1947-02-07, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 7 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the Defendant Oberheuser asks the Tribunal, in consideration of her status now, to be excused again today at 3 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: Upon request of Defendant Oberheuser extended through her counsel, the defendant may be excused from attendance in the court for reasons of her health at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS — Resumed.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, you were Chief of the Reichs chancellery?
A: Yes.
Q: As such you had opportunity to meet high personalities of the former German Government—at least part of them?
A: At least part of them.
Q: Do you know Martin Bormann?
A: Yes.
Q: What position did Bormann hold?
A: He was at the end, head of the Parteikanzlei, after Minister Hess left in '41.
Q: I merely want to have this cleared up for the information of the Tribunal. Martin Bormann was a personality who will play an important role in the course of this trial. Witness, I should like to ask you what kind of a person was Martin Bormann?
A: That is very difficult to say in a few sentences. Please, make this question a little more concrete.
Q: What character traits were predominant in the thinking and actions of Martin Bormann?
A: After I had been mistaken about his character I finally reached the conclusion that he was a very subtle and hypocritical character who was able to mask his true intentions skillfully.
Q: Was Martin Bormann a man who tried to concentrate as much power as possible in himself?
A: He actually did attempt to do that. He always denied it, he always said that he wanted nothing loss than power. But on the basis of my knowledge of developments of which I learned to a large extent only after the collapse in 1945, I came to the conviction that he actually tried to obtain a certain power and tried to eliminate other people in his field. In particular, I had the experience that he tried.
Q: Please speak a little more slowly, witness.
A: I was convinced that he tried to take away as much power as possible from me since I was a state agent from which he believed that he was constantly receiving opposition in his actions. This position which I might have had he constantly tried to undermine, especially by having himself appointed Secretary of the Fuehrer and as such became active in the state sector too.
Q: Witness, are you aware that Martin Bormann was filled with ardent hatred of Jews?
A: He did not emphasize it when speaking to me but I am convinced that he was an opponent of the Jews.
Q: Witness, do you agree with my opinion that Adolph Hitler, under the influence of Bormann in the years '43 and '44, made and partly realized these plans to evacuate and exterminate Jews in Europe?
A: Yes, those were things which I as a witness under oath, testifying to facts, those are things about which I can say nothing.
Q: Witness, do you have any indications, any reasons to share this opinion which I have just expressed?
A: At the moment I could not give any indication.
Q: Did you have the impression, witness, that Hitler was under the influence of Bormann?
A: In my opinion Bormann's influence on Hitler was rather great, exactly how great it was I am not able to judge. Those are subjective things that happened to Bormann and Hitler about which I can say nothing as a witness.
Q: Then you will not be able to answer the question whether Martin Bormann was Adolph Hitler's evil spirit.
A: That was as a personal opinion which I would like to affirm, but that is only a subjective feeling, intuitive feeling which I cannot prove by any concrete facts.
Q: Do you I now Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich who was murdered?
A: Yes, I knew Heydrich.
Q: Was Heydrich also a person like Bormann who was striving for power?
A: In my opinion Heydrich was to a much greater degree even, and it was expressed much more openly.
Q: Did Heydrich influence the Reichfuehrer SS Himmler strongly? Do you know anything about that?
A: He certainly had an influence on him but I cannot give any concrete facts about these things.
Q: Now, witness, what was the relationship between Martin Bormann and Reichsleiter Bounler?
A: I believe it was rather loose, they did not see each other often and they were in a sense rivals. The agency of the Reichsleiter Bouhler which was called the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP was a party organization. In addition to the Party Chancellery, there were certain organizations, and I know there was strong friction between Bouhler and Bormann, because Bormann wanted to control matters himself?
Q: Witness, did you learn that Martin Bormann did not approve of Bouhler' s so-called weak attitude on Jewish questions?
A: I never talked to Bouhler about it and I did not hear about it.
Q: Did Dr. Conti belong to Bormann's staff?
A: As far as I know, no. He was under the Reichs Ministry of the Interior, also he was an honorary officer in the SS — I must correct myself, he was later made subordinate to Bormann by being made legal health leader in the party sector.
Q: Witness, do you know anything about the fact that Adolf Hitler, before the events which you discussed this morning, gave the assignment to Bouhler to introduce Euthanasia?
A: I can say nothing about that formally, but today I am convinced that the powers which were given to Brandt and Bouhler bear a different date —
Q: I will come back to that witness.
A: Than the date of the signature.
Q: I merely wanted to ask you when in the summer of 1939, or in August 1939, Adolf Hitler might have given Reichsleiter Bouhler the assignment to introduce Euthanasia for incurably insane persons.
A: I know nothing about that.
Q: Do you know that Martin Bormann heard about this and tried to appropriate these Euthanasia measures?
A: I do not know anything about that either.
Q: Then you do not know either that Martin Bormann suggested to Hitler that he assign this to Dr. Conti.
A: No, I do not know about that either.
Q: You probably do not know that Conti did not want this assignment and then the situation became as was described?
A: I can only say that Conti told him the assignment had been taken away from him.
Q: Witness, I shall show you Document 630-PS, Exhibit 330. That is the decree of Hitler of September 1, 1939, which I need not read again as it has been mentioned several times. Please read through this decree witness. What do you consider the legal character of this statement of Adolf Hitler?
A: If I may express myself generally, I can only say that in this extreme form it does not correspond to the form which was customary for state decrees.
Q: Did Adolf Hitler issue many such important decrees in such form?
A: In individual cases, but I believe there were only a few cases. The Fuehrer did not like to worry about external forms, sometimes he used this form when it was not submitted by an expert but that happened very seldom.
Q: Now, witness, what did you do when such significant instructions from Adolf Hitler came to your attention and they were not in the correct form?
A: That happened very seldom, only once or twice. If such a decree in this form was submitted to me, because I also had to sign it, then I adjusted the form to what was customary for a state decree; that is I crossed out Adolf Hitler and at the bottom above the name Hitler, I wrote The Fuehrer or the Fuehrer, Reichs Chancellor, or I changed it at the top and I wrote the Fuehrer or Reichs Chancellor and that was changed in the course of time. Then, I put the Reich seal on such decrees and since I had to certify these statements of the Fuehrer, I signed them.
Q: Witness, now this statement of Adolf Hitler of September 1, 1939; did you ever see it?
A: I believe I saw a copy or the original; I do not know. For the first time when the Reichs Minister of Justice Dr. Gurtner, at the end of 1940 or the beginning of 1941, visited me, as I testified before, and talked to me about what was to be done about the information received, that was the first time I had seen it.
It did not go through my hands, but today I cannot say with certainty whether I saw the original or whether I saw a copy.
Q: Witness, you just said that a person who did not have the necessary specialized information could not find any objections to the form of such statements of Adolf Hitler; is that true?
A: Yes, it happened that if Minister Speer submitted something in a form which was not correct, if it came to my hands I corrected the form. The Fuehrer himself did not think it was very important, if something was shown to him, he thought it must be right and he signed it.
Q: Witness, I asked you before what you consider the legal character of this statement of Adolf Hitler without consideration of the form; please answer this question.
A: That is a question which is very difficult to answer, it is debatable. I said before expressly that I explained to the Reichs Minister of Justice that I considered a law necessary. I did not consider this enough, but the Reich Minster of Justice Dr. Gurtner was apparently of the opinion that this was a valid order from the Fuehrer, that is a law, consequently, he stopped the proceedings.
Q: Witness, if outstanding jurists were of the opinion that this decree of Hitler was a fully valid legal decree, that it had the value of a law, then persons without legal training certainly had to think that this decree was a fully valid law?
MR. McHANEY: Just a minute, please. I must object to the question and I ask that it be stricken. I know of no testimony in the record which gives the opinion of any great legal experts that this was a valid law and I don't think that the question can be put to him in that form. He has been asked for his opinion and he has given his opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of the Prosecution will be sustained. The matter is not pertinent to the question in its present condition and the answer insofar as it has been made will be stricken.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, this morning you spole of a meeting between you and Reichsleiter Bouhler in 1940; do you know whether Reichsleiter Bouhler in May or June of 1940 visited Adolf Hitler in order to ask him that he be relieved of his duties as head of the Chancellery?
A: No, I do not remember that.
Q: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further examination of this witness by the defense counsel?
(No reply.)
Prosecution may proceed to cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Lemmers, do you still have the three decrees, the Fuehrer decrees, concerning Karl Brandt's appointment as a General Commissioner before you?
A: I do not have the decrees.
(Documents handed to witness.)
Q: Witness, you say that Dr. Karl Brandt was authorized to issue instructions within the medical field of his special tasks. Now, these tasks have not been defined. Do you know what these special tasks were?
A: This morning I said that the contents and extent of the special tasks were not known to me in detail; that I only know that they were in fields of economics and science which had some connection with the medical and health service; for example, in obtaning drugs, other medical supplies, and similar things and in scientific research in the field of war injuries. That is what I know about it. I did not concern myself with the details, and I had no interest in the details of Dr. Brandt's special assignment.
Q: Now, Doctor, will you kindly lock at the first section of the July decree of 1942 and which you aided in the drafting thereof concerning the powers given to the chief of the medical services of the Wehrmacht; namely, Dr. Handloser, and will you tell us what powers as a practical matter did this first decree give to Handloser?
A: Paragraph 2 of Number 1 says about Handloser's tasks. "The Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht is to represent the Wehrmacht before the civilian authorities in all common medical problems arising in the various branches of the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and organizations and; units subordinate or attached to the Wehrmacht, and will protect the interests of the Wehrmacht in all medical measures taken be the civilian authorities." This defines the task of Handloser.
Q: Could you tell us as a practical matter what powers Handloser received from this language you have just read to us?
A: He represents the Wehrmacht as chief. He negotiated with Mr. Conti on the civilian side and also with Mr. Brandt as far as Brandt had any special assignments.
Q: Did he have any powers over the other sectors, such as the medical services, the Army, the Luftwaffe, the Navy and the Waffen SS?
A: The powers of the chief of the Wehrmacht medical service I don't know in detail. They are set down in other administrative regulations, not only here. They are all the powers which the head of the Wehrmacht medical service had. They were not repealed by this. They were only mentioned here in a certain direction for the purpose of this decree to coordinate military and civilian health services.
Q: Now, witness, as I understand it you were chief of the Reich Chancellery. Now, in that position you were considered to be a so-called link between the Fuehrer and all the Reich ministers, is that correct?
A: Yes, unless there were express exceptions.
Q: Now, isn't it true that your duties dealt mostly with the legislation of now laws?
A: No, only with formally directing this legislation. I did. not oven formulate new laws. I only directed the course of the legislation; that is, bills which came from ministers or other officers I turned over to the proper authorities. I received objections and negotiated, and finally some law or some regulation was agreed upon and then I edited that. I was not the legal authority for all questions by any means. I was only in charge of formal things, of the procedure of legislation.
Q: Well, now, in that connection for the benefit of the Tribunal will you kindly outline what requirements had to be met in order to promulgate a valid law; that is, did it require a vote of a governing body? Did it need to be duly published on tine official law journal, the Reichgesctzblatt, and all other details necessary to validate any such law?
A: If a laws was to be issued, the draft had to be given to all members of the government, to all the Reich ministers, with a certain time limit. A stamp was put on it which said if until such and such a date -it was cried of two or three weeks, sometimes longer, sometimes less -if there has been no objection by this thee this will be considered approval. As sessions of the Reich Cabinet took place only until 1937 then such things were still discussed, orally. After 1937 there was only a written procedure, and this ended with elimination of certain objections and then approval of agreement on the law.
If one could assume that there was no objection by the ministers then I got the signatures of the ministers concerned, not all of them, and then I gave it to the Fuehrer for his signature. If there were still objections these objections were decided by the Fuehrer, or it was said we had to work on it some more until the objections had been eliminated. And if it was a law it had to be done on this way and then published in the Reichgesetzblatt.
Q: Now, Doctor, you have stated that you participated in the drafting of the proposed euthanasia law. Will you tell us what this draft contained, what requirements must be met before the execution of the program would have taken place?
A: I can tell you approximately the contents of my draft. First, it was said that under certain conditions the life unworthy to live of German insane persons can be removed. The, as I had intended it—-these were only my ideas—then there was to be a provision that the severe diseases were listed from the medical point of view. A paragraph was to be added establishing general exceptions. As I already said this morning insane persons who had became insane through injuries in war were to be excepted; also these who had contracted the disease in public service, also senility; also a number were left open because that was primarily a medical question.
Then careful observation was provided with consideration of the purpose. I had set this observation for one year. It was variable. Then the interests of the person concerned were to be preserved, a special nurse was to be appointed; the relatives were to be questioned, the community was to be consulted and so forth.
And after the period of observation, a group of doctors and specialists, with a legal official presiding, was to decide. Since tie composition of this group varied, one could make various suggestions.
Then the type of election, of voting, was to be determined, and them an executing physician was to be chosen. In my opinion this doctor was to have the opportunity to observe the patient for three months, and if he believed that the decision of the board was not right he should have the case reviewed. There should be an appeal authority. Then there were a number of other questions of execution which I do not remember now, which were to have had to be settled if such a law was passed, so that actually only the most severe cases would be affected, and so that a decision in favor of death would be reached only if it was such a severe case that it seemed advisable to bring about death, if one in general holds the point of view that a mercy death is advisable.
Q: Now, Doctor, it is true that your draft of this euthanasia law was never enacted or accepted. You had the intentions, of course, of having this law meet the requirements of all other proposed laws; that is go through the regular procedure and eventually resulting in publication in the Reichgesetzblatt. Is that a correct assumption?
A: When I thought about this question, of course, I considered a problem which was not in the field of law and medicine but a problem which was more in the field of legal philosophy and ethics. The question -what are the limits of the power of the legislator — that, in my opinion, was the basic question in whether or not to pass such a law. But I did not reach any decision on this basic question. I did not want to, I could not; and I did not have to. I was convinced that if this draft is submitted and distributed to all the Ministers — this took fifty to sixty copies — then the objection to this measure will be so strong that this measure will die of its own accord, at least will not be settled during war time and can be taken up only when a time comes that these problems can be investigated thoroughly. I was convinced that the objections to a draft would be so strong that the law would never have been passed.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Doctor. I have no further questions, your Honors.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, you were asked whether this was a formally valid law. You said that the customary requirements were not fulfilled. Are there other possibilities in addition to a law?
A: What the prosecutor asked me was only what in German jurisprudence we call a formal law, a law which has been passed by way of legislation, and one of these ways was a law passed by the Reich Government. Other ways were by passing a decree or a decree of the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer decree had been taken ever from the period of von Hindenburg. It was nothing new that had been established by the Fuehrer, and this Fuehrer decree was not passed in this formal way. No one had anything to with it except the ministers what were participating and they were only consulted.
Their approval was not necessary. The Fuehrer alone determined. And if the Fuehrer wanted a Fuehrer decree or if a minister wanted a Fuehrer decree, then I sent a draft of such a decree to the ministers concerned and asked for their opinion. It was sufficient if the ministers were consulted. whether they had objected, whether they had approved made no difference actually because the Fuehrer alone decided.
Q: Then the external form of a decree does not indicate that it was invalid?
A: That is, in my opinion, a doubtful question.
Q: You mentioned two cases before when these requirements were not necessary.
A: I produced them.
Q: The Minister of Justice considered it a legal decree?
A: The Minister of Justice considered it a legal Fuehrer order and a law. Otherwise he would not have stopped the proceedings.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for Handloser): Mr. President, through the questions asked by Mr. Hardy the question of number 1 of the decree of 1942 was brought up for the first time. Therefore, I ask that I may be allowed to ask a question on this number 1 which affects the Wehrmacht Medical Service.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may propound the question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. NELTE:
Q: Mr. Lammers, in the creation of the OKW on the 4th of February 1938; that is, when the powers of this OKW were formulate, you were present as chief of the Reich Chancellery?
A: Yes.
Q: Through the decree which has been shown to you of the 28th of July 1942 the organization of the OKW was supplemented by the creation of the office, chief of the Wehrmacht medical service; is that true?
A: When the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service — when this office was created I do not know.
Q: If you still have the decree before you, you will see it.
A: Here it says: "For the Wehrmacht I commission the medical inspector of the Army as chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service", and so forth.
Q: Then, through this decree he is empowered and thus the office is created?
A: Yes, it is possible. I did not draw up this decree. The chief of the OKW and others had this and examined it. I do not know whether the chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service existed before this or not. I cannot say. I don't know.
Q: Do you know the powers of the chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht Keitel?
A: Yes.
Q: You testified about that here in he big trial. Will you please tell the Tribunal whether the chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, was the superior of the commanders-in-chief of the branches of the Wehrmacht?
A: The chief of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Keitel, was not commander-in-chief of the branches of the Wehrmacht.
Q: Then Keitel could not give orders to Goering or Raeder or Doenitz?
A: They could issue orders in their own fields.
Q: I said Keitel could not give orders to the commanders-in-chief?
A: Keitel could not give any orders to the commanders-in-chief. He could only transmit orders from the Fuehrer to them, but that is true only of the military field for the pure command matters. As far as the chief of the OKW exercised the functions of a minister of war, then things were different.
Q: Handloser was within the OKW the subordinate of Keitel?
A: How — what Handloser's military position was, I don't know. I don't know to whom he was subordinate.
Q: Then the internal conditions of the Wehrmacht Medical Service are completely unknown to you? You cannot express any opinion?
A: The organizational plans of the OKW -
Q: I was asking you whether you could express any opinion about the powers which Handloser had, from your own knowledge?
A: No.
DR. NELTE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, Dr. Froeschmann for Viktor Brack. I have one question arising from the examination by the Prosecution. May I ask it?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may propound the question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q: Witness, do you remember that at the end of 1940 or the beginning of '41 the Defendant Brack called on you at your office and that you told him about the draft of the law which you have just been discussing and that finally Brack asked you to give him this law?
A: I cannot remember it, but I consider it possible that Brack called on me and that we discussed the draft of the law.
Q: Witness, can you remember that this draft which was worked out by you was given to Reichsleiter Bouhler or the Fuehrer Chancellory?
A: I do not know, but I consider it possible that I gave Brack or Bouhler a draft of this law, but it was a rough draft; I must state that expressly. It left quite a number of questions open.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Lammers, will you kindly tell us what are the limits of validity of a Fuehrer Decree?
A: From the legal point of view which had prevailed since 1933, the Fuehrer Decree had the same force as a law passed by the Reichsregierung or by the Reichstag.
Q: Then, as I understand, your special decrees of the Fuehrer usually contained your name and the name of the particular minister and then duly published in the Reichgesetzblatt, is that right, such as these decrees conferring the authority as General Commission for Health and Sanitation on Karl Brandt?
A: The Fuehrer Decrees were published in the Reichgesetzblatt on principle if they were to have full force as law, but there were Fuehrer Decrees which were not published in the Reichgesetzblatt because that did not seem necessary.
For example, all the organizational decrees about the occupied territories, none of them were published in the Reichgesetzblatt.
Q: Well, those were usually decrees of an administrative nature, were they not?
A: Yes, they were administrative organizational decrees.
Q: Well, then, Dr. Lammers, if I have understood you correctly, it is your opinion that the Fuehrer letter of 1 September 1939 pertaining to the Euthanasia program was not a valid Fuehrer Decree, is that a correct presumption?
A: I have already said that I would have considered a law necessary.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the witness is now being asked a legal question which it is the task of the Tribunal to decide. I do not believe that this question is admissible, and I ask that the answer be stricken from the record.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honor, that the witness here is an expert on German law and I put the question to him was it his opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The witness may state his opinion on the question propounded to him.
MR. HARDY: The witness has answered the question, your Honor. I have no further questions to put to this witness.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, you said that there were decrees which were not published. Was the reason for this secrecy?
A: That was partially the reason.
Q: These were decrees concerning the administration of the occupied territories, is that correct?
A: They did not all have to be kept secret.
Q: But it was the reason to keep the secret as far as possible.
A: Yes, and also the fact that it did not affect the Reich territory.
Q: Are there not also other decrees which were kept secret concerning the conduct of the war?
A: It may be that there were such decrees.
Q: I am thinking of the Reich defense laws.
A: The Reich defense law was not published, and when I was examined here by the big Tribunal last year, I always called it an administrative order which was quite valid and permissible because the measures in the field of Reich defense did not require publication.
Q: Then the usual form was deviated from?
A: The law was not published.
Q: And who ordered this violation of the form?
A: The Fuehrer did not want this law published and it was not published.
Q: Then I conclude that the Fuehrer had the right to determine deviations from the usual form?
A: Yes. In the case of every law he could say, "I do not want it published," and then it was not published. It was only a question of whether it came into existence, as a law. It was certainly not a law if it was not published, a formal law, I understand, only a published law.
Q: Witness, I am not speaking of formal laws. I am speaking of a decree You said that the form could be modified or changed at the discretion of the Fuehrer.
A: No, not always. Normally the Fuehrer Decrees were published.
Q: Normally, yes, but you yourself mentioned two cases where this form was changed.
A: Well, then, the Fuehrer ordered that they should not be published.
Q: And he had the power to do that?
A: I assume that he did.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no further questions.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I ask that the ruling just made by the Tribunal be reviewed. I asked the witness whether the Fuehrer Decree of the 1st of September, 1939, could be understood as a decree by persons who were not legal experts, that is, the population in general. The Prosecutor objected to this question, and the objection was upheld by the Tribunal. Now the Prosecution for the same reason has asked the witness about the significance of these decrees.
The Prosecution in view of the legal knowledge of the witness considered this question justified. I believe that the Tribunal will have to change its previous ruling, since what has been granted to the Prosecution may also be granted to the Defense. I therefore, make application that the ruling of the Tribunal be changed and that the question and answer which was stricken from the record be restored.
THE PRESIDENT: The question propounded by Counsel for the Defense to the witness sought to elicit an answer as to what some other people thought or might have thought of the law. The question propounded to the witness by the Prosecution was as to the opinion of the witness upon the law which is quite a different matter.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions to put to this witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall now call the witness, Gutzeit.
THE PRESIDENT: There being no further examination of this witness, the witness, Dr. Lammers, will be excused.
The Marshal will summon the witness, Gutzeit.
KURT GUTZEIT, a witness, took the stand end testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: You will please face the Tribunal, hold up your right hand and be sworn, repeating after me the oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q: Witness, when and where were you born? What is your name?
A: Kurt Gutzeit, born on the second of June, 1893.
Q: You are a professor medicine?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you have specialized knowledge in any field of medicine?
A: In my medical activity I dealt primarily with stomach and intestinal diseases, liver diseases and infectious diseases.
Q: Witness, will you please tell the Tribunal any information that may indicate your specialized knowledge; especially since I am going to examine you on the subject of hepatitis?
A: In 1920 I took the medical State examination. Then I was an assistant at the City Hospital in Neu Koeln in Berlin. Then I became assistant at the medical university clinic in Jana. There, in 1923, I qualified as a lecturer and received permission to hold lectures. In 1926 I became assistant at the university clinic in Breslau. In Breslau I also obtained permission to hold lectures and was instructor for internal medicine. Internal medicine is my special field. In 1929 I became Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Breslau. In 1930 I became Chief Physician of the Breslau University Clinic. In 1933 I was entrusted with the direction of the Hospital in Berlin. In 1934 I became a regular Professor for Internal Medicine at the University of Breslau and became director there of the medical university clinic where I had formerly worked as assistant. I held this position until Breslau was evacuated in January, 1945.
Q: Witness, during the war you were consulting physician of the Wehrmacht and worked in the Military Medical Academy, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: To whom were you subordinate there?
A: In the Military Medical Academy I was under the commanding officer of Instruction Group C of the Military Medical Academy. That was Generalarzt Dr. Schrieber. As Consulting Internist; which I was appointed at the beginning of the war when I was drafted into the Wehrmacht, I was under the Army Medical Inspector; Professor Dr. Waldmann.
Q: That information will be sufficient. Witness, did you concern yourself with Hepatitis research?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know the specialist, the other specialists who worked in the field of Hepatitis research?
A: I know a number of them by name, perhaps all of them.
Q: Will you please mention the more important ones?
A: In the Military Medical Academy was Stabsarzt Doctor Domen, who was also subordinate to the Commanding Officer of the Military Medical Academy. He dealth with Bacteriology; that is, with research into the cause of Hepatitis Epidemica. Also, I know of two assistants from the Leipzig University Clinic, and a third name I do not remember at the moment, were concerned with research into the cause of Jaundice. The two assistants of Professor Burger were Sieder and Gurtner, who had, at an earlier period, worked on the question of Hepatitis.
Q: Witness, that will be enough, thank you. You spoke of Doctor Demon. Did Doctor Domen have a research assignment?
A: As far as I recall, and I do not believe that I an mistaken, in the course of his work on Hepatitis, Demon received a research assignment.
Q: Do you know from whom tie assignment came?
A: The assignment came from the Commission for Epidemica Research of the Reich Research Counsel, that was Generalarzt Doctor Schreiber.
Q: Did you work with Doctor Domen?
A: In the field of Jaundice it was one field. We worked together in different sectors; and I was interested in the cause of the disease, and the conditions which caused the disease with the statistics of the disease, the question of how dangerous it was and the consequences. While Doctor Domen was in charge of the bacteriological research, I tried to determine what was the cause of this disease.
That this disease was contagious had already been shown to be very probable by the clinical research which I had conducted.
Q: Witness, what kind of work did Doctor Domen do? Do you know that?
A: Doctor Domen worked from scratch. He tried by means of animal experiments, from certain secretions of the patient, to cultivate the germ in the animal. It was necessary first of all to find the right animals in which these germs could be cultivated and finally it was possible to transfer the germs to the animal, to inject the animal, that is to produce an animal disease; and row by transferring the germ from one animal to another, to pass on disease from one animal to another. —- that is called animal culture, animal passage. And, these investigations were carried on later by the cultivation of the germs in the clinic. It was shown that this was not a bacterium as had been assumed in previous years; that the cause of the disease was a sub-microscopic organism which had to be grouped with the virus.
Q: Witness, what did Doctor Demon actually do? How far did his work go?
A: He believed that he had found the cause of Epidemica Jaundice. This was indicated by a number of factors.
Q: Witness, this information is sufficient. Now, did Doctor Grawitz have anything to do with this experiment?
A: When Doctor Domen bad cultivated his cultures in the animal and when in the meetings of medical Societies, this research word of Doctor Domen had been discussed frequently, the wish was expressed by various people that these cultures should be taken over from Domen. Grawitz was interested in Jaundice research because everywhere in Germany, particularly among the troops and in the camps, in refugee camps, concentration camps, in children evacuat ion camps, Jaundice was playing an enormous role in Germany.
He also wanted to have cultures from Domen so that he, himself, could have further experiments made. This request of Grawitz, as well as a similar request from Haagen, another research worker, also concerned with the bacteriology of Jaundice — Domen refused this request.
Q: What was the reason for this?
A: And, he did this for the following reasons: He did not want to give his cultures away, let them out of his hands, because it was a certain scientific property. The other people who approached him in order to get the cultures had not, or had hardly dealt with the whole question of Jaundice at that time. He wanted to retain control of the use of these cultures, and that is why he refused. Grawitz approached me to induce Doctor Domen to give up some of his cultures. I also took Doctor Domen's point of view.
Q: Witness, did Professor Brandt have anything to do with this Hepatitis research?
A: I did not hear that Brandt carried on this research. He was interested in it as many people, as many doctors were at that time. In view of the urgency of the problem Hepatitis was an important problem because we had no way of preventing it, to reduce the incidents of the disease, and we had no way of combating the disease with any specific drugs.
Q: Now, did Professor Brandt do anything in the way of research; did he appear in the field of research?
A: Not to my knowledge.
Q: Was Domen a subordinate of Professor Brandt?
A: No, I have already said Domen was under the Military Medical Academy, and Professor Brandt had nothing to do with the Academy directly.
Q: Did he not receive an assignment from Brandt directly outside of this?
A: I know nothing about that.
Q: Would you have learned of it?
A: I think so, yes.
Q: Witness, now for the disease itself, is Hepatitis a dangerous disease, dangerous to life?
A: Hepatitis has a mortality figure according to the experience gained in the second world war of less than 0.1. The deaths which occurred were generally not due to Jaundice itself, but other diseases caused death, and Jaundice was only an additional factor.
Q: Witness, is the therapy of this disease dangerous?
A: No.
Q: How is the disease treated?
A: I have already said we had no specific therapy. The therapy consisted of rest in bed, warmth, especially the stomach and intestine and liver region, treatment with vitamins, and so forth. Convalescent serums could also be used, that is, serum from people who had recovered from the disease. That serum would be administered. A certain diet was also important in order to protect the liver as much as possible.
Q: That is enough. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)