I am thinking of the blood building system of the body. If one were to radiate the whole body with the dose necessary for irradiating the reproductive glands, the person would probably die of a severe blood disease. Another possibility is poison, which also effects specifically quickly growing tissue. As an example I would like to mention Benzol. When these poisons are introduced into the human body, there is no way of controlling the effect. If, for example, Benzol is administered to a human being the reproductive glands are damaged it is true, but before this can take effect, the blood building organs which react similarly, are damaged even more severely, and the human being dies. We have the picture of chronical Benzol poisoning very frequently as an industrial disease. In most such cases we have no complaint about sterilizing effect. Another way of affecting the reproductive glands is to interrupt the sexual life of the organism. One can perform an operation in the central nervous system at a certain spot. That is, of course, not acceptible for practical sterilization. One can do the same by removing the pitituary gland, the hypophysis. It is important for the activity of the reproductive glands. That is also a very difficult operation and very frequently brings about the death of the experimental animal, but one can also administer the hormones produced by this gland to the human gland in larger quantities and thus the regularting mechanism is disturbed. We distinguish two hormones, Prolan A and Prolan B.
MR. HARDY: May it please, Your Honor, I just can't understand the purpose of this testimony. Is this witness an expert on the subject of sterilization or is he testifying as to facts concerning Pokorny's implications in the experiments, or is he testifying as to the reliability of the Madaus Company, or to the effect of caladium segunium?
If he is testifying to the effect of caladium segunium, I don't think the other discussion is necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal shares the doubt expressed by the Prosecuting attorney, so far the point of this witness's testimony is not easily discernible. Just what is the purpose of it, counsel? If the witness is going to read a long document it might be better if it were presented in the form of an affidavit and put into the document book.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I believe that this expert witness had already finished his general statements. I consider his last statements of value, which refer to specific and non-specific sterilization.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning what phase of the issues before the court is the witness to testify to?
DR. HOFFMANN: The witness is to testify that specific sterilization is impossible for caladium.
THE PRESIDENT: Then instruct the witness to proceed to give testimony on that subject.
Q Witness, you have heard, please speak of the possibility of sterilization on the organism as a whole, and not on the reproductive glands specifically.
A I shall be briefer. I thought it was necessary to go into some detail, because in my opinion the sterilizing effect of caladium can not be understood, and the basis of the procedure can not be understood, unless one is informed as to how human beings and animals can be sterilized at all. If one does not understand sterilization in general one can fall into the error of feeling this is a relative specific work.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, just a moment.
Counsel, why would this testimony not be more effective if prepared in the form of an affidavit and put into a document book. I can assure you it adds nothing to testimony such as this to have it repeated in open court.
It is even more useful to the Tribunal if it is in the form of an affidavit in the document book, unless the prosecution attorney cares to cross examine the witness.
MR. HARDY: I have no desire to cross-examine this witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it seems to me clear that the testimony of this witness would be even more valuable to the Tribunal in the form of an affidavit, that would be submitted as one of your documents.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I shall gladly comply with the wish of the Tribunal and shall submit an affidavit from this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask you, counsel, if this witness can testify directly to any of the activities of the defendant Pokorny in regard to this matter or anything that he did in the matter of caladium or endeavoring to procure caladium to be used as an experimental drug, or is this witness testifying merely to scientific facts as he sees them?
DR. HOFFMANN: He had no direct connection with the defendant Pokorny. He can testify only to the scientific value of the matter, especially what an average doctor would think of this working after studying the results of the animal experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Prosecution stated he did not care to cross-examine the witness. I am sure the testimony of this witness would be equally of value to the Tribunal in the form of an affidavit and save considerable time. The Tribunal accepts your offer to withdraw the witness and put his statement in the form of an affidavit. It must be numbered and submitted in the form of an exhibit when offered. The witness Jung is excused from the witness stand.
DR. HOFFMANN: Witness, you are excused.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the Secretary if Defendant Pokorny's counsel has provided these witness sheets if they are available for the witnesses called this morning and this afternoon for Pokorny, the witnesses Trux, Koch and Jung.
MR. HARDY: The Secretary reports he has no such documents furnished.
THE PRESIDENT: They should be prepared and furnished to the Tribunal.
Does counsel for Defendant Pokorny have anything further to offer?
DR. HOFFMANN: No, I am finished with my case then.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I believe Dr. Servatius is prepared to submit the rest of his documentary evidence in the case of Karl Brandt. If he does not anticipate he will fill out the rest of the day, I suppose Dr. Nelte will be ready to put in supplemental affidavits or documents for Handloser.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Dr. Nelte, counsel for Handloser, prepared to submit any further documents?
The Tribunal has not only on the bench the subsequent document book, the last document book, prepared by Dr. Servatius, I think they are all in our offices.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, we have a rather unusual circumstance here. I searched my files and find from Dr. Servatius about five or six supplements. Now he has lined up in order the documents out of these supplements which he will introduce. I think he has prepared one for the Tribunal and one for the Prosecution in addition to the supplement he put out in the book, he has them now and in the order in which he will present them. I wonder if we could recess for about ten minutes, and line up the supplementary books and then the copies for the judges can be lined up at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is agin in session.
DR. SERVATIUS: For Karl Brandt:
Mr. President, I have the documents in a new order for the convenience of the Court. I shall hand you this copy. They are no new documents in there. They are simply in a different order.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, this supplemental document book Dr. Servatius has just passed up to your Honors contains on the front page an index which starts out with Karl Brandt Exhibit No. 82, and runs down through Exhibit 30. If he puts them in evidence this index will start out with his first exhibit being No. 30. Now it would be most convenient for the Prosecution and I am sure for the Tribunal if at a later date Dr. Servatius could supply us with an index of the first 29 exhibits, then we could take all the documents which he is not offering and delete them from the document book and then we would have them in chronological order, 1 through 29, and then follow along in the manner in which he is going to offer them and it would be much simpler for the Prosecution, and then we would know just what documents he intends to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: That suggestion will be followed, of course. Each member of the Tribunal should have a complete document book, but meanwhile we can proceed with the submission of these documents as we now stand with one document book in which the exhibit numbers will be noted.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the document which I intend to offer fall into two categories, one affidavits about definite counts of the indictment. The rest is extracts from literature as evidence as to the lack of reliability of the experiments on euthanasia.
First, I shall offer the affidavits on the actual charges, document Karl Brandt 821, I offer as Exhibit 30. This is an affidavit by an Assistant Judge Geist, who was in contact with Karl Brandt through the office of planning and economy through 1943. He testified about the activity of this office, especially the relationship of the office of planning and economy to the office for science and research.
He says that the greatest influence was with business economy, not with planning and research. He says Professor Brandt never brought any political point of view into the work, and that the planning office did not have any political character, members of the office did not belong to the party.
Now comes document 47 as Exhibit 31, it is an affidavit of the Arms Adjutant of the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, who speaks of Brandt's connection with the Hitler office and his activities.
The next document from the supplemental volume II is document KB 91, an affidavit by Heinrich Hoerlein, pharmaceutical technical department of the I G Farben Industry. He speaks of Brand't office and he confirms what Luebke said about planning and research. He also says that he believes Brandt was against the interruption of industry and prevented great damage at the end of the war.
The next document, KB-102, is an affidavit of Dr. Luebke, who also worked in the Office of Planning and Research, of November '43, also an office reply on research. He confirms that this office had more influence than the one for science and research and speaks about Professor Brandt's actual activity. He also says that the office never had any political character. On the contrary, industry frequently asked this office for protection.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, for the sake of the record assign an exhibit number to each one of these. The last one that you just referred to is Exhibit 33.
DR. SERVATIUS: 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Announce the exhibit number with each document for the sake of the record.
DR. SERVATIUS: Now I offer KB-112, which will be Exhibit 34. This is a chart of Karl Brandt's office. The Court asked the defendant Karl Brandt to prepare such a chart. This chart shows the working connections. Brandt's subordination was limited to the offices for science and research and planning and economy. I don't intend to go into this chart in detail. That would take too much time and in my opinion it is not of any special significance.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, counsel that this is Karl Brandt Document 112?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, 112, Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: The number of the document is missing from the copy in this book. That's why I inquire.
DR. SERVATIUS: KB-112, affidavit of Professor Karl Brandt about this chart.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the next document in your book does not correspond with the index which you handed the Tribunal. On this index you have Karl Brandt Document 120, and that is not contained in the book. The next document in the book is Number KB-88.
DR. SERVATIUS: One document is missing, KB-120, Number 188. It has not been translated yet.
That will be the one following KB-112, after the chart.
MR. HARDY: Might I inquire whether Number 188 is the document which has been offered by the prosecution or is that a new document?
DR. SERVATIUS: I obtained this document from the Defense Information Center. It has not yet been offered by the prosecution. I intend to offer it now. We have not yet got the English translation. I offer KB-120 as Exhibit 35. It is not very long.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the document which is missing from this book, counsel.
DR. SERVATIUS: Is the affidavit KB-102 by Luebke missing?
THE PRESIDENT: KB-120, Number 188.
DR. SERVATIUS: That is the document that I want to offer now. That is missing. It has not been translated yet.
THE PRESIDENT: That is missing?
DR. SERVATIUS: It has not been translated yet. It is one page long and I should like to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the document will be supplied for the document book later?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be Exhibit 35.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall only give the contents. This refers to the position of the Ahnenerbe office. It is a very characteristic document of the ambitions of this office to seize all research. First there is an order by Himmler which says the Reichsfuehrer-SS has entrusted the Ahnenerbe with the execution of all scientific research assignments. Then comes a notice about a telephone conversation of the 17th of August 1942 saying Hitler is to be asked to issue an order saying that all scientific research work in the SS is to be under the control of the Ahnenerbe, and it is added, "Such an order is of great importance and special urgency. He could not say any more." Finally, there is a letter to Himmler, speaking of the foundation of the Ahnenerbe, and I quote: "In a short time it must come to the point where we surpass the efforts of Reichsleiter Rosenberg and that it will become the research office for National Socialism.
This will be possible only if we all stand together and if everything connected with research, no matter what field, is in the Ahnenerbe and is directed from there." I believe this document is of great significance in judging the position of Himmler and the Ahnenerbe in research.
Now, there follow a number of documents on the experimentation on human beings. First, KB-88 which I offer as Exhibit 36. This is the affidavit, the first one, of Dr. von Kleng, who was an assistant of Dr. Ambros in the special committee of the Ministry for Armament and War Production. He speaks about "N" product which is a subject of the indictment and explains the significance of this material. He says that it is not a gas and was out of the question for such purposes but that later the problem was taken up anew by the SS and worked on themselves.
Now follows KB-89 which is Exhibit 37. This is another affidavit of Dr. von Kleng, speaking of the gas decree, the text of which is not known. He says that this decree entrusted Karl Brandt with anti-chemical warfare.
The next is KB-97 which is offered as Exhibit 38. It is the testimony of a Dr. Gutermut who speaks of the danger of liver punctures which was discussed here during the trial. He says it is very harmless and is performed in all modern clinics in the world.
The next document is KB-98 which I offer as Exhibit 39. It is an affidavit by the witness Dietzsch who was examined here. He stated at the time that Professor Brandt had been in Buchenwald at one time. He says here: "I declare that I made my statements solely on the basis of the information given by Dr. Ding; that is, that I myself never saw Professor Karl Brandt in Buchenwald."
There follows KB-99 which will be Exhibit 40. It is an affidavit by the co-defendant Professor Schroeder about the question of the ointment for burns. The defendant Brandt was accused of having passed on an ointment for experiments for phosphorous burns. This affidavit says that such an ointment was offered to the Luftwaffe, too, and it says here that Professor Brandt made an ointment available to him which was supposed to be suitable for use on phosphorous burns, and the doctor who reported this to Professor Schroeder said, no, Professor Schroeder said he told the doctor to get in touch with the firm to obtain amounts for tests in hospitals and first aid stations.
The Court will remember that was the statement of the defendant Brandt, that he had not passed this ointment on for research purposes but only for tests.
There follows Document 101, Exhibit 41, an affidavit by Dr. Ambros, who speaks about chemical warfare agents. He worked for I.G. Farben and had to work on chemical warfare agents and protective agents. He says that in 1944 he came into touch with Karl Brandt. On that occasion Professor Brandt said that he had to take an interest in chemical warfare agents and countermeasures. At the same time he showed a letter from Hitler and said that he was primarily concerned with obtaining materials for gas masks. He went to two factories with Brandt and Brandt wanted to get a general picture of chemical warfare agents. He says there was great uneasiness at the time about getting protection against chemical warfare as it was thought that the Allies would use poisonous gases. It was said that they had brought poisonous gas over with them when they landed at Tunis. It was also said that the Russians had new gas masks which fact pointed to the possibility of the use of a new poison gas. On the German side, there was definitely a serious shortage of chemical warfare protective equipment, the reason why Karl Brandt was given the special assignment to obtain gas masks.
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.