The next document is RB 103. I offer it as Exhibit No. 42. This is an affidavit by Dr. Walter Mielenz who speaks about the gas decree of 1 March 1944. He states: "As far as I remember, the decree was worded approximately as follows:
'I have ordered my Commissioner General for the Medical and Health Service (Prof. Dr. Brandt) to take a major part in all matters concerning protection against chemical warfare (of the army and the civilian copulation) and to issue orders to the stations (military and civilian) established for this purpose. In questions of the protection of the civilian population against chemical warfare, he must obtain in advance the approval of the Reich Air Minister and Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe.'" The witness also says that there was no research assignment in connection with chemical warfare.
He also says that the initiation of chemical warfare was shortly to be expected because the enemy had large amounts of gas ready. He also confirms the presence of gas shells in Tunis and Dakar and says that there was great alarm by the capture of Russian gas masks because it was assumed that the Red Army had succeeded in introducing special chemical warfare agents. He also says that the civilian population was defenseless against gas attacks, that the supply of gas masks was completely inadequate, the average figure being about 32 percent, and for children about 7 percent. It was assumed that 15,000,000 civilian gas masks had already become quite useless so the civilian population was completely unprotected. Forty-five million gas masks would have had to be produced and that was the purpose of Brandt's assignment. According to the witness, Professor Brandt himself objected strenuously to the initiation of chemical warfare by Germany. The witness further speaks about N agent, which was not a gas. And then he speaks on another subject which is of interest to the proceedings, that is the removal of poison from drinking water. He says he knows there was a special commission in the Armaments Ministry for the decontamination of drinking water. This had neither been established by Brandt nor was it under his command. The task of this commission was the production of decontamination equipment.
He also says the work was discussed in a meeting in December 1944 at which he was present. Professor Brandt, who was present, already agreed with the general opinion that Haase's efforts, designer of the apparatus which was discussed here, would not constitute an improvement in present methods and should therefore be rejected. He had therefore asked me to work toward this end.
This is advanced against the charge that Karl Brandt had ordered drinking water experiments in the concentration camp.
There follows KB 122
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel-
DR. SERVATIUS: It has not been translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: I was calling this to your attention, the fact that this document was not contained--
DR. SERVATIUS: I can tell you briefly what the contents are. I can bring the document itself later. It is an affidavit of the witness Neff, who was a witness, and in cross examination I examined him. When I asked whether he actually had seen Karl Brandt at the concentration camp (he had previously stated that he recognized Brandt's striking face), now here he says the following: "About two months after this examination I met Professor Karl Brandt in the waiting room for prisoners. Professor Karl Brandt spoke to me, asked me whether I knew him. I said, 'Mr. Bartels?' then I mentioned another name, and then Professor Brandt said, 'But, Mr. Neff, you recognized me the other day, or spoke about me or something like that.' I don't know whether Professor Brandt or I mentioned his name. Then I said, 'Yes, I know you by sight.' Professor Brandt said he had certainly never been in Dachau. Then I said then, 'You must have a double.' Finally, Dr. Robert Servatius, who examined me before the Tribunal, I did not recognize again." Then the witness said, "Before the examination I was show a number of pictures of the defendants without being told what their names were. I looked at the pictures and when I came to the picture of Karl Brandt, whose name I didn't know, I said, 'That was a high ranking SS officer who was certainly in the hospital before 1942.
' I was then asked if I could pick out this person from a number of other persons and I answered that I could. And then I was about two weeks later in court and was asked if I recognized any of the defendants and I said, 'Among others I recognize the first one in the first row as the person whom I had seen in the hospital.' This was the first time that I heard the name Karl Brandt." I shall let the Court judge the value of this recognition. That was Document KB-122, Exhibit 43.
I now refer to Document KB-93 which is already offered as Exhibit 29 but it was not admitted at that time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I believe when this was offered as Exhibit 29 prosecution strenuously objected to the admission of this document in evidence, deeming it immaterial. I don't know whether Your Honors recall the extensive argument by counsel in this regard but I would again like to reiterate the objection on the part of prosecution to the admission of this document in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I consider it very important for this document to be admitted. The Tribunal gave me permission to send questionnaires to Professor McCance and Dr. Sabers, medical counsellor in Cologne. These questionnaires were received by these gentlemen but neither of them has answered. I assume the German gentleman has not as yet received permission by the authorities and the English gentleman isn't inclined to answer this questionnaire. Therefore, it is all the more important for me to submit this document. About the relevance of the document we have already argued. In my opinion the Reich Committee for the killing of deformed children is of decisive importance. One can see here that children, when they are incapable of living, are not subjected to euthanasia but something worse - that is, experiments. I don't think one can say parents voluntarily gave up children for this purpose. Then this case applies whether experiments on non-volunteers or whether conforms with medical science and ethics. We see here a foreign official agency issues an order that all German agencies pass the matter on with out scruples and that at a time when this trial has been going on for some time and everyone presumably has read about the terrible things in the press.
With this I want to prove that the real attitude of the medical profession is different than the press and propaganda. What the press publishes is only false propaganda which damages science and has some political aims. For that reason, in the interest of science I must offer this document and prove that Karl Brandt did nothing different that what is approved by highest authorities today. I feel this must be admitted.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I still don't see the value of the document. Furthermore, the document hasn't been authenticated as yet in a manner prescribed by the Tribunal. It may be an isolated document. Secondly, it isn't in outline as to the procedure used; it has not been substantiated; its materiality is in question. Whether it has any probative value or not I am not wishing to argue right at this point. I am arguing the authenticity of the document first of all, then the probative value later.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, on 22 May 1947 I received a letter from the Secretary General-
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this document is not available to the other members of the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I was under the impression that the Tribunal had ruled that if this document was properly authenticated it would be accepted into evidence and gave Dr. Servatius ample time to authenticate the document. That he hasn't done.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I was going to say this document not being available to all the members of the Tribunal the authenticity is not easy to study. I suggest that this be passed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, may I first explain. On 22 May 1947 the Secretary General wrote to me:
"Subject: Procurement of Documents.
"To : Dr. Servatius.
"Herewith copy of letter NR/PH 2457 dated 22 June 1946 from Deputy Regional Commissioner, North Rhine Region, to Oberpraesident, North Rhine Province, which has just been received from British authorities in Duesseldorf.
"For the Secretary General: R.E. Benford."
Copy is inclosed. This is an official statement and an official copy. I don't believe for formalism one can go so far as to ask Deputy Regional Commissioner Brigadier Wallace to have this certified. I shall hand you the document.
MR. HARDY: From this addition, Your Honor, which isn't in my document book, if he has had it properly authenticated, I withdraw my objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be accepted as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 29.
MR. HARDY: Of course, I did not withdraw my objection to the probative value. If the Tribunal deems it to have probative value, then, of course, it is admissible. I objected originally as to its authenticity.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is admitted as Exhibit 29. The probative value is before the Tribunal to decide. Counsel, of course, in their briefs, may argue pro and con on the matter of the probative value of the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as for the questionnaires sent out on this subject, I ask for permission to submit them later, if they should be received.
Mr. President, I should like to offer the following document No. 110, for the following reasons. In this document KB-93, speaking of McCance's experiments, it is said that they are harmless and painless; they are kidney function examinations. One has no idea of what that means and if the questionnaires are not answered we will be in the dark. Now, by pure coincidence, I happened to find an article in "The Lancet" by this Professor McCance, where one gets some idea of what is to be done by these children. It is said that these kidney function tests are best performed on human beings and then it is said that the study of the amount of sodium chloride in the body can be performed by an analysis of small animals, or upon analysis of fetuses and new born children. Then he goes on with his animals about examination of the kidney function. I believe that is important since Professor Ivy said here that if such experiments are performed they are not an evil. The analysis can be performed only when the children are dead.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, having looked over the rest of the documents in this particular complex in the sequence as Dr. Servatius wishes to introduce them, the Exhibit No. 29 that was just accepted into evidence and these other exhibits are all exhibits dealing with literature, literature on experiments and work in other countries. I now request that the Tribunal rule whether or not such literature will be admissible in toto and then whether or not each document will be admissible as it is introduced; this has been delayed by the Tribunal, and if so, it seems to me that perhaps all these could be put in together for all of the defendants.
Several of these are merely articles from Reader's Digest; "The Lancet" I do not know - I must ask counsel here - whether or not they are admissible, but first of all, before they are introduced, I think it would be incumbent upon the Tribunal to rule whether or not this type of evidence will be accepted. This has been delayed now and if the Tribunal rules that they will accept it then, of course, we can object to each document as it goes in. But it is my understanding that as yet the Tribunal has taken the position that they do not wish to rule as to the admissibility of any of this evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I wanted to comment on the question of literature later and offer some affidavits now on euthanasia and at the end bring up the question of literature.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that is perfectly all right, but this is going to come up with all the defendants and I wonder if the Tribunal is in a position to rule on that now, or does the Tribunal want to delay that further?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: With reference to these documents which are under consideration, being extracts from publications which are deemed relevant by counsel, the Tribunal will be inclined to admit in evidence extracts from publications which are approved medical journals, or publications which are recognized generally in the countries in which they are published by physicians and other persons as being responsible publications. That, of course, will require each document to be presented and considered by the Tribunal and the ruling made on each document as it may be offered.
When I spoke of responsible publications, I intended to say publications which are regarded as responsible insofar as medical matters and surgical matters are concerned.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I should like to say something of a fundamental nature about the admissibility of other documents over and beyond the ruling which the Tribunal just made. I should like the whole question to be examined from this point of view. The evidence in this trial refers to the entire legal aspect of the matter, because the prosecution asserts that the defendants have offended the principal penal laws of all civilized countries. There are no laws to this effect, ? even in America today. The witness Professor Ivy only said that a commission met which was going to make some regulations of an administrative sort. What the law actually is in the world we can only judge from what has happened. The situation is the same as it is in international law where the effort is made to ascertain international law. The I.M.T. maintained this law always existed and was simply drawing on it. In that case we must proceed as a legislature proceeds. We must have a view of this whole medical field as a whole and take into account the opinions of all, not only the authorities, but also the entire population. For that reason the statements made in the press in articles by less prominent authors are of great importance. They are all a reflec tion of real life.
We should try to ascertain the situation as a whole. This is a sort of mosaic, which must be assembled. You cannot take only authorities; you must take other voices, too, which are a part. The structure must include all of them. Only from the total facts can real life be seen and ascertained what the real opinion of humanity is.
THE PRESIDENT: As I stated, each document will be considered as it is presented. Suppose you reserve this argument until some document is presented and objected to. We can consider it as concrete when it is presented to the Tribunal as a document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I offer Document Karl Brandt No. 110 as Exhibit 44; that is the paper by Professor McCance in connection with experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that was published in "The Lancet"?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, and 1936 is the date, a paper by Professor McCance.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution any objection to the admission of this document?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution would like the defense counsel to state what is the reputation of "The Lancet", as I am not familiar with it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is. The reputation of the magazine is very good; it is an English medical journal.
MR. HARDY: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document No. 110 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 44.
DR. SERVATIUS: Karl Brandt Documents 121 and 117 are not yet translated into English. Karl Brandt No. 117 is an exhaustive document, a doctor's thesis of 1937 regarding the experiments effecting human beings.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, these documents will be considered when the Tribunal has before it the translation.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I will postpone putting in these documents.
Perhaps I can have it as early as tomorrow.
Now comes Document Karl Brandt 94; this will be Exhibit 45. This is an excerpt from the German Medical Weekly, an excerpt from the British Medical Journal 1945, an article by Frances Gardner. This is an article on artificially produced jaundice and its effect on rheumatic arthritis. The purpose of this document is to prove that jaundice is a non-hazardous disease and that volunteers, because it is not dangerous, are willing to submit to it.
The next document, Karl Brandt 105 and Karl Brandt 108, I shall put in as Exhibits 46 and 47. They deal with the same question.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel. Karl Brandt Document No. 94 will be admitted as Brandt Exhibit 45.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I put in Document KB 105, a work on hepatitis by Professor Neefe. It is an excerpt printed in the Medical Monthly; the article itself is from The American Journal of Medical Science 1945. This document is put to prove that hepatitis is not dangerous.
THE PRESIDENT: That document Brandt will be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 46.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then follows Karl Brandt 108, a paper on hepatitis by the same author, Professor Neefe, an excerpt from the Journal of the American Medical Association, 11 August 1945. This concerns itself with the question of voluntary consent in hepatitis and the volunteers in these experiments were conscientious objectors. It says that the experiments were made possible through the cooperation of the National Board of C.O.'s and the American Friends Service Committee. Volunteers were given hepatitis and I shall later deal with the question of voluntary consent.
THE PRESIDENT: That exhibit may be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit 47.
DR. SERVATIUS: I then put in Karl Brandt 109, an excerpt from the periodical "The Lancet" of 12 August 1944. It is entitled "Transmission of Infective Hepatitis to Human Volunteers". This I put in reference to the question of voluntary consent, too.
THE PRESIDENT: That document may be Karl Brandt Exhibit 48.
DR. SERVATIUS: Next comes Karl Brandt 104; I am not sure whether the Tribunal has that in English.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is contained in this book.
DR. SERVATIUS: This is an article from the Readers Digest of January 1947 entitled "I Starved for Science". This is an article from a fiction magazine which contains semi-scientific information also and there are some scientific works. This a report by a volunteer who, as a conscientious objector, went through a hunger experiment with 35 of his comrades. I out it in first of all in order to refute what Professor Ivy said, namely, that such experiments do not involve pain, simply minor unpleasantness.
MR. HARDY: I shall not object to the introduction of this document but, however, counsel should reserve any argument as to the probative value of this document for the arguments and then the probative value of the document can be determined by the Tribunal. The document is not refuting the testimony of Dr. Ivy. It can be seen it simply states how volunteers subjected themselves to dietic experiments. At the end everyone was happy and they had a whopping party. There is nothing in it to refute Professor Ivy's testimony; that is the reason I am not objecting to it. I think if he has any comment to make on the document it should be reserved for argument.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is not disposed to admit this offered article in evidence. It will not be received.
MR. HARDY: I understand it will not be received?
THE PRESIDENT: This offered exhibit will not be received in evidence.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, since I have similar documents here, may I please say the following: if I may use these documents only in my argument then I shall have to bring them to the attention of the Tribunal later in my concluding plea or not even then? Am I understanding you correctly?
THE PRESIDENT: The argument of counsel must be based upon evidence which is received and admitted before the Tribunal and not upon extraneous matters.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then Mr. President I am not in a position to base my argument on anything because I will have no practical case to refer to but must refer only to hypothetical cases. I think I must be given an opportunity to substantiate what I am going to present. I can not rely purely on theory.
THE PRESIDENT: That was what I am trying to say that the arguments of counsel are supposed to be based on the evidence which is before the Tribunal, from the facts and evidence which have been received. That is not limiting counsel's argument to theory but on the contrary gives counsel evidence which is before the Tribunal upon which to base his argument. Counsel, of course, in his argument may draw deductions from matters which are in evidence. He does not have to argue only the evidence. That matter can be taken up later if counsel is in doubt about the argument.
DR. SERVATIUS: I then come to Karl Brandt Document 106, this will be Exhibit 49.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, for the clarification of the record I want to inform the Tribunal that I did not formallv object to the admission of the last document.
THE PRESIDENT: I under and that.
DR. SERVATIUS: Karl Brandt 106 comes from the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. This is an essay by Arthur R. Cushny on Mustard Gas from the year 1918. It deals with the question of experiments with Lost Gas, the two methods of administration, in drops being one of them. I put this in because of the chart that is to be found in it, from which it can be seen that the experimental subjects went through it for altogether different periods, from a few seconds to ten minutes, and that here the experiments were of varying lengths of time. I intend to use this in my argument, refering to degrees of voluntary consent, namely, the persons desiring to volunteer for only one second, another person volunteers for the whole minutes. If you will look through the list you will see that the last ones are colored persons and that has something to do with the degree of voluntary consent.
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 106 is admitted in evidence as Brandt Exhibit No. 49.
DR. SERVATIUS: How comes KB 107, likewise an article from the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics of the year 1919. This also deals with mustard gas experiments. I put it in to prove that such experiments with Lost Gas have been customary in medicine since 1918.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 50.
DR. SERVATIUS: Next comes Karl Brandt 110. This will be Exhibit 51, an extract from the Archives of Pathological Anatomy and Physiology and Clinical Medicine, edited by Rudolf Virchow. This is an old periodical from the year 1885. This also deals with the question of voluntary consent. Here a case is described where children in the last stages of infection are experimented on and two of them die. It says: "I reserved to myself the continuation of further culture experiments and I shall not fail to report on any eventual, positive results." This again deals with the question of voluntary consent of children as far as it is considered possible at all.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted as Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 51.
DR. SERVATIUS: It would be expedient now if I would deal with Document Book III because there are a number of articles therein dealing with experiments
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel, wait just a moment.
DR. SERVATIUS: It begins with Document Karl Brandt 45.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, wouldn't it be more expedient and logical to carry on in this document book he has just given us and have the numbers in sequence so that we will have our document book in rather chronological order as to exhibit numbers and we won't have to jump from one to the other?
THE PRESIDENT: There is a question whether it will be simpler to follow in chronological order or through the exhibit books by subject matter.
MR. HARDY: It is immaterial to me, Your Honor. I can follow either way but it would seem simpler to follow through each book if we are going to hold a book together like that.
DR. SERVATIUS: This is a case of expediency.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will follow the suggestion by counsel for Karl Brandt and will now take up Document Book III.
DR. SERVATIUS: As Exhibit 52, I should like to put in Karl Brandt 45. This is an extract from the book "Man against Death" by Paul de Kruif, which is certainly known to the Tribunal. The last two documents are also from a book by Paul de Kruif, the second book being -
MR. HARDY: The last three documents which are extracts from books by Paul de Kruif, the prosecution strenuously objects to. It is fiction and nothing in the book is based on medical facts and as Dr. Ivy pointed out from the stand he couldn't give an opinion on matters of this type in as much as it is not approved medical literature.
It is written for purposes of the lay reader and not written for the purpose of this Tribunal or for the purposes of physicians and medical studies.
DR. SBRVATIUS: May I say something in this regard? Your Honors, the public opinion is not formed by the reading of scientific works, but a book like Paul de Kruif's is known through the world. It can be purchased anywhere and humanity does not ask what the eminent Professor so and so said but bases its opinion on what Paul de Kruif tells him. This opinion has a great influence again on the general opinion of the government representatives in turn since they represent the population. If you would ask anyone's opinion on the medical question he would e.g. refer to this book.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear the last, was that a translation of a previous statement or wa.s it only the Interpreter repeating?
INTERPRETER: I said that this book was written for general public, in order to make these ideas understandable to the public as a whole, and has much greater dispersion than a scientific work that a scholar draws up in his study, consequently I believe that it has probative value because it represents public opinion as a whole and should be admitted into evidence.
MR. HARDY: I might ask, Your Honors, what is the purpose of these documents, if that is the purpose of the documents, if it is the purpose to show that like experiments, that the same type of experiments are being conducted as in Germany there might be some consideration, but I can't see for which purpose Dr. Servatius has expressed that he wants them admitted.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, as far as I know, Paul de Kruif is a professor of biology; he is not a layman. In this book, experiments are described in a clear way; these descriptions give a clear insight into what has happened in the last 30 years. He describes the problem that lies behind tho experiments and the difficulties; he gives details also. From many cases here I can approach the question of voluntary consent. For instance, the case of the plastic surgery experiments on the prisoner, where lawyers had to be called in to determine whether the prerequisite of voluntary consent existed. Now Paul do Kruif shows it is not the doctor who decides this and has the responsibility by the director of the prison, in other words, the State. These statements must be admitted as evidence. I could, if necessary, go into this in detail in order to demonstrate this to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the probative value of all exhibits will be before the Tribunal to consider.
MR. HARDY: I did not hear, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I said the probative value of these exhibits will be before the Tribunal to consider and this offered exhibit will be admitted.
MR. HARDY: Now I understood we were discussing the 3 exhibits by Paul de Kruif, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is a book. Considering Karl Brandt Document 45.
MR. HARDY: And Document 46, which is also from the same book? And Document 47, written by Paul de Kruif, "Hunger Fighters" which is a fictional story about tho pellagra experiments does that also come under your Honors' ruling?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made some examination of Karl Brandt Document Book 3 and of the documents offered in that book; they will all be admitted in evidence for what they may be worth, except Karl Brand Document 49, Karl Brandt Document 55 and Karl Brandt Document 74, which will be rejected.
DR. SERVATIUS: Would you be so good as to repeat those documents numbers, your Honor -- the ones that are not admissible?
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 49.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case KB-45 becomes Exhibit 52, 46 becomes Exhibit 53 and 47 becomes Exhibit 54. The next, 48.....
THE PRESIDENT: Karl Brandt Document 55 will not be admitted.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in connection with all these various documents which Dr. Servatius is introducing to show that non-volunteers were used in other countries, it is the opinion of the Prosecution that the burden of proof is on Dr. Servatius to point out in each one of those publications wherein the description, the status of the subjects used, is elicited; and if the article does not specify this so that we are unable to ascertain whether or not the subjects were volunteers or were non-volunteers, it is clearly irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: The probative value of these will be before the Tribunal. Of course, the burden rests upon defendant Brandt, in his brief, to show the probative value of such portions of those documents and what probative value they have.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution does not clearly understand what each document is introduced for and we would like to have that pointed out whether they are introduced to show whether they were non-volunteers in America or whether they are introduced to show they were volunteers and whether they were conducted so that deaths occurred, or what is the purpose?
THE PRESIDENT: That burden rests upon the defendant, Karl Brandt. Karl Brandt Document 73 is not admitted in evidence. Now the numbers of these exhibits may be put on later. The others are admitted in sequence.
DR. SERVATIUS: I should like to go through these documents in a general way, or does the Tribunal prefer that I reserve this for my final plea?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel can do that more effectively in his brief or in a separate brief devoted to this branch of the case.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. I do not understand how the exhibits are to be numbered. From Document Book 3 all documents are admitted except 55, 49 and 74?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct, counsel.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then May we put down exhibit numbers. 48 is Exhibit 55; 50 becomes 56; 5l.........
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, did you read that into the record? Were the stenographers getting that?
JUDGE SEBRING: Counsel, by your leave, the Tribunal will read into the record the manner and the order in which they will receive those exhibits so that it may be quite clear.
Karl Brandt Document 45 will be received as Karl Brandt Exhibit 52.
Document 46 as Exhibit 53, Document 47 as Exhibit 54, Document 48 as Exhibit 55, Document 50 as Exhibit 56, Document 51 as Exhibit 57, Document 52 as Exhibit 58, Document 53 as Exhibit 59, Document 54 as Exhibit 60, Document 56 as Exhibit 6l, Document 57 as Exhibit 62, Document 58 as Exhibit 63, Document 59 as Exhibit 64, Document 60 as Exhibit 65, Document 61 as Exhibit 66, Document 62 as Exhibit 67, Document 63 as Exhibit 68, Document 64 as Exhibit 69, Document 65 as Exhibit 70, Document 66 as Exhibit 71, Document 67 as Exhibit 72, Document 68 as Exhibit 73, Document 69 as Exhibit 74, Document 70 as Exhibit 75, Document 71 as Exhibit 76, Document 72 as Exhibit 77, Document 73 as Exhibit 78, Document 75 as Exhibit 79 and Document 76 as Karl Brandt Exhibit 80.
DR. SERVATIUS: And now, your Honors, I should like to turn back to my first supplemental volume. Here are some documents referring to biological warfare.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution objects to the next 3 documents being admitted. The Tribunal could consider then and rule on it without any further comment by the Prosecution.
DR. SERVATIUS: In regard to these documents....I put in KB-118, an article from Popular Science entitled "Germ Weapons were Ready". This concerns bacteriological warfare and I intend to put it in in reference to the question of humanity. One of the main charges of the Prosecution is that the defendants acted contrary to the laws of humanity. If you cast a glance on the bacteriological warfare that was prepared here and the discussion in this document, you must compare that with what the defendants are charged with. Aside from the fact that bacteriological warfare is also a Count in the indictment; although it is not specified precisely what the defendants are alleged to have actually done in bacteriological warfare. I can only state that here in these articles it is clearly stated what happened on the other side. It can be seen from this that it was much more that the Prosecution is charging the defendants with.
That is the reason I wish to put it in. The fact that it appeared in a popular pseudo scientific magazine docs not, in my opinion, minimize its probative value. Just the opposite, it proves how popular these ideas were. I should like, at the same time, to put in document 124. That would be Exhibit 82. There it says that the Japanese.......