few sentences of the second paragraph on page 13 of that affidavit:
"Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger's personality, I can state that already in peacetime he was an assistant at the clinic before me. At the beginning of the war in 1939 he joined the Waffen-SS and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards escort physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my return to Hohenlychen in the autumn of 1943, nor had he any official connection with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a military sense."
I then turn to the affidavit of Dr. med. habil. Josef Koestler. This affidavit can be found on page 15 of the document book, and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21. Dr. Koestler was also an assistant physician at Hohenlychen. I shall quote only two paragraphs from this affidavit. They are to be found on page 15 of the document book.
"When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the third Conference of Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, gave a lecture on surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one h ?, interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on experimental dogs from 1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital Berlin, and in the institutes of Professor Holz and Professor Osterlag, and, on the oth r hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been frequently used during the previous years.
"Under the title of 'Preparatory and Resotrative Surgery in cases of Peripheral Nerve Damage', I recorded these experiences in the "German Journal for Surgery," Volume 259, Numbers 1 to 4, 1943, and in my habilitation paper (1943, University of Berlin)."I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out exclusively on animals."
I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21.
I now go over to page 17 of the document book where you will find an affidavit signed by another assistant physician of the defendant Gebhardt. This is the affidavit of Dr. Hans-Georg Jaedicke. His statements are relevant in connection with the so-called biochemical experiments. I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 22, and I shall merely quote paragraph 5 from page 21 of the document book:
"5) Biochemical Work at Hohenlychen. In the course of 1943 a medical conference took place at Hohenlychen among Professor Gebhardt, Health Senator Laue, the biochemical physician Dr. med. Kiesewetter, and Professor Schlenz, in which I participated. Laue and Schlenz represented the standpoint that the recognized surgical methods for the treatment of chronically purulent wounds should be supplanted by biochemical means and bath treatments. Laue was of the opinion that, according to the basic principle of biochemistry, all diseases originate in a deficiency of of certain minerals which normally exist in small quantities in the body and that the induction of these basic minerals highly diluted (in the case in question; calcium carbonicum 1:1,000,000, calcium fluoratum1:1,000,000; silicea 1:1,000,000) would cure these diseases. Although Professor Gebhardt and I could not confirm these findings, Professor Gebhardt charged me with the clinical scientific checking of this bio-chemical therapy and the bath tretement of clinic patients in the framework of our work on stimulation therapy, of course retaining the usual life-preserving therapy. Tests on clinic patients suffering from chronic diseases and late complications were clearly justified, as these methods were not applied at the beginning of a disease (accidental wounds, fresh injuries) but constituted additional treatments applied at the end of the cure.