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 3 July 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 court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky may proceed.
DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, let me at first submit Supplement 2 to my document, which is just being handed over in the English language. This is the copy without a cover.
The first document, Your Honor, will be Mrugowsky No. 103, which I offer as Exhibit No. 97. It is an affidavit signed by Dr. Koch from the firm of Madaus and deals with the incendiary bomb affair.
The next document will be Mrugowsky No. 104. This is an affidavit-
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, not quite so fast, we want to note these exhibit numbers on our documents.
DR. FLEMMING: The first one was Document No. 103, Exhibit No. 97.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: The second document, Your Honor, will be Mrugowsky No. 104, Exhibit Mrugowsky 98. This is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Lentz, the director of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and deals with the manner in which bacterial cultures were sent away.
The next document, Your Honor, is Mrugowsky No. 105 and has already been submitted in the meantime by the co-defendant Professor Rose. I don't know whether I am to give it another exhibit number in order to include it with my own material.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can give it your own exhibit number, but give us a note as to the number.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, Your Honor, Mrugowsky No. 105 will become Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 99.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, can you give us the number of the exhibit of Rose for this same document?
DR. FLEMMING: I shall be able to tell the Tribunal the number after recess. At the moment I am not able to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document, Your Honor, is Mrugowsky No. 106 and will become Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 100. It is an affidavit signed by Professor Meyer Abich. He is a university professor and one of the best known philosophers we have in Germany. At the moment he is the leading representative in Germany of Holism, the founder of which was Field Marshal Smuts. This ideology has been fought by National Socialists during the Nazi regime. This Professor Meyer Abich knows Mrugowsky for many years and knows that Mrugowsky was a follower of Holism. He also speaks of Mrugowsky's personality.
The next document is Mrugowsky No. 107. I offer this document as Mrugowsky No. 101. It is an affidavit signed by the Kapo Arthur Dietzsch from Block 46 in Buchenwald. Dietzsch speaks in detail about the question whether Ding's diary was only something which was reconstructed or whether it was the original diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel when you speak of the Ding diary as being reconstructed, just what do you mean? Do you mean that it has been altered or do you mean it is not a daily diary, but written up at odd times by Ding? Do you consider that the document has been forged by alterations?
DR. FLEMMING: I maintain, Mr. President, that the authentic diary has been burned. Dietzsch confirms that fact expressly. Dietzsch was present when Ding burned the authentic diary in a stove in Block 46. I maintain that the diary which Kogon-
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, Doctor. I just want to know what you mean by the use of the word "reconstruction".
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I question the admissibility of the affidavit of the witness Dietzsch. It may be true form and it may comply with the rules of the Tribunal 100 percent, but Dietzsch was here; defense counsel announced they were going to call him as a witness so the prosecution could examine him. The Tribunal expected him as a witness and wanted to interrogate him and they found out Dietzsch did not have the information they desired, so Dr. Flemming says he did not want to call Dietzsch. Now he comes up with an affidavit of Dietzsch without the right of the prosecution to cross-examine. I don't think it is admissible, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The document will be admitted. Counsel for the prosecution may make an argument that might tend to lessen the weight to be given to the affidavit, showing those factors, but the document will be admitted.
DR. FLEMMING: In that connection, Mr. President, let me say at that time when Dietzsch was present here, I informed the Tribunal that I did not intend to call him into the witness stand and thereby delay the Tribunal, because the points about which I wanted his testimony were not known to Dietzsch and that in particular the chain of command. The prosecution said at that time-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the objection of the prosecution has been overruled and the document will be admitted.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document, Your Honors, will be Document Mrugowsky No. 108. This will be Exhibit Mrugowsky 102. This document contains an affidavit signed by Dr. Erwin Schilling. Schilling was the chief of Department 16 ever since 1944 where he acted as a hygiene Referent. He therefore knows about the authority and the significance of the hygiene Referent at Department 16. He also knows about Ellenbeck's activity, who is repeatedly mentioned in Ding's diary and who there produced blood serum.
The next will be the affidavit by Ruoff, Document No. 109, Exhibit Mrugowsky 103. Ruoff was the chief of the SS operation office under Juettner. I beg your pardon - he was not the chief but the IA, which means that he was merely in the position where he had to deal with all questions of organization, questions of operation and questions of administration, and he testifies about the possibility of double subordination as we maintain was the case with Ding in Buchenwald.
The next document will be Mrugowsky 110, Exhibit Mrugowsky 104. This is an affidavit signed by Dr. Adolf Murthum. Murthum was one of the closest collaborators of Mrugowsky. He participated in the cold meeting at Nuernberg and in a discussion regarding Ruthenol, where also representatives of I.G. Farben, Weber and Kohlmann were present. From September 1943 until September 1944, that is, during the time between Mrugowsky and Schilling, he was the chief of the Department 16 and, therefore, can tell from his own knowledge about the relationships of command there.
The next document, Your Honors, will be Mrugowsky 112, which I offer as Mrugowsky Exhibit 105. It contains an extract from the fifth letter of Hippocrates which some time ago I put to the expert, Dr. Ivy.
The next document, Your Honors, will be Mrugowsky No. 113. This will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 106. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Killian, the ordinarius for surgery at Glotterbad near Freiburg, Breisgau, at the sanatorium there. He has special experience in the field of gas gangrene and talks about the Fraenkel toxoids.
Mrugowsky No. 114 will become Exhibit Mrugowsky Exhibit 107. This is an affidavit by Dr. Konrad Morgen, who was active in Buchenwald in his capacity as an SS investigating judge.
The prosecution has submitted a number of documents originating from him. Dr. Morgen speaks about the manner in which prisoners were selected, whom he had observed carefully, and he is the only one who from his own knowledge can testify about the Chain of command at Block 46. On top of the second page of the document he states - this is the first line of the second page - I quote:
"To start with, it seemed essential to obtain full knowledge of the facts. In order to clear up these crimes I had repeated talks with Dr. Ding. On this occasion Ding showed me a paper signed by Grawitz and by which he, Ding, was ordered to conduct these experiments, Ding said, 'You can see that I've been very careful. I've thought all the time that one day one of you jurists will poke his nose into this business, so I insisted on having the order in writing.'" Further down in the document he says that he was ordered to go to Grawitz at the end of these experiments in order to report to him and that Grawitz on that occasion had told him that Ding was his man and that he would regret it very much if Ding was in any way incriminated by Morgen's investigations.
He talks in great detail about the manner of selection of prisoners and also about Kogon's personality. On page 8 of this affidavit he is speaking about the special experiments on four persons mentioned in Ding's diary. Ding in this connection also mentions Dr. Morgen and Dr. Morgen testifies that Dr. Ding's descriptions about this experiment were wrong. He, in turn, describes the details of these experiments.
The next document is an affidavit signed by Udo von Woyrsch, Document Mrugowsky No. 115. It is on page 59 of the English document book. The affidavit is signed by Udo von Woyrsch, which will become Mrugowsky's Exhibit 108. Woyrsch is the man upon whose request the incendiary bombs were made with the drug R-17. He speaks about the origination of these experiments in detail.
The next document I do not want to submit. It is Document Mrugowsky No. 116.
It is an excerpt from the newspaper "The Stars and Stripes". It has no certification and I am sure that the prosecution would object to the admission of the document.
I now pass over to Mrugowsky Document No. 117, which is an affidavit signed by Dr. Scharlau. This will become Mrugowsky No. 109. Dr. Scharlau was one of the closest collaborators of Mrugowsky. Originally, I intended to call him here as a witness but I have not done so because Mr. Hardy, when I suggested to call him on the witness stand, had stated that he would not cross-examine him and, therefore, in order to save time I merely am submitting his affidavit. He speaks about the creation of the hygiene institute, about the manner in which the hygiene institute worked, about the official trips on which he accompanied Mrugowsky. He is the man who travelled with Mrugowsky during the winter 1941-1942. This is during the period when the so-often-mentioned conference on 29 December 1941 allegedly took place, which is the first entry in Ding's diary. He also travelled with Mrugowsky the summer of 1942. That is from June until the last third of August. This is the time when the sulfonamide experiments took place. His testimony shows that even during this time Mrugowsky was not in Berlin.
The next will be Document Mrugowsky No. 120 which will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 110. It is signed by Dr. Hans-Dieter Ellenbeck, also a member of the Hygiene Institute. He is mentioned in Ding's diary in connection with the blood serum and reconvalescent serum and he makes statements with reference to those. In addition to that, he carried out a number of nourishment experiments in Buchenwald.
The next document will be the affidavit by President Robert Hecker, which will become Mrugowsky No. 131, Exhibit 111. Hecker was the presiding officer at the Reich Ministry of Justice. He talks about the competence and the duties of an execution physician. This is relevant in connection with the aconitin poison bullets.
I further submit affidavit of the defendant Mrugowsky himself, which is I Mrugowsky 124, and will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 112. Mrugowsky here defines his attitude towards the documents submitted after he left the witness stand. It particularly deals with the documents submitted during examination of the co-defendants Rose and Poppendick. When the first of these documents was submitted I objected to their admission because Mrugowsky would not be able to define his attitude towards them. The Tribunal then said I would be able to call him to the witness stand at a later date. I waited until all the material was presented and then did not ask to have him recalled to the witness stand. Instead I asked him to write an affidavit wherein he defines his attitude toward a number of these documents put in by the Prosecution after he left the witness stand and here he mentioned
MR. HARDY: I must object to the introduction of this affidavit. This affidavit deals with matters that Prosecution introduced in evidence during cross examination of Mrugowsky. I asked him specifically questions concerning these matters and he denied my questions and answered in the negative to my questions and in as much as I did not wish to introduce such documents at that time I didn't impeach his credibility as I did with the other documents, but in this particular instance I saved the documents to use on Rose's cross examination and one in Poppendick's cross examination and they are merely rebuttal documents refuting the testimony of Dr. Mrugowsky and I gave him ample opportunity to tell this Tribunal about any connection he had with the Robert Koch Institute and Rose and I gave him ample opportunity to do that on cross examination and he didn't do it and it completely refutes his testimony.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in this connection, let me say that Mrugowsky had no opportunity to reply to those documents submitted, in Poppendick's, Rose's and the other co-defendant's cross examinations that took place after his own examination. In Dr. Rose's examination, for instance, the documents Exhibits 491 and 492 were submitted, one is a letter by Rose to Mrugowsky and the other is a letter from Mrugowsky to Rose.
The Prosecution could just as well have offered those two documents when Mrugowsky himself was examined. Then ho would have been able to reply to these documents and would have been able to explain how these letters originated and what the individual points contained therein mean. When Mr. Hardy maintains now that he already asked Mrugowsky on the witness stand about the contents of these letters, it is not correct. Mrugowsky, of course, was not in a position to define his attitude towards the subjects contained in the letter inasmuch as they were not submitted in evidence.
It is important to reply to the various subjects and quotations contained in the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, counsel, this is the last affidavit which you were submitting, the only other affidavit?
DR. FLEMMING: I have two more documents, Mr. President. One has been certified. It is a copy containing an extract from the IMT trial and deals with execution orders from Himmler and has the number 1751 PS. I have handed this document to the General Secretary for the purpose of certification. From the General Secretary it went to the language division and has not come back. And the last document is an affidavit by Kranz. Kranz was approved to me months ago as a witness but I only saw him a few days ago. Two days after his arrival I asked him to prepare the affidavit which has not yet come back from the translating division. These are the only two documents which I wish to submit.
MR. HARDY: This extract from the IMT need not be sent to the Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand counsel to say that. I understood counsel to say it had been sent to the Secretary General.
MR. HARDY: And then to the translation division afterwards. That is completely unnecessary.
DR. FLEMMING: Only the affidavit by Kranz will have to be translated.
I could only get this affidavit at the end last week because the witness only appeared then.
THE PRESIDENT: Mrugowsky affidavit 124, the affidavit of the defendant Mrugowsky will be admitted in evidence, and the objection of Prosecution is overruled.
DR. FLEMMING: It is Mrugowsky 124, Your Honor. Now document 1751 P S, Regulations regarding executions, will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 113.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't knew whether we have a copy of that or not, counsel.
DR. FLEMING: I don't think the Tribunal has a copy. I only received tho certification for that document yesterday and I haven't yet received my copy. However, there must be the original document from the IMT trial.
MR. HARDY: If Dr. Fleming could give us the page number of the IMT record, I suppose that would be tho first thing to logically check and refer us to whatever page of the IMT record it is on and what date and then it isn't necessary to submit a translation of it.
DR. FLEMING: I will be able to ascertain that during the recess.
The next document, Your Honor, will be the affidavit by Kranz, which will be Mrugowsky document No. 126, Exhibit 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the translation of the document has not yet been received. I don't know when it will be ready. Have you the original affidavit in German?
DR. FLEMING: The original is here, yes. I handed tho original to the Secretary General. It has been submitted for translation.
MR. HARDY: The document is clearly admissible, Your Honor. There is no question of that. It is a Prosecution document admitted before the IMT, which Dr. Fleming has submitted to the translation division, for translation, which is actually unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel is not speaking about another document, an affidavit which was prepared here recently.
MR. HARDY: Well, I haven't this other document yet, Your Honor to see what it is. I can't get a page number on it and I can't get a translation. I don't know what he is referring to and I want to get that information. It seems to mo he could give me some information so that I could find it in tho record.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel stated he would give the page of the English translation, of the English documents at the morning recess. He didn't seem to have it now. Of course, a certified copy of the record before the IMT is clearly admissible. Counsel is now speaking, as I understand him, about another document, about an affidavit which he had recently procured.
DR. FLEMING: Yes, I received this on the 25th of June and I have handed it the same day to the translating division. I think I will have it very shortly and I will see to it myself.
MR. HARDY: May I see the original, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Please submit the original of this affidavit to the counsel for the Prosecution.
DR. FLEMING: Kranz was Mrugowsk's collaborator in tho Hygiene Institute and talks about a number of matters in that connection.
MR. HARDY: I merely asked him when counsel submitted it to the translation division.
THE PRESIDENT: When did counsel submit that document for translation?
DR. FLEMING: I am just being told that the affidavit was taken down on the 25th of June and was sent down to the language division on the same day but only yesterday the mimeographed copy came back to us, so that it was only translated yesterday.
MR. HARDY: The translation division Ms no record of it coming down on this date. I won't object to the admissibility. It is in good form but again I wish an English translation of it at some time.
THE PRESIDENT: After the recess we will endeavor to find out when the English translation will be available. We will pass that matter for the present.
DR. FLEMING: Then there are excerpts from the record of the Pohl trial which are before the Tribunal. These will be in Mrugowsky's supplemental volume No. 3. I have these documents here, the certified copies. I think they were before the Tribunal yesterday and one such copy will be handed over as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 115. All of these documents are excerpts from the records of the Pohl trial. Therefore, it is not necessary to hand them to the translating division so that they can be handed over to the Tribunal in the English language. I shall give it only one Exhibit number, even though these excerpts are all from different days.
THE PRESIDENT: All that is necessary on these documents is a certificate from the Secretary General of the IMT that they are correct copies of evidence taken in the Pohl trial.
DR. FLEMING: This certificate is ready, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: I would assume that the certificate will be prepared very soon. It needs a comparison of the documents. That is all.
DR. FLEMING: The certificate is before you. I have already handed it to the Secretary General in writing.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it has been certified?
DR. FLEMING: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand the certification to the Tribunal?
(The Secretary does so.)
THE PRESIDENT: Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 115, certified copy of the records in the Pohl trial, is admitted in evidence.
DR. FLEMING: This, your Honor, concludes my submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I merely want to state that prosecution Rebuttal Document Books have been filed with the Defense Counsel Information Center and they may secure them there to be used later on today.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel having heard the announcement of Prosecution that Prosecution Document Book of Rebuttal Documents has been filed with the Secretary General and is available to the counsel of defense. Those documentswill be offered later today.
The Tribunal would inquire whether translation of the Schroeder documents has boon received by Dr. Marx, counsel for Schroeder.
DR. MARX: Dr. Marx, counsel for the defendant Schroeder. Gentlemen of the Tribunal I have not yet received these documents in translation.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that they are translated and will be available within a very few moments if they are not already prepared.
DR. MARX: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other documents to be offered by defense counsel?
There being none the Tribunal will proceed. The Tribunal is advised that the Schroeder documents are now being assembled in the office of the Secretary General. The Tribunal will be in recess for a few moments until the documents are available.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the Schroeder documents have been delivered. Counsel for Schroeder may proceed.
DR. MARX: (Counsel for Professor Doctor Schroeder.) Your Honors, I begin with the submission of my documents for Professor Dr. Schroeder. The first document, which I have to offer, is Schroeder document No. 28 to which I give Exhibit No. 20. This is an opinion on the defendant Schroeder by Prelate Dr. Kreutz, apostolic protonotary at Freiburg/ Breisgau. The Tribunal will remember that I intended to submit this document, but it was not certified at that time. The certification has now been obtained. I ask that this document be admitted as Exhibit No. 20.
The next document is Schroeder No. 29. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Marx Meyer of the University Clinic for ear, nose and throat diseases at the University of Teheran, dated 28 April 1947. Professor Meyer sent this statement quite spontaneously and unsolicited, when he learned from the press that Professor Schroeder was a defendant in the Medical trial in Nurnberg. I should like to read some passages from this affidavit. This is paragraph 2:
"In 1922 or 1923 I made the acquaintance of Dr. Oskar Schroeder by virtue of the fact that he was ordered as a medical officer to report for special training to the ear - nose and throat (larynx) clinic of Wuerzburg University, where I then held the position of a first assistant to and deputy of the doctor, Prof. Paul Manasse. Our common work continued until 1925 or 1926; I do not remember exactly which year it was after the lapse of so much time. After Herr Schroeder left Wuerzburg, our friendship continued unchanged until 1935 and even beyond this when I had to leave Germany on account of the racial laws."
And the first sentence of the next paragraph:
"Even in 1939, during my wife's visit to relatives in Germany in the course of which she made many bad experiences with so-called former friends, Herr Schroeder and his wife tried to show their old friendship in every possible way."
Then I shall read all of the next paragraph because I think it is especially striking:
"Naturally, the basis of every friendship is personal sympathy, besides this, however, respect of each other's personality must also be present, in order to ensure a friendship of long standing and it was just this respect of Herr Schroeder's personality, which I possessed to the highest degree. For his professional as well as his human qualities, he always appeared to me a man as he should be but whom I met only on rare occasions. Of an irreproachable personal integrity in his private as well as his professional conduct, he was already at that time not only well qualified as a physician, but moreover, showed a genuine concern for his sick and was ever ready to extend his help to the very poor. His feeling of comradship toward his colleagues was beyond doubt and he met every one half way in the same comradely and open manner, regardless of racial and class prejudices with the result that he was held in high esteem at the clinic by those in high and low places, young and old, Christians or Jews. I know that Professor Hellman, who immigrated to Palestine (Haifa, Hadassah-Hospital) would gladly corroborate my statement."
I skip the next two paragraphs and I shall read from the second paragraph from the end:
"Already at that time it was not quite safe for a man, even in a high official position, to profess his friendship to a non-Aryan or even to further his cause in any way. But this did not disturb Herr Schroeder, who at that time was an assistant to the Chief of the Medical Services of the Reichswehr. He proposed to his chief, Generalobersarzt (Lieutenant General, Medical Service) Professor Dr. Waldmann, to entrust me with the drawing up of a questionnaire concerning a certain throat disease, which at that time suddenly and frequently struck the Reichswehr; he presented me to his chief and I was given this assignment, which, however, due to my departure from Germany, was left unfinished, if I recollect correctly."
This affidavit of Professor Meyer of Teheran is a good picture of Professor Schroeder's character as a human being, as a doctor and as an officer of the medical corps. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 21.
DR. MARX: The next document is Schroeder No. 30. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Roessle, ordinary professor of the University of Berlin, director of the University Charite' Hospital of 2 May 1947. It describes the nature of the research assignments and also gives a picture of how the medical inspectorate dealt with these research assignments. It also discusses the financial aspect. Morever, it gives a brief statement as to Schroeder's and Becker Freyseng's personality. I will assign Exhibit number 22 to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, is that marked Exhibit 21 or 22? 22 is correct?
DR. MARX: 22 --22. The next document is 31. This is an affidavit of Dr. med. Habil Fritz Roeder in Goettingen 9 May 1947. It also deals with the research assignments and research work and it presents a picture of how this matter was handled. It also comments on the research subsidies. I offer this document as Exhibit 23.
The next document is Document No. 32 which will be Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit of Professor Franz Vollhardt of Frankfort on the Main and Dr. Edgar Hermann.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently, counsel, we have not yet received that document in English.
DR. MARX: I am sorry, Mr. President. I didn't understand you. Does the Tribunal have the translation of this document?
THE PRESIDENT: No, we have not.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this is in a proper form. However, it is an affidavit of Dr. Franz Vollhardt who appeared here as a witness. I wonder what is the purpose of introducing this in behalf of the defendant Schroeder.
DR. MARX: As counsel for Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, I intend to prove by submitting this document how the opinion of Professor Schroeder was formed and what material was available for him to base an opinion on these questions on. This is necessary because the prosecution has ex pressed certain doubts as to whether the material which Professor Vollhardt had was really in order.
Therefore, I should like to read the important passages from this affidavit.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, prosecution submits that Professor Vollhardt testified here at great length about his own experiments and he gave expert opinion concerning the material he had in the Beiglboeck experiments even though he was not aware of the fact that some of the figures had been altered and I could see no further reason of an affidavit concerning this matter. The whole testimony of Vollhardt came up, the whole proposition in its entirety.
DR. MARX: I am afraid I was not able to understand the translation. There must be something wrong with my ear phones. May I ask you to repeat it, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: I merely stated that I don't see the purpose of an affidavit inasmuch as -
THE INTERPRETOR: Just a minute.
MR. HARDY: I state that I don't see the purpose of this affidavit inasmuch as the witness Vollhardt appeared here and was examined extensively by defense counsel. There is no necessity for further testimony. He has testified as to the experiments at Dachau and his knowledge of the reports and records and further testimony would be merely accummulative.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand counsel to say that this exhibit was offered on behalf of defendant Becker-Freyseng.
MR. HARDY: And Schroeder.
DR. MARX: Primarily for Professor Schroeder but also for Becker Freyseng because it deals with the same subject; but if there are misgivings against that I shall offer it only for Professor Schroeder. It belongs in the Schroeder document book.
MR. HARDY: I object to the admission of it, your Honor.
DR. MARX: Your Honors, this is not testimony of Professor Vollhardt. This is clarification and explanation of what material Professor Vollhardt had available and what preparations he had made by his medical associate Dr. Hermann and what material was available to this Dr. Hermann.
If the prosecution says that they have no objection against the opinion of Professor Vollhardt being built on adequate foundation, then this document is perhaps not important. If that is not the case, however, then in the interests of an orderly conduct of my defense I consider it necessary to offer this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel been informed when the English translation of this document will probably be ready?
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I was informed by Captain Rico that this translation was being prepared and that it would be finished very soon. It would perhaps be advisable to wait until the translation is here.
THE PRESIDENT: Before passing on the objection of counsel for prosecution the Tribunal should be advised as to the statements made in the affidavit.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't need to see the English translation. I can readily see there, from looking at the German and the few words I know in German that this document here is just what I explained to the Tribunal that it is, and I object to it. If the Tribunal wishes to rule in it's favor, he may put it in in this form.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hardy, that is not very much help to us, the fact that with your knowledge of the German language it appears to be not in good form. We haven't had the advantage of even seeing the German.
MR. HARDY: I didn't say it wasn't in good form. I state it is immaterial and the evidence has been heard from the witness on the stand and I don't see further reason for an affidavit of the witness that has appeared before this Tribunal.
DR. MARX: May I add something?
THE PRESIDENT: From the information given to counsel for defendant Schroeder it would seem probable that the affidavits would be available before very long.
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: If we are going to wait for the translation, I will withdraw my objection and let it be admitted.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the withdrawal of the objection of counsel for prosecution, the affidavit will be admitted and received in evidence as Schroeder Exhibit 24.
DR. MARX: Schroeder Exhibit 24. The next document is Document No. 33 which will be Exhibit No. 25. This is a report by Dr. Med. Hermann about the experiments performed by Professor Vollhardt in his own clinic in Frankfort on the Main. There were four doctors and one senior medical student who subjected themselves to these experiments. The Tribunal will remember that the defense was asked to submit this report to the Tribunal. I must assume that this has not been translated yet.
I should like to read some pages from, this report, only a few sentences which the interpretors will be able to translate: Summary Report about Seawater Experiments at the Medical University Clinic at Frankfurt on the Main. "The seawater experiment, 500 cc. of seawater daily and 1,600 calories daily, was carried out carefully with regular urine and blood checks. The experimental subjects: 4 doctors and 1 medical student continued to work in their laboratories from 8:00 in the morning until 1900 hours in the evening and later." Then on page 2, the heading Subjective Findings: "During the first two days of the experiment psychic changes were not observed with the exception of thirst which slowly increased. On the third day the individuals, according to on their temperament, varied in their conduct. Vitality and depression were contrasted. Some were talkative, while others withdrew since it was unpleasant to them to talk. On the fourth day these symptoms could be especially easily seen." Then the next paragraph: "During the night from the fourth to the fifth day sleep was interrupted by vivid dreams. Some people indicated their dreams by cries and restless movements. On the fifth day there was a certain exhaustion with all the subjects. Movements were slow because of the dryness of the mucous membranes; only very little was spoken. But also the thought process was somewhat slowed down and concentrating ability was consequently reduced. The fifth experimental subject ended the experiment after 6 x 24 hours. In this case there was general fatigue; thirst had not increased to any considerable extent but was very unpleasant and monopolized the thoughts. During the whole course of the experiment there was not the slightest sign of any psychotic changes. In the cases of all experimental subjects, after drinking a slight amount of fluid, two cups of tea, there was immediate feeling of well-being. The average loss of weight was approximately one kilogram daily. After two days this was compensated for again. There were no after effects. Efficiency remained unchanged.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution examined the form of this affidavit?