A. I am just telling you. I believe it was not so because I described that I had had a row with Rascher because of Polygal, but on the strength cf all the documents I see t at this is not correct. Polygal came four months later. It was because of a memorandum that I had a row, together with the experiments which were presented. Immediately I saw it I admitted that I was getting things mixed up.
Q. We understand that Polygal was not mentioned when you met with Rascher in May 1943 at Hohenlychen.
A. Quite, yes.
Q. Now then, y u have stated in your interrogation, and I understand that you now admit that y u knew that Rascher had experimented with this blood coagulant Polygal by shooting inmates and I am asking you from whom did you get that information and when did you get it?
A. Since I hadn't seen Rascher after that, and since the first meeting was caused by something other than what. I recollected, it can only be from Himmler that I heard it during the discussion about Polygal; and the reason I have just given is that I no longer remembered that the memorandum had been submitted; but it is quite definite that I was told that everything that I was telling was wrong, -- that the drug was effective since it had been checked with someone who was bleeding to death,-- and there that could only have been Himmler since I did not see Rascher for a second time.
Q. And do you remember when you met with Himmler?
A. In November. In other words it was in November that this letter from Brandt originated and that this conference took place so it must have been in November 1943 or previously. The letter I saw yesterday was dated the end of November, when Brandt writes to Rascher that Himmler is thinking differently about this whole affair, everything should be counter-checked, and discussion with Gebhardt had taken place, and that was the last week. of. November.
Q. And did you, at this meeting in November 1943 with Himmler, take up the whole question of medical experimentation on concentration camp in mates?
A. I have already told you yesterday that at that time in connection with this experiment, and drawing attention to what I had been through, I, if I may say so, expressed my opinion to Himmler rather severely and clearly. It is not true that I could have said to Himmler "Now let's put our cards on the table. I want t go into everything that happened," out I am wondering if it is known or not. I went there quite worked up and I went into Himmler's office and said, "This is a classical example." He was convinced that Polygal had incredible value in the application which was recommended to him, and there I, as a surgeon, could prove to him that he was wrong in every respect and I gave him reasons. This example was sufficient for the showdown. Not that Himmler, who did not like my telling him things, would have proceeded to say, "All right, I'll tell you everything else, and you can judge it."
Q. What understanding was reached between you and Himmler at this meeting with respect to further medical experimentation on concentration camp inmates?
A. It is quite clear that you would put this to me. Between a commanding officer and his subordinate it is not the custom, and coming from Himmler even less, that Himmler now would have to.Id me, "Now let's discuss this clearly and from now on things will be handled in the way we have agreed or we have discussed it." I emphasized and explained expressly yesterday that this is the opportunity when I got everything off my mind which I had to say in this connection. I proved to him by means of Rascher's example that it is wrong, when people approach him and when he makes an immediate decision without having previously inquired about the quality of such persons, and also that I requested him particularly that at least in my surgical sector he should hear me since the example f Polygal was sufficiently strong reason to point this out to him. That was the only occasion when it became obvious that we had a clash as far as I can recollect; but of course Himmler did not in my presence dictate the decree of the 15th of May and premise for the subse quent throe years to adhere strictly to my suggestions.
After all you can see from the answer which is given by Brandt that once again another expert came in, this time Professor Seitz, a homeopath from Berlin. I had just warned him against the homeopath influence, and yet once again he is called in as an expert for Rascher as far as this letter of Brandt's is correct, of course.
Q. Now the decree of May 15, 1944--will you tell us what was in that decree?
A. May I ask you to put the decree before me. I don't know it. May I tell you personally where I had been in the meantime? At about Christmas Mr, Speer fell ill. At that time he was the most important man the Fuehrer had in this sphere, so it was only for the treatment of Speer by special order of the Fuehrer that I was detached from any other type of work. I lived with Speer. Speer nearly died on me twice. I accompanied Speer to Italy, and thus for the whole of that spring, right until after Easter, I was away, coming back just in time to prepare the meeting of 1944. During the entire period. I did not deal with any matters relating to the SS. In fact, I just was not there. I can not tell you what is written in that; but if you will put it before me, I shall be only too willing to discuss it with you with reference to what I still remember an what I begin to remember now; but independently of anything that you are putting before me, I still have an aim which, and I want to tie myself down to it is far as the things I am presenting now, I nave presented. I told Himmler, "This is - classic example, this Polygal business. It has to stop, that every medical office is bringing ideas to you and that then immediately decisions can be made to the effect that an experiment should take place."
Like any other subordinate, I can not forbid the supreme commander and. the staff to make decisions, but I can ask that at least in my sphere, and, if he is intelligent, in every sphere, previous inquiries should be made by him about the people who appear before him.
Q. Well, let's put the decree before you, witness.
A. Yes, I see.
Q. This is Document NO-919, and the Prosecution asks that it be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 460 for identification. This is a letter from Heinrich Himmler, dated 15 May 1944, or, rather, decree. It reads as follows:
"I hereby or order that medical experiments to be carried out in concentration camps must have my personal approval. This order is to go into effect immediately "All offices within the SS and Police which deem necessary the carrying out of a medical experiment in a concentration camp will have to submit to the Reich Physician SS and Police an application stating the proper reasons.
In this application information on the problems involved, the extent of the experiments to be carried out, the number of prisoners needed, as well as he presumable duration of the experiment will have to be clearly shown.
"The Reich Physician SS and Police will submit the applications to me along with the critical opinion of the Chief Surgeon concerning the technical aspects, and the opinion of Gruppenfuehrers Nebe and Glucks.
"/signed/ Heinrich Himmler."
There is a note to the left that this is a true copy, with the signature of Grawitz, and there is a further note on the original to the effect that copies were sent to Professor Dr. Hirt in Strassburg, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. **etner, "for information and attention in future new experiments." Then there as the note, "23 May Si", which I pressure to be the initials of Sievers.
Witness, is it not true that in all experiments on concentration camp indicates following the issuance of this decree, your opinion had to be obtained?
A. That my critical attitude as an expert was to be called for, Grawitz, yes. In my opinion, that tallies precisely with what I have described. I had not recollected it, and. did not even know that it had been so clearly defined, as it is apparently in this letter. It shows quite clearly that Himmler realized that the immediate approach to him, without a collection of these matters being made through Grawitz would have to cease.
On the other hand, however, it shows that under him no experiments wore going to be detailed to any one without this being done through the same official channels. For the first time, perhaps, it says that experiments could not simply we started which would eternally be extended, bringing up new questions, but that the applicant should right from the beginning state what his intentions were in every respect, and now it states here that Grawitz, in passing on applications, would have to obtain the critical expert opinion of the chief surgeon, Nebe, as well as Glucks.
May I state right now that Glucks is the man in charge of location and that Nebe is in charge of German criminals, and that political cases and foreigners are not considered any more; and now the expert opinion of mine is to be called for, which, of course, can never touch upon the subject of my giving opinions about sea water experiments, for instance, or something which Dr. Eppinger might suggest as being correct.
In fact, it had never been planned any differently, except that I did not credit Grawitz with the courage of turning down proposers as being non-experts. This attitude toward doctors and the supreme authority which was submitting it, that attitude was started here by me, and it is contained in this document.
Had you asked me at the time, had you given me the document in the reverse, then I would not have remembered sea water experiments nor would I have remembered the "N" stuff; but of course it is still correct to say that the two occurred in this manner, just as you can see that it was clear that after the distributor for sea. water, after I said that it is quite clear what they are doing and let them report it, let them give their reasons, that in the carrying out f these experiments at the critical exploitation and on the distributor, I no longer appear.
Q. Can we assume, witness, that with respect to any experiment carried out after May 1944 where there had been an application for prisoners, after that date, then you had knowledge that that experiment was to be carried cut?
A. It does not say so in any way in this decree. It says expressly that if new experiments are to arise, then this is to be done through official channels. It does not say that anything that had been approved should be retroactively examined. At any rate, the others were not submitted to me, and quite certainly, in spite of this order, perhaps for official reasons, I did not see the others. If you will put some more before me besides these two, I shall tell you whether I know them or not.
Q. Can't you tell us of any that were put before you?
A. No. As I have already told you, I would not have remembered the "N" stuff, the material dating November 1943, when I was at the front.
Q. Do you regard it as criminal and unethical to experiment on a human being without having obtained the consent of that person?
A. I made every effort yesterday to define my attitude on that to you. The principles, isolated unique assumptions without consideration of the factors such as with whom the initiative is, who is responsible, and under what conditions of the state, cannot be answered.
Q. Let us assume that you are responsible for the moment, witness, for the selection of the experimental subjects.
A. It is stated expressly that Nebe's attitude, the man of the experimental persons, and Gluck's, the man of the doctors, should be consulted. It is, therefore, quite abundantly clear that these matters are not interconnected.
Q. Witness, we have passed beyond the decree. I an trying to get a clear expression from you on this relatively simple question, and it has been put to you before in an interrogation, the one of 17 October 1946, and you were asked the question, "Are you of the opinion that if a person is convicted it is right to use him for experimental purposes without his consent?" and you answered, "No, on principle not." Do you re-affirm that answer now?
A. I most certainly did not put it in that form. These summaries, none of which were signed by me, are the results of endless discussions. I told accurately that never at any time, not even now, do I consider it right if in the event of an experiment started by a medical man which he started entirely because he is interested in science, a situation of force and coercion should arise with reference to the selection of people. On the other hand, I drew a clear-cut dividing line that this was not so, and even if you assume this to be the situation with me, that the initiative was ours.
Q. If I understood you correctly, you say that if it had been your responsibility as a scientific and medical man for carrying cut these experiments yourself, if it had been your responsibility to select the subjects, you would have insisted that they consent to undergo the experiment. Is that right?
Court. No. 1
A No. I said that I personally did not have the desire, or could not imagine that I would order experiments and carry them out, where other than volunteers would be used; on the other hand, of course I can well imagine that an experiment with its risks is so absolutely harmless that with a certain amount of pressure I can recruit people, and those are two completely different conceptions, then if the State, through an official agency, and with reference to a decisive question, does hot ask the medical man any more than to assume the responsibility for its carrying out. I described the way that I pictured it the responsibility could be taken from the State.
Q If the experiments which arc the subject of the indictment here, were carried out on persons who did not volunteer, is it your opinion that the person who was responsible for the selection of the inmates committed a crime?
A If it was the State, and if there was an order from the State, therefor, if it was legalized, then, no I don't think so.
MR. MCHANEY: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, do you think that you can complete the reexamination of this witness in 15 minutes, or will you take longer?
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt): I believe that I can get through in 15 minutes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q Within the cross examination, the figure of experimental persons proposed was put at 205. Do you recollect that in the exhibit submitted by the prosecution, No. 328, there was, in fact, contained that figure, as testimony of a witness, a woman witness; and. is it correct that it was Chief Reich Medical Officer Dr. Grawitz who carried out experiments under war conditions, on as many possible experimental persons and that it is your achievement that, in the case, there was a stop after 60 experimental subjects?
A That is perfectly correct, and. I thought that had been the way in which I described it. I said that it was only by some devious means that I heard the figure, and we are claiming for ourselves that the minimum number, under only the most acceptable conditions was carried cut.
Q Then, furthermore, you were asked, whether you yourself had anything to do with the selection of the experimental subjects. I shall now submit, or rather read to you in extract, something from the Document Book No. 10 of the prosecution, on page 50 of the English text. It is Exhibit 226 of the Prosecution Document NO-873. It is the affidavit from the witness Sokusca, the woman witness. I quote: "On the 21st of September 1941, I arrived from Warsaw with 450 other prisoners at Ravensbrueck. I left the camp on the 23rd of April 1945, with the first transport of the Swedish Red Cross. On the 8th of May 1921 I had been arrested by the Gestapo as I had been an active member of the pre-resistance movement. During my stay at Ravensbrueck, experimental operations were carried out on me on two occasions. There were two further experimental operations which I avoided. On the 1st of August, 1942, Lina Bella, secretary of Mandel, told me that I, together with nine other female prisoners, were to go to the large Sick Bay. At this Sick Bay we were examined by Dr. Oberhauser. After this examination I was told that I was too thin, and I was sent back. The other nine girls were operated on." End of quotation.
Now, I want to ask you, who was the man Mandel who was mentioned here? Do you know?
A In my opinion, that was the Department or the Secretariat of the camp, but I'm not absolutely certain. At any rate, it's not a medical man.
Q Would this testimony not show quite clearly that the choice of experimental subjects was carried out directly through camp authorities? isn't it apparent that this happened by instructions from the RSHA, which had a political department at Ravensbrueck as we know?
A That is quite clear, and I've already pointed to this testimony in the same sense that you have just indicated.
Q Well then, after that you were asked regarding the results of sulfonamide experiments. I beg the Tribunal to get hold of the Document Book of the defense, and look at page 12 of the Document Book. And there, I quote, reference: "Directives for the chemotherapy of wound infections."
"The treatment of war wounds with sulfonamide preparations in order to fight wound-infections seems to have prospects." These were the directives which in May 1942 had been published, before the beginning of your experiments; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So I shall now quote paragraph 3, and I quote: "The prevention of gas gangrene through chemotherapeutics is not certain. A collection of further experiences in this field is especially desirable." End of quotation. Does this not show again that at that time the effectiveness of sulfonamides was positively judged? I now beg the Tribunal to turn to page 13, and I shall quote:
"Local treatment with the available sulfonamide powders together with an internal treatment with albucid, cibazol, eleudron, cubasinum, globucid (particularly for gas edema), marfanil-prontalbin, prontosil is suggested." End of quotation. Is that not an indication to the effect that during this congress, in the directives, judgment of a positive nature was expressed with reference to sulfonamide?
A That is a perfectly correct description. I was being rather reticent. Since Mr. McHaney deliberately forbade me getting involved in a medical discussion, but since his views in this point were erroneous, that (A) no success obtained through us, (B) the same method proposed once more. Previously, in the directives, there was an overestimate, now there was definite slowing down, which, in its scientific findings, was most strongly expressed through our results, so that there were considerable changes.
Q I beg the Tribunal now tu turn to page 30 of the document book. Here we find directives for the treatment through sulfonamides, following the Fischer-Gebhardt lecture. Now I want to ask you, witness, at the head of these directives there was put the result of your experiments?
A Yes.
Q Would this not force you to conclude that, as the basis of these directives, the very result of your experiments was being used?
A I personally am of the opinion that this is so. I tried to point it out by saying that my directives have been fully included in the entire contents, at the beginning of all now measures for the year 1943 our ideas were used.
Q Then I beg the Tribunal to turn to page 32 of the document book, and I shall quote the last but one paragraph. I quote: "The thoroughness of the surgical wound treatment should in no way be lessened even by the additional application of sulfonamides." End of quotation. Now I want to ask you, docs this final paragraph not indicate, quite clearly, the final conclusion that the decisive point in fighting wound infection was the surgical treatment? And that use of sulfonamides was only in addition?
A Yes. I emphasize that particularly by pointing out that there was possibility of misinterpretation in the statement of Frey. Frey only writes that sulfonamides ought to be used when they can be inserted into the depths which of course, means to every expert that the wound would have to be opened, which is exactly the same as is expressed here.
Q Now the shoulder blade, which had been inserted, transplanted to the patient by the name of Lardiss by Dr. FISCHER, removed from a detainee Ruck-- wasn't it? Were we there concerned with a Polish woman; in other words, an experimental subject, who had been sentenced to death, and who was to have this chance of reprieve in the case of survival?
A In my opinion, most certainly. I've said that in every part of my testimony, namely that these a.septic people chosen by Stuppfaeger, belonged to the same group, and that there were similar conditions, and that there are two who were listed in this testimony.
Q The removal of the shoulder blade-- was that an operation which entailed danger to the life of the experimental person?
A No, in no way. I have always strictly differentiated, that these aseptic non-gangrenous wounds did not have the same risk which our infections did have.
Q The prosecution introduced as a new exhibit today, a letter which you wrote on the 11th of Juno 1943, to the defendant Rudolf Brandt, Exhibit 459, Document NO-232. Is it correct that I had already given you a copy of that letter even before the beginning of the trial?
And that, therefore, you were not in any way surprised by the contents of this letter?
A No, of course not. I draw attention to the fact that I had not read it before but that I had read it here.
Q Then the prosecution also referred to Himmler's Decree, 15 Hay 1944, of which we also know of course that it was going to be presented. Now, I want to ask you: After the 15th of May 1944, did you receive any further applications for experiments apart from the sea water experiment, and the examination of the end material?
A Not to my recollection; certainly not. But, in these hectic days, I couldn't even remember these two you were just talking about. It was only when I saw them here that I remembered them.
Q Did you support the Luftwaffe's application for sea water experiment.
A Yes.
Q Didn't you do that, last but not least, because, on the basis of the reasons given in the application you had the right to be convinced, that jeopardy, for the life or the health of the experimental persons was out of the question?
A Will, it states definitely in the letter from Mr. Schroeder, or from Grawitz, that there was no question of danger. On the other hand, the greatest German in turn is Eppinger himself, a started to participate in this experiment.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
TEE PRESIDENT: I have a question to the witness. I understand Witness, that p.s to these experimental subjects you wore informed by what was to you competent authority, that they wore of persons who had been sentenced to death. Did you ever make any investigation or ask any questions after that concerning these witnesses as to whether they had over been tried or sentenced as to these subjects?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, the person who communicated this fact to mo was Himmler. At that time I had no doubt whatever that this was right, what the highest man was saying, and presently considering our relations, I didn't have any doubts either of the test. I assumed that as far as I was concerned he would act particularly correctly and my inquiries were addressed to Himmler. I did not ever deal with any subordinate persons.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that you said that you never made any inquiry or endeavor to ascertain to any extent the status cf these experimental subjects, as to whether they had over boon tried for anything or whether they were simply hold in a concentration camp for some other reason.
THE WITNESS: No, Mr. President, please don't misunderstand me. There had been a definite discussion between Himmler and myself with reference to those persons, and Himmler expressly stated, as the highest man on the basis of his documents, that this was tho situation, and it w s particularly at tho end when everybody was interested during conferences with foreign countries, that it was as clear as it could possibly be, and I can refer to his words right hero, and Himmler told me at the end, with your experiments you are correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Did it occur to you that it might be a little curious that there were sixty women in a concentration camp under sentence of death and the sentence had never boon executed but they were just held in the camp?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, there weren't sixty, there were surely hundreds of them, thousands of them who wore together, all intelligence agents who were caught during acts in Poland and were arrested and wont to Ravensbruck, and according to tho documents used up to now there might be, must be at least seven hundred.
Sixty of these were not shot because they partook in this experiment, assuming that Himmler's information was true, which to doubt I had no reason at that time, even considering all the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: How many of those women did you say wars hold in tho camp, six or seven hundred?
THE WITNESS: It had boon definitely told here that a transport of seven hundred had arrived. Later on the Swedes collected two thousand Polish women who were still there. They must nave boon Polish women who had boon sentenced to death, and there must be Polish women who came afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: Were the rest of them executed?
THE WITNESS I only know what I have hoard here. Everyone of these other witnesses stated that nor comrades have boon shot. Mr. President, I deliberately did not interest myself in anything else. It seemed those wore the people called, according to information given to us, because they had boon sentenced to loath who had been operated on and who remained alive. Mr. President, y u will believe me, I have never bothered about or entered in the conditions in tho concentration camps.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
Counsel will not be limited to further examination of this witness Monday morning. I didn't mean, when I inquired into tho length of this examination, to limit him. to that, so he may resume tho examination of the witness when the Tribunal convenes Monday morning.
The Tribunal will now recess until fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 March 1947, at 1115 hours.(
CORRECTION SHEET
COURT NO. 1., 10 MARCH 1947 This is a corrected transcript, please distroy all prior copies of this transcript.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, and al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 10 March 1947, 1330, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the Defendant Oberhauser, who is absent due to illness.
THE RESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the Defendant Oberhauser, who is excused on account of illness, she being in the hospital.
Counsel may proceed.
KARL GEBHARDT - Resumed.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt): Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to tin. witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of this witness by defense counsel on account of the questions asked him, recently after cross examination?
BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers):
Q. Professor, in the cross examination you stated that the Ahnenerbe was under the Freundeskreis, circle of friends, and financed by it. Do you know the organization of the Ahnenerbe?
A. No, I can say nothing more about it, but I assumed that that was the case as I understood it.
Q. Than that is a pure assumption on your part? You have no concrete evidence for it?
A. I can only say that I was once asked to join the Freundeskreis. That was at the beginning of the war, and. I remember it was a combination of friends and Institutes were attached to it; and, as I said, I met professor Wuest at some meeting. I have no more concrete knowledge.
DR. WEISGRUBER: I have no other questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross-examination of this witness on the part of the prosecution?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Gebhardt will be excused from the stand as a witness and. resume his place.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. SEIDL: (Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt): Mr. President, three witnesses have been approached for the Defendant Gebhardt. One of these witnesses has meanwhile arrived. This is Dr. Karl Brunner. In order to shorten the proceedings, I small dispense with examining this witness before the Tribunal, in agreement with the prosecution, I shall take the liberty of submitting an affidavit from this witness at a later period. The same is true of the other two witnesses, Professor Lothar Kreutz and Dr. Jaedicke. Here again I shall submit affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand from counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt this course is taken pursuant to an a agreement with the prosecution, is that right?
DR. SEIDL: Yes.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the course suggested by Dr. Seidl would be highly satisfactory because the prosecution feels that in this way we will be able to shorten the proceedings substantially. Of course, we are not advised in great detail as to what these gentlemen will state in their affidavits, but I think the chances are very good that we will not find it necessary to cross-examine them or to bring them here. In an exceptional case that might be necessary. On the other hand, we could probably secure a cross affidavit of some sort, so we are quite agreeable and pleased that Dr. Seidl is suggesting this course.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, where are the three witnesses you just named? Are they now in Nurnberg?
DR. SEIDL: One witness is in Nurnberg, that is Dr. Karl Brunner. The other two witnesses are in internment camps in the British Zone. It is doubtful whether they can be brought here at all in the near future.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances, the arrangement outlined by counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt has the approval of the Tribunal.
DR. SEIDL: In the question of my case for Defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt I have only to submit the rest of the documents which are in my document book. The first one, which I submit, is on page 44 of the document book. It is from the Manual of Virus Research. This is an excerpt from a book published in 1944. I shall not read any of this into the record, but in my concluding speech I shall refer to it. This will be Gebhardt Exhibit No. 11. The next exhibit is on page 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what page? The translation did. not come through.
DR. SEIDL: The next document is on page 72, It is an affidavit of an attorney, Karl Weiss. The contents speak for themselves. I ask the court to take judicial notice of this affidavit. I have included it in this document book as an example, and I shall give some other affidavits of this type in the supplementary volume. Then I go to page 75 of the document book-the affidavit from Karl Weiss on page 72 is submitted as Exhibit Gebhardt 12. -Then I go to page 75 of the document book, it is an affidavit of Gerhard Schiedlausky. This affidavit has already been submitted by the prosecution as Exhibit 224.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this exhibit in its entirety been submitted on behalf of the Prosecution and admitted by the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: This exhibit was submitted by the Prosecution in connection with the sulfonamide experiments. It is in the English document book number ten, but the Prosecution did not read the entire affidavit into the record but only excerpts. In order to simplify the task of the Tribunal, I have out into the Gebhardt document book that part of the affidavit to which I shall refer in my concluding speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel desire to read this into the record?
DR. SEIDL: I should only like on page 76 to read one paragraph. It is an excerpt which the Prosecution did not read into the record yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. SEIDL: I shall begin on page 76 at line 12.
"In Ravensbrueck there were about twenty-five women who were executed by shooting there at my time. They were all Polish women, who were already prisoners and the verdict on whom in many cases was fonfirmed by the Governor General only after a long time. The company commander was in charge of executions by firing squad and they took place in the presence of the camp commander, SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Max Koegel."
The purpose of this excerpt is only to show that the prisoners at Ravensbrueck, as far as they were Polish women, wore members of the resistance movement, which the experimental subjects, who have testified here, admitted; and the experimental subjects, from whom affidavits were submitted, also admitted this.
Mr. President, now I come to some documents, which I need in order to comment on the status of the experimental subjects under International Law. The first document of this type is on page 77 of the document book. It is the German-Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of the 28th of September, 1939. I submit this treaty as Gebhardt Exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, was not your last exhibit 13?
DR. SEIDL: The last exhibit number was 12. This now document is to be Exhibit Gebhardt 13.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the number of the Schiedlausky affidavit was already submitted by the Prosecution. It was Prosecution Exhibit 224.
THE PRESIDENT: I misunderstood Counsel. I thought Counsel desired to offer that again. Counsel is correct. You may proceed.
MR. MC HANEY: With respect to the document offered as Karl Gebhardt No. 13, the Prosecution should like to be advised as to the purpose of this offer. Off hand it appears to me to be immaterial to the issues here and consists of nothing more or less than a boundary and friendship treaty between the USSR and Germany, particularly concerning the Polish territory.
DR. SEIDL: I may make the following answer to that, Mr. President. The experimental subjects on whom the sulfonamide experiments were conducted wore Polish women. In 1940 or '41 they were arrested because, as they themselves admitted, they were members of a resistance movement.
In the proceedings before the beginning of the trial, the opinion was repeatedly expressed that they were prisoners of war. It will be necessary to investigate under what legislation and under what jurisdiction those Polish women were in 1940 and 1941; and it will also be necessary to examine whether in 1940 and 1941 there was a Polish State under international law.
This border and friendship treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union is the basis for the examination of the question what the status of these Polish citizens was under international law at that time. In particular the question will have to be examined whether Poland as an independent state still existed or not, and what powers had the right to issue laws and regulations for this territory, and whether such laws and regulations were binding on the witnesses who have been examined here. This treaty is the basis for the further documents which I shall submit later.
The important thing is to examine whether the German Government, as Occupying Power, had the authority to issue laws and regulations which were binding on the members of this resistance movement, and also to examine the question whether these experimental subjects were prisoners of war or what their status was under international law.