DR. NELTE: It was put in later, or in cross-examination.
MR. HARDY: Then, your Honor, it seems to me that if this was put in before Dr. Bernhard Schmidt appeared before the Tribunal as a witness, defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine Schmidt on that document, and this would be a second opportunity to examine him on it by putting in this affidavit. The witness was here and testified here, and the document at that time had been put into evidence, according to defense counsel. Therefore I do not see any reason for further affidavits from people who have been here as witnesses.
DR. NELTE: At the moment I cannot say at what point in the trial the Document 1305 was put in. At any rate I do know that I asked Dr. Bernhard Schmidt about this matter. I believe that I got a full perspective of this matter when I made the acquaintance of Dr. Mrugowsky's Document Book and Demnitz' letter. In a matter as important as this, Your Honor, the formal rules of evidence must be set aside and a real effort should be made to ascertain what the situation actually was. So I ask that the documents that I am not putting in this matter, namely Documents HA-70, 71...no, I shall start again...HA 71, HA 72, HA 73, and HA 74, be accepted in evidence as Exhibits 69, 70, 71, and 72. I have just been informed that Document 1305 was put in evidence during the cross-examination of the defendant Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: I think my recollection serves me the same, your Honor. If the document was put in after the witness appeared here, then I have no objection to the affidavit.
DR. NELTE: This concludes my submission of supplemental documents for the defendant Professor Handloser, and thus my case for this defendant. I should like, however, to reserve the right, should it be necessary, to offer one more document which may be made necessary by the documents which the prosecution gave to us yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear counsel if he deems it necessary to offer in evidence any further documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Nelte, I have in my hand here a document apparently of the prosecution, NO-924, which presumably is an extract from Document NO-924. It is not quite clear to me what Handloser exhibit number you gave that extract.
MR. HARDY: It hasn't any number yet, Your Honor.
DR. NELTE: Yes, NO-924 is a prosecution document. Documents 921 to 924 are prosecution documents, excerpts from the printed conference reports.
MR. HARDY: Does defense counsel wish to have Documents NO-921, NO-922, NO-923, and NO-924 attached to the Handloser affidavit, which is Exhibit 60?
THE PRESIDENT: That was the purpose of my inquiry. I assume so.
DR. NELTE: Yes.
MR. HARDY: In that instance, could we number the extracts from Document NO-921 as Exhibit 60-A, the extracts from NO-922 as Exhibit 60-B, the extracts from NO-923 as Exhibit 60-C, and the extracts from 924 as Exhibit 60-D? Then I will be able to keep track of them.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be so numbered.
DR. NELTE: I have no objection to that. I thank you. I have concluded my defense.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further documents to be offered by the counsel?
DR. KRAUSS: Dr. Krauss for the defendant Professor Rostock.
Mr. President, at this time I should like to put in three affidavits in the case for the defendant Professor Rostock. I do not know whether or not the Tribunal has the translations of them.
If it is agreeable to the Tribunal, I should like to but the three documents in now, even if they do not have the translations, giving a brief summary of their contents.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. The Tribunal has no copies of the documents that I know of.
MR. HARDY: He have no copies. Are they affidavits on character reference or what are they? If I could look at the affidavits to see if they are properly executed, I may allow this, but I would rather have them in English before we have them introduced, Your Honor.
DR. KRAUSS: I ask the Tribunal to rule on this. Either decision is acceptable to me.
THE PRESIDENT: I was endeavoring to ascertain whether English copies are available. I have seen none.
MR. HARDY: I should like to look at the German copies and see whether they are in order.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will submit copies in German to counsel for the prosecution, who will examine them.
DR. KRAUSS: The German originals are here and can be examined.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, they appear to be in order and have jurats thereon. I have no objections to their being put in now if copies are served on me with the numbers on each affidavit when they are served so that I will have a record of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and those for the Tribunal also, when we receive the copies, should bear the exhibit numbers which are assigned to them.
DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, first I shall put in an affidavit by the witness Margarete Baldow. This I put in as Rostock Exhibit No. 11. The witness Baldow was chief nurse at Professor Rostock's clinic. She had a precise knowledge of Professor Rostock's activities and personality. She states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock, even after taking over the Office of Science and Research, still remained the responsible chief of the university clinic, and that from a purely temporal point of view he spent most of his time and energies in the clinic and with his patients.
Because of her intimate knowledge of Professor Rostock's character, both as a human being and a doctor, the witness states that she knew of no participation of Rostock in illegal experiments and considers it quite out of the question that he even knew of any illegal experiments.
The second document that I wish to offer to the Tribunal is an affidavit by Professor Menzel. I offer it as Rostock Exhibit 12. Professor Menzel was business manager of the Reich Research Council. He has a precise knowledge of the organization of the Reich Research Council. He says in his affidavit that Rostock himself was not a member of the Reich Research Council, that he was merely the deputy of Professor Karl Brandt from 1944 on, and that Professor Rostock himself never participated in a meeting of the presidial council or of the chiefs of specialized departments (Fachspartenleiter) in the Reich Research Council. The affiant particularly states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock had nothing to do with the issuing of research assignments by the Reich Research Council. He also states that it was not Rostock's job to help determine the priority rating of the individual research assignments. The affiant also states that Rostock, as leader of the Science and Research Office, had no right to give orders to the Reich Research Council.
Third, I put in an affidavit by Margaret Georgi. I put this affidavit in a.s Rostock Exhibit 13. This witness is a doctor. In 1936 she received a long prison sentence for insulting the Fuehrer, and today she is recognized as a victim of Fascism. This witness says that in view of her political -punishment she could not find work in the Third Reich, that she had difficulties wherever she turned, and that Professor Rostock, in full knowledge of the fact she had been sentenced, employed her as assistant doctor in his clinic. She further states that during her activities as assistant doctor, in view of her political past, she was put at no disadvantage by Professor Rostock, but that she was promoted the way every other associate was promoted by Professor Rostock.
Mr. President, these three documents conclude my defense of Professor Rostock.
THE PRESIDENT: The three documents will be admitted in evidence as exhibits oh behalf of defendant Rostock, under the numbers assigned to the exhibits by counsel. Copies are to be furnished the Tribunal as soon as possible.
Do any other defense counsel have any documents to offer?
DR. SEIDL: Seidl for Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.
Mr. President, after the recess I shall be ready to put in supplemental documents for these three defendants. These documents are in Document Book 2. Moreover, there are prepared four loose documents which also contain affidavits. I should be obliged if the Secretary General will give the Tribunal the translations of these documents which are already prepared, and then I shall offer the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will furnish the Tribunal translations of these documents, to be taken up at the close of the pending recess.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their scats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: Counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.
Mr. President, in accordance with the suggestion made by the Tribunal, I have drafted an index where you will find all of the documents which have been submitted so far. Also you will find there all of those documents which I intend to submit to the Tribunal today. In view of the short time at my disposal, I was not able to get a translation in time.
I do believe, however, that this index even in the German language will help to facilitate the proceedings.
On the first page of this index you will find a list of those documents which have been submitted in Document Book I and which have already been admitted by the Tribunal. This part of the index is finished and I ask you now to turn to page no. 2 where you will find those documents which are contained in the document book now before the Tribunal, which is Document Book No. 2. For reasons of expediency I have also inserted, in Column 1, the exhibit number provisionally for the convenience of the Tribunal.
In the second column you will find the documents in the order as they are contained in the document book, and then you find the page number and the description of the individual document.
The last document which I submitted to the Tribunal in April was Gebhardt Exhibit 16. The first document I am now submitting to you is Document No. 18 in Document Book No. 2. This will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 17, as it is listed in the index. This is an order of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, dated 17 May 1940. The defendant Karl Gebhardt in his direct examination defined his attitude toward that order. This order is being submitted in order to illustrate the tasks of the defendant Karl Gebhardt in his capacity as Consulting Surgeon to the Waffen SS. This document is offered as Exhibit Gebhardt No. 17.
The next document in the document book is an order of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, signed by the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, the defendant Dr. Handloser.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire of defense counsel just what is the source of these documents? The second document I believe I have seen the original myself upon the interrogation of Gebhardt many, many months ago. I won't object to that. But the other copies, these are certified copies by Dr. Seidl of original German documents. May he inform me just where those documents are kept in custody?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the original documents were returned to the defendant Karl Gebhardt after his arrest. He turned them over to me, and they are now in my possession. According to the usage of the Tribunal, that only copies or phtotstats are submitted, I thought it sufficient to submit only a copy. If however, it is desired, I can submit the original to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The originals should be submitted. A photostat, being a facsimile of the original, will serve a purpose, but a mere typewritten copy would not.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I shall submit the originals of these two documents to the Secretary General of the Tribunal, They are still in my possession. The document which I just mentioned is Document Number 19, is the second document in Document Book Number 2. This is the order of the OKW, dated 1 November 1944. The defendant has already defined his attitude toward that order in the witness box. This order shows the tasks which had to be fulfilled by the defendant Gebhardt in the last months of the war. I offer this document as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 18.
The next document to which I turn now is an affidavit signed by General of the Waffen-SS Karl Wolff. Karl Wolff, throughout a long period of time, was Chief of the Personal Staff of the ReichsfuehrerSS and therefore has a sound knowledge of the situation within the SS in general and also within the medical service of the SS. He further knows about the relationships between the defendant Karl Gebhardt and Reichsfuehrer-SS Himmler. I submit this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 19. Karl Wolff, among other matters, shows his attitude toward the concept of the "escort physician". He then states what Gebhardt had to do in his capacity as Consutling Surgeon to the Waffen-SS. He further makes statements about the position of Dr. Stumpfegger the later accompanying physician of Himmler and Hitler. This seems to me to be necessary because Dr. Stumpfegger has repeatedly been mentioned in this case in. connection with the experiments and in particular the bone experiments.
I now turn to the affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, which can be found on page 21 of the document book. This affidavit I offer as Gebhardt. Exhibit Number 20. This witness worked in the Defendant Karl Gebhardt's clinic at Hohenlychen for a considerable time. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this document. I should merely like to quote a few sentences of the second paragraph on page 13 of that affidavit:
"Regarding Dr. Stumpfegger's personality, I can state that already in peacetime he was an assistant at the clinic before me. At the beginning of the war in 1939 he joined the Waffen-SS and was then, as far as I know, from 1942 onwards escort physician of Himmler. I did not see Dr. Stumpfegger on my return to Hohenlychen in the autumn of 1943, nor had he any official connection with the clinic up to the end of the war, either in a medical or in a military sense."
I then turn to the affidavit of Dr. med. habil. Josef Koestler. This affidavit can be found on page 15 of the document book, and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21. Dr. Koestler was also an assistant physician at Hohenlychen. I shall quote only two paragraphs from this affidavit. They are to be found on page 15 of the document book.
"When Professor Dr. Karl Gebhardt and I, at the third Conference of Consulting Specialists of the German Wehrmacht in May 1943, gave a lecture on surgical aid for peripheral nerve damage, we were, on the one h ?, interpreting the results of animal experiments carried out on experimental dogs from 1938 to 1940 in the Langenbeck-Virchow Hospital Berlin, and in the institutes of Professor Holz and Professor Osterlag, and, on the oth r hand, announcing surgical methods as they had been frequently used during the previous years.
"Under the title of 'Preparatory and Resotrative Surgery in cases of Peripheral Nerve Damage', I recorded these experiences in the "German Journal for Surgery," Volume 259, Numbers 1 to 4, 1943, and in my habilitation paper (1943, University of Berlin)."I emphasize expressly that this series of experiments was carried out exclusively on animals."
I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 21.
I now go over to page 17 of the document book where you will find an affidavit signed by another assistant physician of the defendant Gebhardt. This is the affidavit of Dr. Hans-Georg Jaedicke. His statements are relevant in connection with the so-called biochemical experiments. I ask you to accept this affidavit as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 22, and I shall merely quote paragraph 5 from page 21 of the document book:
"5) Biochemical Work at Hohenlychen. In the course of 1943 a medical conference took place at Hohenlychen among Professor Gebhardt, Health Senator Laue, the biochemical physician Dr. med. Kiesewetter, and Professor Schlenz, in which I participated. Laue and Schlenz represented the standpoint that the recognized surgical methods for the treatment of chronically purulent wounds should be supplanted by biochemical means and bath treatments. Laue was of the opinion that, according to the basic principle of biochemistry, all diseases originate in a deficiency of of certain minerals which normally exist in small quantities in the body and that the induction of these basic minerals highly diluted (in the case in question; calcium carbonicum 1:1,000,000, calcium fluoratum1:1,000,000; silicea 1:1,000,000) would cure these diseases. Although Professor Gebhardt and I could not confirm these findings, Professor Gebhardt charged me with the clinical scientific checking of this bio-chemical therapy and the bath tretement of clinic patients in the framework of our work on stimulation therapy, of course retaining the usual life-preserving therapy. Tests on clinic patients suffering from chronic diseases and late complications were clearly justified, as these methods were not applied at the beginning of a disease (accidental wounds, fresh injuries) but constituted additional treatments applied at the end of the cure.
As similar treatments of chronic patients, especially juveniles, had long been applied -- especially when all other medicinal therapy had failed - and had partly been found successful, rand as they were entirely harmless, we had the scientific guarantee that we would not subject the patient to any risks by applying this treatment.
"As far as I can recall, I treated about fifty patients in my surgical ward additionally with bio-chemical and balneological measures. As could be foreseen, the success of these one-sided measures was only moderate and was restricted to the well-known good general effect of contrast therapy with warm baths. I reported this to Professor Gebhardt, submitting a scientific resume and a scientific paper intended for the professional press. Only a year later did I learn of Gebhardt's and Fischer's sulfonamide experiments, which were completed in 1942. In 1943 when I was transferred from the Luftwaffe in Norway to the military reserve hospital Hohenlychen, I learned about them from an official report (in a green pamphlet issued in 1943) dealing with a congress of Consulting Medical Officers of the German Wehrmacht. A short time before me, in 1936 or 1937, Dr. Stumpfegger joined the clinic as an assistant physician; at the beginning of the war, however, he became a military doctor, and since that time he never worked at Hohenlychen. I learned that from about 1942 on he was Himmler's escort physician and that he later held the same position with Hitler."
The next document can be found on page 24 of the document book. It is an excerpt from -the report on the Third Conference East of Consultant Specialists from the 24th to the 26th of May 1943. This is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 23. I should like to state that we are concerned here with an excerpt from this green pamphlet, from which the Prosecution as well as by the defense have already submitted excerpts to the Tribunal.
I submit this document because the lectures by Gebhardt and other doctors of his clinic were held during the same meeting as the lectures reporting on. the sulfonamide experiments. That was in May 1943. On another occasion; when submitted Document Book Number 1, I submitted an excerpt from this report. This was Gebhardt Exhibit Number 10. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this excerpt. A lecture by the Defendant Professor Gebhardt in collaboration with Standartenfuehrer Schulze, who was chief physician at Hohenlychon; regarding physiotherapy and the mobilization of joints, is described under figure 2.
On page 28 of the document book you find the name Koestler mentioned at the bottom of the page. Here there is no question at all of any experiments on human beings, but of experience gained as a result of the clinical work. On page 29 under paragraph 15 you find a lecture given by Dr. Brunner. This concerns limitations of the therapeutic value of x-ray contrast pictures of injuries of peripheral nerves. I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Brunner in this connection which has already been submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 20, a few minutes ago.
On page 30 of the document book you find reference to a lecture under paragraph 16 by SS-Gruppenfuehrer, Generalleutnant Prof. Gebhardt regarding paralysis of the nerves. This was done in collaboration with Koestler. This lecture was given as a result of experiments on animals which Koestlcr carried out under the leadership of Gebhardt. Koestlcr speaks about experiments in his affidavit which was already submitted by me to the Tribunal today as Gebhardt Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: What page of your Document Book was the last one you referred to, counsel?
DR. SEIDL: Page 30 of the German and 30 of the English document book, your Honor.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, exhibit 23 which is document 24 does that purport to be an extract of Prosecutions exhibit?
DR. SEIDL: We are hero concerned with the same document which was mentioned about an hour ago by Dr. Nelte. This is the green pamphlet about the report of the consulting physicians.
I shall not turn to page 31 of the Document Book. Hero you find the statement made by Dr. Med. von Erlach dated 23 February 1947. Dr. Erlach was the head of a mixed commission of physicians which visited the clinic of Hohenlychen. He visited this institute in his capacity as chief physician, coming from Switzerland from the International Red Cross. I submit this statement as Exhibit Gebhardt 24.
I don't think that it is necessary to quote anything from this statement and I ask tho Tribunal to take notice of that.
I then turn to the affidavit of Wilhelmine Henne which can be found on page 34 of the document book. I should like to make the following remarks in that connection. The 9 documents which I am going to submit now all concern more or loss the same subject. Those are statements made by former nurses, former male nurses, and former patients of the Clinic Hohenlychen. I picked out from a large number of letters which wore addressed to me a number of statements and converted them into the form of an affidavit. I don't thin that it is necessary to read anything into the record and I shall merely submit them to the Tribunal as exhibits. The affidavit made by Wilhelmine Henne on page 34 of tho document book which bears the number 24, will become Gebhardt Exhibit 25.
The next document is an affidavit signed by a certain Mademoiselle Antoinette Delachaux and it can be found on page 37 of the Document book. This is document 27 and I submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit 26.
The following document is an affidavit signed by a certain Horr von Schlebruegge. This you find in Document Book II on page 39. It bears the number 28 and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit #27.
Then follows the affidavit signed by a certain Carl Friedrich Mossdorf. This you find on page 42 of the Document Book bearing the number 29 and will become exhibit 28. Then follows the affidavit signed by Paula Kallmuenzer who was a physiotherapist at Hohenlychen. This can be found on page 45 of the document book bearing #30 and will become Gebhardt exhibit 29.
There follows on page 47 of tho document book an affidavit signed by Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding which bears document number 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30.
MR. HARDY: For the convenience of the Tribunal at the completion of the introduction of evidence on the part of Dr. Seidl for the defendant Gebhardt, Dr. Merkle will have his document book ready for the defendant Genzken and he was submitted his Genzken document book and the Secretary General may procure those for the Tribunal and I will attempt to procure ones for the Prosecution and we will be ready at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary will procure the documents.
DR. SEIDL: The last document to which I referred was the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding on Page 47 of the document book. This bears no. 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30. The next document is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Marie Agnes Kasten. This will find on page 49 of the Document Book bearing the document number 32, and is being offered as Gebhardt exhibit #31. On page 51 of the document book you will find the affidavit signed by the physiotherapist Gisela Fritze. This document bears no. 33 and is offered to the Tribunal as Exhibit 32.
I now turn to the affidavit signed by Kaethe Sommer a licensed physiotherapist which you will find on page 53, bearing #34. This affidavit is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 33.
These documents conclude the series of affidavits with which I intended to give a picture to the Tribunal about the spirit in which Professor Gcbhardt tried lead his clinic. As already mentioned these affidavits have been selected from a large number of letters from his former collaborators and patients. Now I shall turn to page 55 of the docunont book. Here you will find an affidavit signed by Fr. Dr. Maria Weber, a nerve specialist in the nerve clinic of the Munich University. This bears #35 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 34. This document distinguishes itself from previous documents by the fact that it deals with one particular question which has played a part during these proceedings, namely treatment of psychopathic and people who are feeble minded. This serves a good purpose in substantiating of the testimony which Dr. Gebhardt made on the witness stand. It describes how the defendant Gebhardt tried to cure psychopathic children, feeble minded children, and make then again worthy members of society.
As I mentions before I an offering this document as Gebhardt Exhibit 34.
There now follow a number of Documents, Mr. President, which are intended to show what Dr. Karl Gebhardt's political attitude was and to show that he was tolerant from a political point of view and that he tried to help the people who had gotten into difficulties because of political or racial reasons. Here I am also only supplementing from a number of letters which I have received and which I am submitting to the Tribunal in the form of affidavits.
The first document of that kind can be found on page 58 of the document book. This is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Dorrit von Viereck. It bears the document No. 36 and is offered as Exhibit 35 - I repeat, Gebhardt Exhibit No. 35, In the case of this document, as well as in the case of all other documents, I forego quoting any passages into the record and merely confine myself to asking the Tribunal to take notice of the documents.
On page 60 of the Document Book you will find an affidavit signed by a Mrs Daisy von Arnim, bearing the document No. 37, which is being offered as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 36.
The next document to which I am turning now is the affidavit signed by Med. Dr. Gertrud Obermeier, on page 65 of the document book. This document bears the number 39 and I am submitting it to the Tribunal as Gcbhardt Exhibit No. 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you intentionally passing one document, counsel? Did you pass your document No. 38 intentionally?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I overlooked that document. Document No. 38 is the affidavit signed by Conrad Scherz on the 25th of March 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document No. 38, counsel, is it not? You said Document 39. It seems to be No. 38.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, it will be No. 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 37.
DR. SEIDL: Document 38 will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 37. This is an affidavit signed by Konrad Scherz. The affidavit signed by Gertrud Obermeier, bearing the number 39, will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 38. You will find these documents in the sequence as recorded in the index which was submitted to the Tribunal. It was my mistake in overlooking that affidavit of Konrad Scherz.
On page 67 you will find an affidavit by Medical Doctor de Valdez Lange, bearing the No. 40, which is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 39 Mr. President, the next document in the document book was already submitted by me at an earlier occasion.
This is an affidavit signed by Frau Margaretha Mydla and was submitted as Exhibit Oberhauser No. I. This document refers only to defendant Herta Oberhauser and her activity in the concentration camp of Ravensbrueck. I merely included it once more in my document book because it was then only submitted individually and not within the framework of a document book. In order to avoid any loss or oversight, I deemed it expedient to also include it in ay document book at this time.
The last document in my document book -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will you again give me the number of your Document No. 41?
DR. SEIDL: Document No. 41 bears the Exhibit Oberhauser No. 1. It was already submitted to the Tribunal into evidence and admitted as such.
The last document in the document book constitutes an ordinance by the Government General for the Occupied Polish Territories. It is a decree against acts of violations in the Government General of the 3rd of October 1939. The Court suggested that this document be offered in connection with some of the documents of Volume I. I was not in a position to submit this document at an earlier date because at that time I was not in possession of the Gazette of the Government General dated 1939. This document is on page 72 of the document book, bears the number 42 and is submitted by me as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40. I have referred to this document in my final plea and have explained in detail what legal conclusions can be derived from the document. I cannot submit the document in the original because it is now in possession of the General Secretary's Office. For that reason I have made an excerpt from the Gazette of the Government General and had it certified. If it is desired I shall also be in a position to submit a photostat copy.
MR. HARDY: I understand defense counsel certifies that this is a. true copy of the Act as set forth in the Government General's rules, or orders -- is that correct?
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Seidl, we have been observing this document No. 42, that is certified by you. I understand this is a literal transcript, certified by you from the original?
DR. SEIDL: Yes. This ordinance was published in the same way as all other decrees and laws, that is, in a book. This book can be found in the library of the General Secretary. I have merely certified the authenticity of the copy as it was taken from that book. This decree of the Government General will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40.
This brings mo to the conclusion of the submission of documents which are contained in Volume II. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, there are 4 more documents which I would like to submit, which arc not contained in any document book, but which I can submit singly. These are 4 affidavits. The first affidavit is an affidavit signed by Countess von Kuonnburg. It bears No. 43 and will be submitted to the Tribunal as Gobhardt Exhibit No. 41.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I would like to inform Dr. Seidl that I have translations of these last 4 in my possession.
DR. SEIDL: The same question is treated in this affidavit which was already dealt with by the witness Dr. Maria Weber, namely, treatment of feeble-minded and psychopathic children by the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt.
The next document -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just a moment. These were handed up to us not in order. We would like to arrange them in order before you proceed.
DR. SEIDL: May I ask whether the Tribunal has this affidavit of Countess von Kuennburg before it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I should like to submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 41. The next document listed in the index is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Spranger, This is the wife of the well-known Dr. Spranger and is intended to show in what trends Professor Gebhardt's political thinking was moving. This will be Gebhardt Exhibit No. 42.
The next is an affidavit signed by a certain Wachsmuth and deals with the same question. This bears No. 46 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 43.
I now turn to the last document, Mr. President, It is an affidavit signed by the defendant Dr. Karl Gcbhardt himself. I believe that it is necessary for me to state the reason which moved me to submit such an affidavit in addition to the testimony of the defendant Dr. Gebhardt, under oath, in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I have no copy of that document in English. I wonder if one is available - an English translation of this document? We have only one copy of that document translated.
DR. SEIDL: I brought a number of translations along with me, Mr. President. I should merely like to explain, Mr. President, that my only reason for submitting this affidavit is to prevent any misunderstandings in interpretation during Professor Gebhardt's testimony. We have observed that the translation of Dr. Gebhardt's testimony has proved to be very difficult and for that reason I thought it to be expedient to submit to the Tribunal a concentrated summary of Professor Gebhardt's testimony on the witness stand. Nothing new is contained in that affidavit and its purpose merely is to facilitate the work of the Tribunal and to adjust and clear up any mistakes in the translations which have not been cleared up to date. I just want to add that this really constitutes no basical question for me and should the Prosecution be of the opinion that this procedure is not proper, I for my own part, will not insist on the submission of this affidavit. I don't know whether the representative of the Prosecution has already read the affidavit. In case he has not as yet read it, perhaps the decision regarding its admissibility can be postponed until such time as Mr. Hardy is in a position to state whether or not he intends to object to this affidavit.