I don't know whether the Tribunal or prosecution have had a translation of that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has available BeckerFreyseng Documents 62 and 63. 63 seems to be the affidavit of Christensen.
MR. HARDY: I have both of them too, your Honor.
DR. TIPP: In that case, Hr. President, I should like to continue with Becker-Freyseng Document 63. I should like to deal with the affidavit of Hr. Brigitte Crodel dated 17 of April and put a question with reference to that. Some considerable time ago I had sent -
THE PRESIDENT: What number Jo you offer as BeckerBreyseng Document 63? Is that the document you are offering now?
DR. TIPP: Just one second, please, Hr. President. I am told just now that this is going to be Document No. 43. Now, Document No. 63 I should like to offer as Becker-Freysong Exhibit No. 43 and your question -
THE PRESIDENT: Your document is No. 63
DR. TIPP: No. 63 and it will get Exhibit No. 43. It is on page 335 of the Document Book. First of all I should like to say that the author of this affidavit is Alfred Christensen.
Well, then, Document 63, Exhibit 43, on Page 335 of the Document book, is an affidavit of Alfred Christensen and I would like to add that this is the Christensen often mentioned during the seawater case who has signed a statement dated the 19th and 20th of May, and I should like to quote from II:
"With regard to myself I declare :
1.) Trained and worked as Engineer.
2.) Worked with the Luftwaffe, was a Group Leader during the war and later Section Chief in the Technical Office.
III. To Document No. NO-177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133, shown to me by Dr. Hanns Marx, Attorney-at-law, containing transcript of 2 meetings held in the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry, Berlin, on the 19 and 20 May 1944, I state as follows :
1.) In the photostat of this document I acknowledge and recognize the signature as being mine.
2.) The transcribed report on the meeting held on 19 and 20 May 1944 was not made from shorthand notes or any other written remarks on the result of the discussions. Neither was there any resolution accepted by all present at the meeting and passed according to the wording or the sense which could serve as a basis. The report was furthermore not sent to the other departments which had taken part in the meeting for cosignature and consequently for expressing their agreement or disagreement and for stating their objections, before it was sent off.
3.) The report was only made 2 or 3 days after the meetings from memory by my Referent, Staff Engineer Schickler, and I signed it without checking it thoroughly. Mr. Schickler was a Dr. Ing and had no medical knowledge or experience, just as I myself had none. At the utmost the report may therefore only be considered unofficial as a memorandum of the Technical Office for the files or for other offices.
IV. As to the contents of the report and the progress of the discussion on the 19 and 20 May 1944, I declare the following:
1.) By virtue of the tests already carried out in Vienna by Dr. von Syrany with Berkatit, the opinion given by Professor Eppinger of Vienna, as well as by virtue of the favorable raw material and manufacturing situation with regard to Berkatit, the Technical Office of the Reich Air Ministry was determined to introduce Berkatit. In this respect my department has already settled this with the German Navy and the SS. My co-workers were of the impression that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was perhaps materially interested in Wofatit and consequently opposed to Berkatit. At the meeting on 19 April"-- and I should like to correct this, Mr. President.
Of course, it should mean 19 of May, and I should like to add that in the original the date is the 19 of May.
"At the meeting on 19 May Major Jeworeck therefore attacked Dr. Becker-Freyseng personally. It was only due to my interference that Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not leave the meeting together with Dr. Schaefer. There wore, however, no grounds for suspicion or even proofs regarding Dr. Becker-Freyseng or Dr. Schaefer.
2.) We had informed the Navy and SS that the introduction of Berkatit was practically certain; the letter was composed with a view to covering us against the objections made by the Chief of the Luftwaffe, Medical Service to Berkatit. In my opinion therefore, the medical objections are exaggerated and represent a biassed emphasis of some remarks, while leaving others out.
3.) This refers in particular to the remark made by Dr. Becker-Freyseng about the consequences of thirst. At the time, Dr. Becker-Freyseng mentioned that with one disease, I believe it was cholera, the patient dies from lack of water. His description of the convulsions and hallucinations referred to this. He then also referred to a case from the series of tests by Dr. von Sirany, who had lost a great deal of water; Dr. Becker Freyseng remarked that if this lack of water continued it could lead to disturbances after a few days and after about 12 days death might occur.
4.) The decision to have a detailed plan for the experiments, as set down in the transcript was deferred on the 19 and 20 May 1944 in the presence of Professor Eppinger."
Might I correct this, Mr. President? Unfortunately we received the document so late that the copy couldn't be checked. There is a copy mistake which disturbs the continuity. I am not sure whether it expresses it in English. In order to clear this up and rectify the record, I should like to read the sentence under 4 from the beginning such as is contained in the original document: "A detailed plan for the experiments such as is sot doxn in the transcript was not made on the 19 and 20 of Hay 1944, but was deliberately deferred to the meeting on the 25 which was to take place in the presence of Professor Eppinger."
I should like to continue quoting from this document:
"On the 19 and 20 of Hay 1944 only the necessity of further experiments was discussed and generally referred to. Dr. Becker-Freyseng then immediately had serious doubts as to the possibility of carrying out those tests in a hospital or institute in the required manner, since the summer of 1944 there wore neither sufficient persons for experimenting on nor suitable space available.
In answer to a direct question put by one of the other persons present at the meeting, whose name I cannot remember, as to the possibility of experiments on convicts, Dr. Becker-Freyseng replied that he thought it possible that prisoners would come forward voluntarily for this experiment, which was not dangerous, and that he would make the necessary inquiries about this through his office."
But the reason for this was not the likely danger, but the above-mentioned organizational difficulties in the organization.
"5.) Definite decisions were not taken at the meetings of 19 & 20 May 1944, but were reserved for the discussion on 23 May 1944. Neither could a resolution be passed about the experimental station at Dachau, as there was no representative of the SS or the police present, the authorities responsible for the concentration camps. Therefore, there must be a misunderstanding on the part of my "Referent", which I unfortunately overlooked before appending my signature. Dachau can only have been mentioned in connection with laboratories, in case prisoners were used as experimental subjects. I also believe that for reasons of air protection the concentration camp Dachau was referred to, since it was generally known that no air attack was ever made on this camp.
"6.) But I do know, however, that later on the experiments were actually carried out at Dachau and that staff engineer Borka himself was at Dachau. Having been told by him that the experimental subjects were volunteers who had come forward on the promise of better food before and after the experiment and a special ration of cigarettes and that nothing could happen during the experiments, I regarded these experiments as entirely admissible.
"7.) Some time after despatching this report," and I should like to say, Mr. President, that the report referred to is the meeting of the 19th and 20th, and I continue my quotation now.
"a member of the chief of the medical office rang up my department and pointed out several errors in the report. As, however, in the meantime the meeting of 25 May 1944 had been held at which I was not present, whereby this report was superseded, the matter was considered closed.
"8.) The meetings of 19 & 20 May 1944 took place at the instigation of the Technical Office and under my supervision.
"9.) The Technical Office alone was responsible for passing preparations for airplane equipment fit for use, to which also the means for making saltwater potable belonged.
The other offices, as for instance the medical chief of the Luftwaffe, merely had the right of veto."
The document is signed on the 16th April, 1947, and it has the certificate, signed by an allied officer from the Administration Office of Civilian Internment Camp No. 6 Neuengamme. In connection with this Document Book No. IV, I should like to ask a question, Mr. President. Some considerable time ago I handed an interrogatory to the Secretary General, addressed to the witness Brigitte Crodel. This witness had been granted for the defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, but she informed me that the Soviet Military Commandant had prohibited her from leaving Berlin. Up to now I haven't had a reply from the Secretary General's office as to whether the interrogatory has been received and returned. Such parts as I introduced in that document book are the same questions which this witness has received through to this Tribunal, and I sent my questionnaire through the ordinary mail in order to achieve that some statement from that witness may be obtained. However, I don't want to introduce this report today. Professor Haagen is now available as a witness and he will be testifying before this high Tribunal. Therefore, I consider it advisable that the questions which are connected with the typhus case, and that includes the affidavit from Crodel, should be offered in this connection in order to preserve continuity. But I do want to say, Mr. President, that as far as I know, it is within the ruling of this Tribunal that if an interrogatory from a witness is handed in, cross questions as desirable for the Prosecution should be made available to the Defense so that redirect questions can be added. So far I haven't seen the cross examining interrogatory, and, therefore, I do not know whether the Prosecution proposes to or has put such cross examination questions, and may be Mr. Hardy will be obliging enough to give us some information on the question.
MR. HARDY: I have not come up here for that purpose, Your Honor, and I don't particularly know what he is referring to as cross interrogatory and re-direct interrogatory; it is completely strange and foreign to me, and I am afraid I will have to be briefed on it further before I comment on it.
However, I would like to ask in connection with Document No. 63, the affidavit of Alfred Christensen, to ascertain from Defense Counsel the address and location of Alfred Christensen.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the Defense Counsel furnish that information to the Prosecution?
DR. TIPP: Yes, I would love to, Mr. President. The affidavit itself shows it, namely, he is at the Civilian Internment Camp No. 6, at Neuengamme.
That is in the British zone, so that in this case the witness is quite easily accessible. And now the second question, Mr. President, regarding the interrogatory of the witness Crodel. I gathered Hr. Hardy is unable to clear up now the question, and I will try to do so during the recess; and I will be able after the recess to submit the remaining documents from Document book, Becker-Freyseng V, and I think that on Monday one hour will suffice to submit the remaining documents, and I would suggest that we recess now because at the moment I just simply haven't got any translated documents I could submit.
THE PRESIDENT: As stated yesterday, when the Tribunal takes its recess this noon, it will recess until Monday morning at 9:30, and at that time we hope the rest of the documents will be in order to be presented. As there is nothing further to present to the Tribunal at this time, the Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until June 2, 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United. States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 2 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I 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, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. TIPP (Defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, last Thursday I stopped with Becker-Freyseng Document 63, Exhibit 43, an affidavit by Alfred Christensen, dated 16 April 1947. The rest of the documents from Document Book 4 I should like to offer in connection with the examination of the witness Haagen. There is an affidavit by Miss Crodel, Mr. Haagen's associate, and I believe this document would be better submitted at that time than now.
I should like to continue today with Document Book No. 5 which has been distributed to the Tribunal today. The first document which I should like to offer from this document book is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 65, which is on page 344. I give it Exhibit No. 44. It is a supplement to the affidavit of Christensen which I have just mentioned, an affidavit by the same Alfred Christensen, dated 6 May 1947. I shall quote. After the introductory formula the witness states:
"I hereby supplement my affidavit of 16 April 1947 and add the following:
"To No. IV (a):
"The notes in question, by Dr. Schickler of 23 May 1944, merely con stitute a memorandum made at least several days after the discussion on 20 May 1944, which was not at all based on the minutes of the session.
It is, however, possible that Dr. Schickler made a few notes. Minutes were considered legally binding for my office only if they were either taken down in writing at once in the presence of those present at the meeting, then read and approved as correctly rendered, whereupon the person calling the meeting signed the document with the consent of those present.
"Or, if the minutes were taken down subsequently, they had to be submitted to those who took part in the meeting for acknowledgement and counter-signing.
"In the distributor file such notes always carried the marginal note 'counter-signing requested'. This marginal note for counter-signing is, however, missing on the note in question.
"It is certainly incorrect, when in the note on the meeting of 20 May 1944 it is said that Dr. Becker-Freyseng proposed Dachau as the place for experimenting because of the possibility of death of persons subjected to experiments; for the result aimed at in these experiments was not to ascertain the exact moment of death but rather to ascertain the exact moment when potential damage would set in, in taking Berkatit. Dachau was mentioned only because of already existing laboratory facilities there and in the event that experiments could not be carried out in hospitals of the Luftwaffe. In no circumstances has Dr. BeckerFreyseng spoken about the possibility of death in such experiments. Under no conditions should I have agreed to experiments which, in the opinion of medical experts present at the meeting, could have led to death and I should have expressed this point of view at once. That the experts' opinion corresponded with my point of view is evinced by the fact that I myself as well as Stabsingenieur Dr. Schickler declared ourselves ready at that meeting to take part in the Berkatit experiments in question as guinea pigs as long as required, provided we were granted the necessary leave from duty.
"The fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng repeatedly stressed the fact that persons would have to submit to tests only voluntarily and that only persons in good physical standing would be considered is another reason why I considered these experiments completely harmless. As far as I remember today, Dr. Becker-Freyseng mentioned that persons subjected to these experiments would be granted special privileges after the conclusion of the experiments.
"To No. IV (6) of my affidavit:
"It is not know to me how these experiments were finally carried out. It is only known to me that Stabsingenieur Berka, under great difficulties, procured water from the Mediterranean and brought it to Dachau.
"Likewise, I did not receive any reports on experiments conducted. In conclusion I wish to say that for at least 14 days I myself drank one glass of sea water with Berkatit regularly every morning. I experienced no trouble and had no diarrhea. I considered this water mixed with Berkatit as a pleasant tasting, refreshing drink and frequently offered it to visitors in my office."
Follows the signature of the witness and the certification by the English officer of the internment camp at Neuengamme.
The next document which I offer is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 66 on page 347. The exhibit number will be 45. This is an affidavit by Dr. Cameron Luft, Berlin-Friedenau, 74, Kaiserallee. He signed this affidavit here in Nuernberg in my presence on the 11th of May, 1947. It was intended to call Mr. Luft as a witness for Becker-Freyseng here but he was called to America as a lecturer on physiology and had to leave earlier than expected. I shall quote some statements from this document. Under I, the witness says that from 1936 until the capitulation he was a scientific worker at the medical Research Institute for Aviation in the National Air Ministry under the direction of Professor Dr. Strughold. I should like to quote II:
"I have know Dr. Becker-Freyseng since 1937. In the years 1938 through 1942 he worked together with me at the Medical Research Institute for Aviation in Berlin, mainly in the fields of physiology and aeronautical medicine.
"By reason of our joint work extending over many years and my knowledge of his scientific work I am in a position to judge beyond a doubt as to his attitude toward medical experimentation upon human beings. In conducting his scientific work, Dr. Becker-Freyseng has always been guided by the principle that all medical experiments upon human beings involving damage to health should first be made by doctors in selfexperiments. That he meant it seriously is proven by the following."
In the following sentences the witness describes the experiments of the defendant Becker-Freyseng, together with Dr. Clamann, which have been discussed here several times. The Tribunal knows that Dr. BeckerFreyseng was seriously ill after these experiments. Therefore, I shall not quote this part of the affidavit. However, I shall quote from page 2 of the document, the first paragraph that begins on the second page:
"In the course of the years 1939 to 1942 Dr. Becker-Freyseng underwent, under my direction, over 100 self-experiments in a low pressure chamber for the purpose of clearing up the nature of the high altitude disease. These experiments regularly resulted in complete less of consciousness and constituted, through their frequency, a considerable danger to his own health.
III deals with the conditions of experimentation in the summer of 1944 in Berlin. The witness says; I quote:
"Although I pursued my experimental work at the institute in Berlin until the end of 1945, the work was rendered extremely difficult through continued air raid warnings, frequent cuts of electrical current and through the damage to the experimental station by the aerial attacks. A systematic pursuit of scientific work was hardly possible anymore. The problem of getting the necessary number of subjects for experiments presented special difficulties. The cadets of the Military Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe were mostly at the front; the students, as far as they were still at hand there, could not offer themselves for experiments because of their studies, special parallel duties and traffic and food difficulties.
Through the good offices of Dr. Becker-Freyseng I succeeded occasionally in obtaining military male nurses as subjects. They always placed themselves at my disposal of their own accord gladly and in sufficient numbers. But we had to fight for every one of them with their commanding officers. If, for once, we got a few people, it happened again and again that they were reassigned before the experiments were finished. Judging from my own experience, I think it would have been impossible in the summer of 1944 to get 40 to 50 healthy young men in Berlin, even for a harmless experiment extending over 4 to 5 weeks. All the men who might have been eligible as subjects were either in military service or were working so strenuously in their civilian jobs that they could not be taken away from their work. Unemployed, or members of independent professions who could have taken a four weeks' leave, did not exist anymore in Germany in the summer of 1944. Likewise, I think it was not possible, in view of the aerial war, that an experiment with 40 subjects on metabolism extending uninterruptedly over 4 to 5 weeks could practically have been brought to a conclusion in Berlin or in any other big German town. Conditions prevailing then rendered such a thing absolutely impossible."
DR. TIPP: In IV the witness deals with the special rations for aviators. I shall merely call this paragraph to the attention of the Tribunal. V of this affidavit deals with Prosecution Document NO 1419, Exhibit No. 447, a letter from the General Commissioner of the Fuehrer for Hygiene and Medicine dated 25 January 1943 to Obergruppenfuehrer Wolf. Since this document was not held to be of great importance in the case of Becker-Freysing and it was not mentioned in cross examination, I shall not quote this point. I shall merely refer to the contents of this paragraph. There follows the signature by the witness and the certificate by myself.
The next documents, number 67 to 72, all deal with the research assignments issued by the Aviation Ministry or the Medical Inspectorate to various scientists. All the witnesses who have testified here received such assignments and speak about the conditions in the department, the check made of the assignments and speak about the conditions in the department, the check made cf the assignments, etc.
The next document which I offer is Document 67 on page 352, which I give the Exhibit No. 46, page 1 of the English. There is an affidavit by the Professor in the Medical Clinic at Erlangen dated April 24, 1947, Dr. Karl Matthes. The witness says on page 1:
"On 14 May 1942 I received an order from the Inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps to conduct a scientific investigation cf the following problem: 'The action of carbonic acid on the paradoxical of oxygen following acute oxygen deficiency.' See supplement for copy of this order!
"I am also enclosing 1 copy of another research order issued by the Medical Inspectorate on 13 August 1942, directed to Prof. Buerger, director of the Leipzig University Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic myself at that time and had worked in that Institute since 1930. At present, I am director of the Erlangen University Medical Clinic."
In the next paragraph the witness says:
"The cause for my receiving this order can be traced back to a discussion I had in the spring of 1942 with Professor Anthony who was then a specialist for the Medical Inspectorate."
He says then that he had been for some time been dealing with the subject of this assignment and he also says that the Medical Inspectorate supported science in every way.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, attached to this affadavit are two supplements -- that is, two original German documents -one dated August 1943 and the other one May 1943, originating from the office of the Referat for Aviation Medicine. I might ask defense counsel whether or not he intends to substantiate these documents -- that is, certify the authenticity thereof.
DR. TIPP: Certainly, in his affidavit the witness refers to these two documents and says that they are included in his affidavit. I believe that that constitutes the proof which Mr. Hardy wants.
MR. HARDY: Does he state that these documents are true copies of the original in his affidavit?
DR. TIPP: Yes. Yes, he does.
MR. HARDY: I won't object your Honor, but I think it is rather an unusual procedure and I will not object without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to object to documents of this type that may be entered in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask defense counsel if the original documents are attached to the original of this witness.
MR. HARDY: The original affidavit is here, your Honor, and he merely has copies of the documents. He does not have the original documents attached thereto.
DR. TIPP: The original documents, Mr. President, are of course not in the possession of the witness. As was customary, the witness made a copy at that time and attached it to his affidavit. He certified the correctness of these copies under oath. If Mr. Hardy has any objections, it is, of course, possible for me to send these documents back to the witness who is living in Erlangen and inform him to certify expressly that these are true copies, but I believe it is sufficient in his affidavit he refers to them and thus certifies that the copies are correct; but if the Tribunal wishes it I will be glad to send these two copies back to Professor Matthes for a certificate.
THE PRESIDENT: The first copy referred to is apparently a letter written by the inspector of the Luftwaffe Medical Corps to Dr. Buerger.
DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President, and I should like to point out that I have just said that the witness says on page 1 of his affidavit: "I am also enclosing 1 copy of another research order issued by the Medical Inspectorate on 13 August 1942, directed to Professor Buerger, director of the Leipzig University Medical Clinic. I was head physician at the Leipzig Medical Clinic myself at that time and had worked in that institute since 1930." The witness very definitely refers to these supplementary documents in his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness state in his affidavit that he himself made a copy of this letter when it was received? I haven't had time to read the witness's affidavit in full.
DR. TIPP: The witness does not say in his affidavit how he prepared the copy. He merely encloses it and makes it a part of his affadavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I think at least there should be some statement from the witness that he made contemporaneous copies from the original document when it was received, that he was not quoting it from memory. There is nothing here that accounts for the absence of the original document. There should be a rather complete statement concerning that before it should be offered.
DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President. Then I shall not submit this document today. I shall wait until the witness Haagen is here.
THE PRESIDENT: I would suggest that the document be submitted provisionally and subject to later clarification on this matter.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I remark that if I offer it today the original will be in the possession of the General Secretary and I will have to have a ruling from the Tribunal to get it back from him. The simplest thing for me, I think, would be for me to withdraw it today and offer it again in the Haagen case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Follow that procedure.
DR. TIPP: Then I shall go on to the next document, Mr. President. This is an affidavit by Freiherr von Romberg. This is BeckerFreysing's Document No. 68 on page 360 of the document book. I shall give it Exhibit number 46. It is an affidavit by Freiherr von Romberg 25 April 1947. From this document I should like to quote only a few excerpts and explain the contents briefly. The witness on page 1 describes his activity in the field of bio-physics and he says that toward the end of the war there were difficulties in carrying out this work to such an extent that the was obliged to get aid from the authorities, which aid was given him through the good offices of Professor Strughold, Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe in the form of a research assignment.
This witness says: "I enclose a copy of the research assignment giving all the details" and he continues: "Through this research assignment I was in no way subordinated to the Medical Inspectorate in a military sense. However, I have never assumed that from a scientific view-point this carried with it the duty or the right to control and supervise my activities. Moreover, this is not at all the practice either, because the object of giving a research assignment has always been to entrust the assignment to a research worker whose name guarantees that the work will be done in a strictly scientific manner and any specialist would most emphatically reject intervention from non-professional quarters, be they ever so highly place. Consequently, the Medical Inspectorate has never exerted any influence in this respect."
In this respect I shall skip the next sentence and shall quote from the next paragraph: "In view of the fact that a research assignment also carries financial support, it was only natural that this authority requested to he kept informed on the progress of the work as well to he given an account of the money used. These reports, however, were rendered only at rather long intervals and only as a summary."
The witness says he had the impression that the research assignment was generously given from a purely scientific interest and with full confidence in the research workers. The rest of the document I shall not quote.
The enclosure, Mr. President, is a typical research assignment. The witness in his affidavit has certified that it is a true copy and I, therefore, believe there can be no objection to the submission of this document.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this attachment of the original German document brings up the same situation as in the last document that was offered. It is merely a typewritten copy and isn't substantiated to the degree I think it necessary to be substantiated for this Tribunal. I might suggest the same course be taken with this document, that the defense obtain proper certification in introducing the original German documents. It seems to me the Tribunal should be a little bit more stringent about having them duly authenticated -that is, as opposed to having affidavits notarized. This document purports to be an original German document but, like the others is merely a typewritten copy with no certificate thereon. I might ask the Secretary to pass up the copy so the Tribunal may peruse it.
THE PRESIDENT: I will ask defense counsel, this document, if I am looking at the correct document, was a letter written to the affiant Romberg, is that correct?
DR. TIPP: Yes, The witness in his affidavit in the last sentence says and I quote: "I state again that the enclosed research order corresponds to the research order actually given to me and that it is therefore part of the affidavit." I believe that would be sufficient authentication in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if the original letter was sent to the witness he should have the original letter, if it came to him. Under the circumstances the original letter was written is neither proved and he may or may not have it but if the letter was written to him he should have it--this original letter should be in his file and ho could submit the original letter with his affidavit.
DR. TIPP: Yes, your Honor, but it is an experience which we have had repeatedly that old gentlemen- Professor von Romberg is an old scientist -are very reluctant to give up their original documents. If the Tribunal believes that original research assignment should be admitted I will try to get it from Romberg and to submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if he has the original document he could have a certified copy made and the original document be returned to him.
MR. HARDY: This is a matter the Prosecution deems most important.
DR. TIPP: Very well. I shall try to get the original from Mr. von Rombert and present it as the Tribunal has just suggested.
THE PRESIDENT: You can tell Dr. Romberg that his document will not be taken from him but if ho would loan this so a certified copy could be made and certified by the Secretary General, to be a true copy, that would be sufficient- that copy would be received and he original returned to him.
DR. TIPP: Yes, your Honor.
As the document I should like to offer is document 69, page 24, the exhibit no.
is 47. It is an affidavit of Professor Hans Netter.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you marked the last exhibit by Romberg as Exhibit 46?
DR. TIPP: Yes, 46, that was document 68. Now the next document id Document 69.
THE PRESIDENT: But the document of Dr. Romberg will be admitted provisionally in so far as it refers to this letter which he received.
DR TIPP: As I said the next document is an affidavit of Prof. Hans Netter, dated 25 April 1947. This witness again described his career and says that he received a research assignment from the Luftwaffe 19 November 1942. He goes on to say that the distribution of research assignments was very generous, that his assignment constituted primarily a scientific work. I do not intend to quote any further from this document.
The next document is an affidavit of Dr. Eichholtz in Heidelberg dated 28 April 1947. This document no. 70 which I should like to offer as exhibit No. 48. On page one of the document under #2 the witness says and I quote: "About 1942 I received an order, dated 3 December 1941., File No1 L in 14,55 Nr. 46 007/41 (2 II B ) "Influence on Altitude Tolerance by Chemical Means". The research order was later handled by the Aviation Research, Heidelberg, and was not concluded.
3.) The order was not given by the Medical Inspectorate, it originated on the contrary, from ourselves; a third party was not involved."
I go on to No. 4, on the next page. I quote: 4.) I asked for this assignment for different reasons to receive this order. My main motive was that I wanted to project the employees of the Institute as long as possible from being called up. It concerned experts who could not have been replaced. Therefore, the placement of the order, its acceptance and performance was in the interest of thee Institute, and only in the second instance in the interests of the Medical Inspector ate, which gave the order.