A. No.
Q. Is the second Dietsch document Professor Rose has been mentioned. Did you discuss this question with him?
A. I have never discussed it with him at any time.
Q. Now as a precaution as Defense Counsel, I would like to ask you the following question: Will you please read the last sentence of the first entry which states: "Since animal experiment does not permit a sufficient evaluation, the experiments must be carried out on human beings." Now let us assume that this statement had been made in your discussions in this way. How would you have interpreted it?
A. If I read over the sentence and I do not know anything about the incidents as they have been presented by the prosecution, as they are stated in the document here, I would not find anything at all which would cause me to be shocked because I would assume that the word "experiment", which more and were seems to an unfortunate word -- he solely states that the mass experiment and the mass use of human beings must take place in order to finally reach the clarification about its effectiveness as a preventative on the whole which was still lacking, and I can point out in this respect that in an article by Geheimrat Otto, who in 1939 discovered this vaccine and the writes in this article: the Weigl vaccine which is being produced in Krakow, in China and still in some other city, has already proved itself for many years even on a large-scale use on human beings. The egg yolk vaccine has proved itself effective in laboratory experiments and in experiments on animals. The practical experience to a large extent is still lacking. That was written in an article which comes from the end of 1942 or the first part of 1943.
Q. Is it correct that this Otto vaccine was produced in 1941, '42, '43 and so on?
A. I can only actually speak about 1941.
Q. Was it only to a small extent?
A. Yes, by the Behring Works, by the Robert Loch Institute and by Dr. Otto himself.
Q. I shall now present and document. The Prosecution asked: I only want to know the following from you in this connection; it is possible that a vaccine of this kind also proves itself in relatively large individual experiments with three or four hundred people. Does this individual experiment not offer proof of the fact that it cannot possibly be danger us in a large-scale experiment?
A. I have not understand the last part of your question.
Q. I mean the circumstance that a vaccine when it is applied to three or four hundred people in a single experiment, does it not offer proof and legitimation of the fact that it can be applied on a large scale?
A. Yes, this quite applies with regards to its compatibility, but we must with every vaccine differentiate between the effects and its compatibility. With regard to the compatibility, in my opinion no doubt existed anymore with regard to the egg yolk vaccine, but people have different reactions to these vaccines, and if something of this kind is to be introduced with the Wehrmacht where millions of people are affected -- for example, until 1943 more than one million people has already been vaccinated with the Weigl vaccine, and this was still being continued. Millions were being vaccinated with it, and after all, millions would have to be vaccinated with this new vaccine. Then I need a more positive and more stable basis from a large-scale experiment which has to include at least one thousand people.
Q. How did you do it with the Army Medical Inspect rate in other cases?
A. First of all, as we did it with Rogrschutz vaccine, we first of all made a small experiment with ten people in the academy, or first of all several dozen may have been included, and then after the good compatibility and the harmlessness of the vaccine had been determined, a troop experiment was made with a certain unit, and then it was exactly observed first how many people were unable to perform duty for how long or because of what complications, and the afterwards situation was in the body of the person as a result of the vaccination, and when this result also was satisfactory besides the results of the compatibility, then before it was introduced, I reported to my military commanders about it, and then I vouched for the fact that the people would not become sick through any complications arising from the vaccination and that an immunization would be achieved within the time limits which all these vaccines have.
Q. Now, how do you explain the fact that at the beginning of 1942 the experiments were carried out in Buchenwald of which you have heard here?
A. Well, first of all, I must assume that this was done as it has been stated. However, I am not in a position to judge that in anyway because I do not have any basis for it.
Q. In itself, there cannot be any doubt that infections were actually caused? Or, on the basis of the presentation of evidence, do you have any objection to that?
A. As far as I know, I have not received any positive basis for it so far.
Q. You believe that you cannot make any judgment?
A. No, I can only make assumptions; they are not always good to use.
Q. In the affidavit of Balachowsky, document number 484, which is exhibit 91 of the Prosecution, document book 12, page 64, you will find the following entry:
"Paragraph 4: In the chief committee of this department"--and I add "block 46, Buchenwald" --"the following persons are located:
"Dr. Handloser, Inspector-General of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht.
"Dr. Conti, Dr. Poppendick, and Dr. Genzken.
On this so-called Chief Committee, persons were instructed by you, Dr. Poppendick, and Dr. Genzken.
Do you know anything about such chief committee?
A. In connection with this I can only report that I do not know the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, that I do not know the Institute for Typhus Research at Buchenwald, and that I have never had any contact with it. Therefore, I cannot have been a member of any superior committee, of which I have never even heard.
DR. NELTE: May it please the Tribunal, after the conclusion of this complex, I would like to present the following documents:
First of all, I would like to present an affidavit by Professor Reiter. It is document HA-25; it is located in my document book at page 38, and I present it as Exhibit 10 to the Tribunal.
MR. MCHANEY: With respect to the affidavit of Reiter, the prosecution reserves the right specifically in this case to call the witness and subject him to cross-examination --- he is right here in Nurnberg in jail; or, as an alternative, we reserve the right to submit a cross-affidavit from Reiter.
In order that there be no misunderstanding, I would like to have it understood that the prosecution reserves suck a right with respect to any of the affidavits being submitted, and that it will not be necessary for me to make that reservation on each occasion.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution may have the right to either call the affiant as a witness or to put in another affidavit or statement by the witness.
DR. NELTE: I only want to point out that Professor Reiter has answered the question that he participated in any conference, as it is stated in the Ding diary, on the 29th of December, 1941. He has stated in this connection: "I have not participated in any conference with this group of persons dealing with this subject." He further states that discussions about typhus did take place, but not in the way stated in the diary. I therefore request that this document be accepted as -
MR. MCHANEY: (Interposing): I ask that defense counsel be directed to read this complete affidavit into the record. he has merely paraphrased certain portions of it. It is quite apparent, on reading the affidavit as a whole, that Reiter himself admits that he did attend a meeting on or about the date mentioned in the Ding diary. He goes on to state that there was some indication that there might be some suspicious experiments carried out.
I think it only fair that this affidavit be read into the record, since he is offering it.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion of the Prosecution is appropriate. The entire exhibit will be read into the record.
DR. NELTE: "I, Professor Dr, Reiter, have been warned that I will be subject to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that my testimony corresponds to the truth and was given in order to be submitted in evidence to Military Tribunal I, Nurnberg, Palace of Justice.
"The defense counsel of Professor Dr. Handloser, Dr. Otto Nelte, has quoted to me the entry in the diary of the Section for Typhus and Virus Research of the Waffen SS, Buchenwald, of 29 December 1941, as follows", and I quote:
"Conference of Medical Inspector, Generaloberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Handloser.
"Reich Health Leader, State Secretary, SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Cont "President Professor Reiter, Reich Health Office.
"President Professor Gildemeister, of the Robert Koch Institute, Reich Institution for Combatting Contagious Diseases.
"SS Standartenfuehrer lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Hygiene Instiute of the Waffen SS in Berlin.
"The conclusion was reached that it is necessary to test the compatibility and effectiveness of typhus vaccines made from chicken vitelline sacs. Since animal experiments do not permit adequate evaluation, experiments must be conducted on human beings." End of quotation.
"In answer to the question of whether I participated in this conference, I declare to the best of my knowledge and belief:
"I did not participate in a conference with this group of persons and with this result.
"I should like to add, by way of explanation, that the typhus problem and the danger threatening Germany caused serious concern at the end of 1941 among all authorities having any responsibility for public health. According to my recollection, I participated in one meeting at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 which dealt with the typhus vaccine situation.
"This was one of the customary meetings in the Reich Ministry of the Interior designed to enlighten the head of the Health Section on a specific question. n general it can be said that Dr. Conti, who called these meetings and presided over them, reached his decis ions independently, on the basis of the reports made to him according to the leadership principle.
' "In addition to Dr. Conti, Dr. Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute and Dr. Linden were present at the meeting on the typhus vaccine situation, as far as I can recall.
I cannot remember that Professor Handloser or any other representative of the Wehrmacht was present, nor whether any special SS representative attended. At this meeting Professor Gildemeister gave an orientation report to the Reich Health Leader, Dr. Conti, emphasizing the essential difference between the typhus vaccine produced in Lwow and Cracow by the Weigl method and the vaccine produced at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin under the direction of Professor Gildemeister, according to the method of Geheimrat Dr. Otto of Frankfurt-am-Main. There followed a discussion in which the effect of the tested vaccine produced by the OKH Institute in Cracow and Lwow was particularly recognized, while the effect of the Otto vaccine was reported as being not so certain.
"The conference was broken off by Dr. Conti with the remark that he would discuss this question in the future with Professor Dr. Gildemeister alone.
"I did not attend any other discussion of this subject. The entry in the so-called diary of the Section for typhus and Virus Research can therefore not refer to the above-mentioned discussion.
"In the meeting which I mentioned, no conclusion was reached, as given in the entry. This is especially true of the following sentence: 'Since animal experiments do not permit adequate evaluation, experiments must be conducted on human beings.'
"Nor was anything said at this discussion of transferring experiments with typhus vaccine to the SS; that is, to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen SS. Nor did I hear anything later on about the Section for Typhus and Virus Research, nor of the name Dr. Ding.'
"Nurnberg, 24 January 1947. Signed: Professor Dr. Reiter.
"The above affidavit was signed on 24 January 1947 personally in my presence by Professor Dr. Reiter."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal desires to announce that at the close of the session tomorrow afternoon the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 Tuesday morning. This is done on account of conflicts with other Tribunals, so the recess at the end of the session tomorrow afternoon will be until 9:30 o'clock Tuesday morning.
The Counsel may proceed.
DR. NELTE: Another document on the subject, I submit an affidavit of Doctor Genzken. HA-26, Document Book 2, page 41. I offer this Document as Exhibit 11. It contains the statement of the defendant, Doctor Genzken, that he did not belong to any committee such as Balachowsky mentioned, and no such committee existed. I ask that this be accepted as Exhibit 11.
There are the same statements in the affidavit for Doctor Poppendick. This is Document HA-27, in Document Book 2, page 42. It also says, "I never belonged to a committee or central committee and I do not know of any such committee or central committee." I ask that this be accepted as Exhibit 12.
The third participant in this committee was Professor Mrugowsky, and I also offer an affidavit from him as Document HA-24, in the Document Book 2, page 25. This will be Exhibit 13, and in agreement with the Prosecution, I will not read this affidavit, but only refer to its contents. It contains arguments to the effect that on the 29th of December 1941, no such discussion took place, and it also explains the name for Typhus and Virus Research. Mrugowsky points out that the name which was announced to the Krakow Institute did not mean there was any official connection with the Krakow Institute. I ask that this Document be accepted as Exhibit 13.
Finally I submit a Document from Professor, Doctor Otto, who has several times been mentioned by the defendant on the witness stand. He is the inventor of the Typhus vaccine from chicken eggs. The essential point of this affidavit is to prove that in 1941, the Typhus vaccine produced from the intestines of lice, according to the Weigl method, is produced at OKH Institute in Krakow, and was the best vaccine at that time and did not require any experimentation.
I submit this affidavit, HA-44, as Exhibit 14. This affidavit is in Document Book 3, which unfortunately has not yet been translated and is not yet available.
THE PRESIDENT: This affidavit of Doctor Otto, where is it Doctor Nelte?
DR. NELTE: It is in Document Book 3 which is not yet available. It will be Exhibit 14 and 14-A; 14-A is a special reprint from a medical journal which the defendant Professor Handloser mentioned.
MR. McHANEY: The Prosecution, of course, reserves the right to object to the admissability of this document when it is available in English. I have not seen it.
THE PRESIDENT: The admissability of the document will not be considered until it is before the Tribunal and examined by the Prosecution.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, the document is available only the translation is not yet ready.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but it is not available to the Tribunal nor to the Prosecution, as I understand it, at this time.
DR. NELTE: Then, I ask that this number be reserved for this document.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q Professor Handloser, you mentioned the name, Gildemeister, with whom you had discussions at the end of 1941 concerning Typhus vaccines; is that true?
A Yes.
Q Professor Gildemeister is also mentioned in the Ding diary several times in the year 1942 as having visited Buchenwald, and Block 46. In order to clarify this, I ask you did Professor Gildemeister ever tell you of these experiments in Buchenwald, and the methods used in Buchenwald?
A No, never.
Q Doctor Kogon, in his testimony, assorted there was a connection between the Typhus and Virus research at Buchenwald and the Military Medical Academy. He asserted that because Doctor Ding was at the meeting of the consulting specialists in May 1943, and made a speech in which he said that there was a connection between Buchenwald and the military Medical Academy.
Will you please clear up this matter?
A Between the Military Medical Academy and the meetings, there was only one connection; that is, the Academy made its rooms available for the meeting, nothing else.
Q Did you heard Doctor Ding's speech at the Academy in May 1943?
A No, this speech was given to the group of Hygienest, and I did not participate in this group.
Q Was it reported to you?
A I heard that Rosa, in the discussion which followed, raised an objection, but that was not reported to me at that time.
Q Did you not learn of it privately either?
A. No.
Q To explain further a connection between Block 46 at Buchenwald and the Military Medical Academy, Dr. Kogon referred to the entry in the Ding diary which speaks of the control, the testing of the blood conserves. I will read you only one of the total of three entries. "22 September '43: test of blood serum preserves. 16 January '44: on behalf of the Military Medical Academy, 18 ampules of blood serum were tested on 18 experimental subjects. 17 February '44: records of tests sent off." Then there is another such entry on the 25th of January '44 and on the 22nd of May '44.
Can you say anything about this, that is, about the fact that the Military Medical Academy sent blood serum to Buchenwald to be tested on human beings there?
A No, I can say nothing about that. I did not know of the event or the reasons for it.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, at this point I should like to submit the affidavit of Prof. Dr. Kenrad Lang as HA-38 in Document Book 2, Page 56. Dr. Lang, whom I asked for an affidavit as the only request I had to make of him, answered the following:
"I, Kenrad Lang, herewith state under oath the following facts, which I know from personal knowledge: The serum conserves produced by the Army Medical Academy were supplied to the army from 1941 on and later also to the navy and the Waffen SS. All physicians using it were instructed to report about the therapeutic success, the compatibility, and possible incidence so that experiences could be collected. Therefore, a questionnaire was attached to each ampule. When filled out, it had to be returned to the Military Medical Academy directly. In addition to that, some university clinics, municipal hospitals and army hospitals currently received ampules for scientific testing and research. Also, all medical offices which were supposed to collect their own experiences before application on a large scale received ampules for experimental purposes.
"The Military Medical Academy did not commission the Waffen SS to test serum conserves on prisoners. The entry in the Ding diary that serum conserves were to be tested upon request of the Military Medical Academy and again that in the examination findings were to be sent away I can only explain by stating that all offices which used serum conserves were generally instructed to report on success, compatibility, and possible incidence. The Military Medical Academy never received any reports which showed that they emanated from concentration camps. I learned from conversations that the SS carried out on its own initiative the development of blood conserves and blood substitutes.
"The good compatibility and durability of the serum conserves produced by the Military Medical Academy was proved by 1941 and documented in scientific publications. From the many thousands of reports, one did not learn of a single case which showed permanent damage to health or a fatality caused by these serum conserves.
Q I have read the one page of this affidavit carefully and signed it with my own hand..." and so forth. It is certified by a notary on the 15th of January 1947.
I ask that this be accepted as Exhibit 15.
Q Now, I come to the individual cases where it must be examined as to what your connection was as the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service with the research conducted in the branches of the Wehrmacht. The individual branches of the Wehrmacht, as we know, had their own research institutes. You have spoken about this already. You have said that these were primarily specific experiments. Will you please tell me briefly what your powers were on the basis of the decree of 1942 in the field of research which we have not yet mentioned?
A It is nowhere set down precisely. Even after 1944 there was never any authorization or influence from me as chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service on the specific fields of research of the Luftwaffe and the navy. These were fields which were specifically connected with these branches of the Wehrmacht and were thus automatically eliminated from my duties, which were to coordinate the joint fields of work.
I can, therefore, only say that I was neither informed about the work of these branches of the Wehrmacht nor did I have any supervision or other influence on this work.
Q But now it has been shown that the Luftwaffe, for example, carried on research which one cannot call specific Luftwaffe problems, for example, the typhus question. What is your viewpoint on this question?
A Scientific medical research is a subject which is not subject to military orders. It was never the intention and under the decree of '44 it would not have resulted that the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service was to prevent work's being done in general fields of research by anyone interested and capable; that he was to be eliminated by an order that he could not do it; that all others could do it.
My assignment of '44 is to be interpreted to mean that unnecessary duplication, where it is absolutely clear, and the use of personnel and materials unnecessarily, are to be avoided as far as possible. I was to consult the medical chiefs of the various branches of the Wehrmacht and their scientific consultants and find whether and how we could centralize the matter.
Q If I understand you correctly, you did not have the duty in such a case of coordinating but you could have coordinated if it had been expedient for this field of research.
A First, if I had learned of it and, second, if according to my information I had the impression that this was unnecessary duplication, then I would have tried to prevent this duplication.
Q Did you learn of the typhus research which the air force carried on?
A. No.
Q I must point out to you that in the typhus document book experiments are mentioned, conducted by Prof. Haagen, Strasbourg, on behalf of the air force and the Reich Research Council. Do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q Please take this document and lock at Page 77 in this document book.
That is Document NO-306, Exhibit 296 of the prosecution. It is a letter from Prof. Rose to Prof. Haagen.
A May I ask for the page again?
Q Page 77, Page 74 in the English document book. The prosecution believes that they see in this letter a connection with you, as chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, to the typhus research in Strassbourg. What do you have to say about that?
A It says here that the inspector of the medical service of the air force is to approach the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service with the request to have typhus vaccines produced for the Wehrmacht. I can only say that the application made to the inspector was not realized. It did not come to my attention as the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service. This suggestion to vaccinate the whole Eastern Front is new to me.
Q You will find in the book before you on page 79, a document, No. 137, Exhibit 298, page 76 in the English Book. That is an application of Professor Haagen to the Director of the University at Strasbourg with reference to five research assignments. Do you know these research assignments?
A That is on page 80?
Q No, Page 79*.
A No, I do not know these assignments.
Q Will you please look in the document book on page 74. This is Document No. 370, Exhibit 292 of the Prosecution. This is an affidavit of the defendant, Rudolf Brandt, which Brandt gave to the Prosecution. Ideals with experiments in the concentration camp Natzweiler. The defendant, Rudolf Brandt, told the Prosecution the following:
"Obergruppenfuehrer, Dr. Karl Brandt, Reich Commissioner for Health and Sanitation, General Assistant of Siegfried Handloser, Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht," and so forth and so forth, "naturally knew of the experiments by Haagen on human subjects. These men were informed of all fundamental events in the medical scientific research and these experiments could not have been carried out without their knowledge and approval". What do you have to say about this affidavit?
A I can only say that Rudolf Brandt was mistaken. I do not know where he got the evidence for this statement.
Q Mr. President, In this connection I submit Document HA 14 in my Document book 2, page 24, Rudolf Brandt here declares in connection with what I have just read from his affidavit No. 370 I quote:
"This paragraph of my affidavit does not give actual facts. I cannot cite any concrete fact which could corroborate the opinion. On the basis of the interrogator's statement I assumed that this coincided with the actual fact."
I ask that this affidavit be accepted as Exhibit No. 16.
Now, since the Prosecution has dropped the charges of high altitude experiments, we come to the cold experiments. Were cold experiments conducted under your authority?
A Yes, cold experiments were conducted by the Army Medical School in St. Johann.
These cold experiments concerned the adaptation to cold in the mountains for mountain troops. As far as I know they were carried out exclusively on German soldiers. I did not become aware that any of them suffered any harm from the experiments.
Q Mr. President, in this connection, I should like to submit Document HA 17. This is an excerpt from an essay concerning investigations on adaptation to cold.
Document, HA 29, it is in document book 3, document HA 49, which is in document book 3, and is not yet available to the Tribunal. This article which was written by Dr. Dramer, who has been mentioned several times here, concerns the experiments in the Mountain Physiological Institute at the Mountain Medical School at St. Johann, which was under the defendant, Professor Handloser, and contains an exact description of how these experiments were conducted, and it states that they were conducted on our own people, our own soldiers. With the customary reservation, I ask that this article, which the author mentioned in an affidavit by Dr. Kramer, I ask that ****e submitted as Exhibit No. 17. Now the Prosecution has present **** excerpt from the report of the meeting concerning winter distress and distress at sea on the 26th and 27th of October, 1942, in Nurnberg. I shall have you shown the document book on the cold experiments. It is Document No. 401, exhibit 93 of the Prosecution, and in Document Book 3, page 86. You will find there a list of the participants in this meeting. In this meeting, Dr. Kramer from St. Johann's --
THE PRESIDENT: What was the number, please, the number of the document?
DR. NELTE: Document 401, Exhibit 93, page 79. It is a Prosecution Document, your Honor, Document Book No. 3, page 79.
BY DR. NELTE:
Q Did you ever receive a report on the lecture of Professor Holzlochner at this meeting?
A No.
Q Following this meeting there seems to have been contact between Dr. Kramer as the officer of the Army Mountain Medical School and Dr. Rascher, the well known experimenter at Dachau. Was anything reported to you or did you learn anything of this contact?
A It was not reported to me either officially, or unofficially, any connection between Kramer and Rascher.
Q Was the connection between the Army Mountain Medical School and the Organization at Dachau reported to you?
A No, and I should like to say that I am convinced that the very strict Command Officer of the Mountain Medical School at St. Johann would certainly have reported that to the Army Medical Inspectorate.
Q Mr. President, I should like to submit an affidavit of Dr. Kramer and also of Dr. Schaeffer. Dr. Kramer says the following, and I quote. That is Document HA 37, document book 2, page 53. Dr. says the following:
"I attended as a representative of the Army Mountain Medical School the conference on the problems of low temperatures which was hold in Nurnberg in the fall of 1942. I listened to the lecture by Professor Holzlochner and the remarks made during the discussion by Dr. Rascher. On my way back to St. Johann, I happened to share until Munich, the compartment with Dr. Rascher. Only once Dr. Rascher mentioned briefly his experiments and described them in the following way:
1. Experimental subjects: They were hardened criminals sentences to death who had volunteered for the Dachau experiments to be given life and liberty having passed through the experiment.
2. Experiments: The arrangements for the scientifically conducted experiments was such that the experimental subjects survive if possible.
3. Results: As life-preserving measure for people who have been exposed to low temperatures, a hot bath of approximately 50 degrees is most feasible. To what an extent the description by Rascher is in accordance with the one given by him and Professor Holzloehner at the conference, or went beyond it, I can no longer recall.
In well calculated contrast to those experiments with human beings, which my collaborators and I opposed, and which, as far as I know, were never approved by the Army Medical Inspectorate either, I outlined for Dr. Rascher the manner how we, in St. Johann, had planned the experiments concerning adjustment to cold, and how we had made preparations for them with animal experiments.
Only now did I learn from Document No. 1519-PS that Dr. Rascher pictured those ideas as his own and that he claimed that I desired to cooperate with him. I pointed out I sent this document to Dr. Kramer at St. Johann.
"In St. Johann, we conducted experiments as to the adjustment to cold using ourselves and soldiers of the Army Mountain Medical School as experimental subjects, as described in the attached study taken from the Clinical Weekly Review."
That is the document which I submitted.
"Even after Dr. Rascher's letter of 12 November 1942, no further connection with Dr. Rascher or a collaboration with him, which could have been arranged only through the Army Medical Inspectorate, was accomplished. As far as I remember that letter was never answered.
"The further collaboration which Dr. Rascher wanted was supposed to consist of Dr. Rascher borrowing scientific machinery and tools from the institution at St. Johann. I particularly remember that he asked whether it might be possible to make available a Haldane apparatus for the analysis of respiratory gases. The loan of any appliances from our institute would have necessitated a written request from Dr. Rascher which had to be submitted for decision to the Army Medical Inspectorate. Such an application of Dr. Rascher, as far as I know, never reached St. Johann whereupon it was necessary to and a report to the Army Medical Inspectorate. Neither did I submit a report about the Nurnberg conference to the Army Medical Inspectorate.
"I informed Dr. Schaefer, who at that time was my commander, on the conversation with Dr. Rascher and his letter to me.
"In conclusion I would like again to emphasize that at no time any collaboration between Dr. Rascher and the Mountain Physiological Institute of the Army Mountain Medical School which I conducted, was brought about because we did not desire it nor apply for it."
I ask that this Affidavit be accepted as Exhibit 18.
The next exhibit is the Affidavit of Dr. Schaefer, the Commanding Officer of the Medical School - Document HA-42 - Document Book II, page 66.
MR. McHANEY: This document appears on page 66 of Handloser Document Book. Prosecution objects to its admissibility on the grounds that it is not sworn to nor certified before a Notary Public or Dr. Nelte as defense counsel.
DR. NELTE: I do not know whether Mr. McHaney has seen this certificate of the Notary Knobloch on the original. The affidavit is certified as follows: "I certified herewith the above signature of Dr. med. Wilhelm Otto Schaefer of Bad Salzhausen who identified himself by his new German Identity Card, D 144 06 issued by the Landratsamt in Buedingen, 30 September 1946.