1947-02-13, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER — CROSS EXAMINATION (Resumed)

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: General, do you want the Tribunal to believe that no one on your staff checked into the qualifications of Dr. Ding as a typhus expert before it was approved that he deliver this lecture at the meeting of the consulting physicians in May, 1934?

A: I cannot make any judgment on that question. The working staff, in general, probably thought that they were tied to the suggestions of the Wehrmacht branches.

Q: In other words, they abducted their judgment to the Waffen-SS that Dr. Ding was a typhus expert and that he had some words of importance to occupy the time of such men as Schreiber, Rose and Eyer? Is that right?

A: If I personally received these suggestions, I would only have raised an objection if there were any occasion to do so.

Q: Let me put a hypothetical question to you, Doctor. Let us suppose in April, 1943, you were personally arranging the program for the meeting of the consulting physicians in May, 1943, and that you had designated typhus and typhus vaccines as one of the matters to be discussed, and that the Waffen-SS suggested the name of Dr. Ding. You have already testified you had never heard of Dr. Ding. I am asking you what you would have done with respect to including Dr. Ding on the program to lecture on typhus under those condition?

A: I would have done the same thing I did with reference to other suggestions by the SS or suggestions by other branches of the Wehrmacht when I did not know all the gentlemen. I would have to rely upon their suggestion. This was not my task. I did not have time to investigate the quality of the individual suggested. I was only interested in getting the leading people for these lectures to which I attached particular importance. I had to have enough confidence in the medical chief of the individual Wehrmacht branches to know they would put people at my disposal who would serve the purpose well. That is all I can say.

Q: I would like to investigate your failure to read this report by Ding. I must assume from that you were not interested in the effectiveness of the typhus vaccine produced from egg yolks?

A: No, that is not right. According to my opinion ever since 1943 I received information about the vaccine situations, and I can say that so far as I am concerned, and so far as I had anything to do with the matter, the entire typhus complex was postponed. For the center of gravity and all the work was based on the delousing. That was a basic change which was of great importance.

Q: Now you recall having read Dings' report here in Nurnberg on egg yolk vaccine, and its effectiveness was really the care of the problem he was dealing with, and in this report he compared the effectiveness of egg yolk vaccines to the better known Bergl's vaccine, and I think also vaccine developed from rabbit lungs. You were not interested in that matter, is that right?

A: Certainly I was interested in these questions. I remember that through various ways I tried to gain various information on the typhus question, and among others I read an article which appeared in the press which was a long article on measures of ability of leadership at home, which was contemplated in order to protect against typhus, and this article — this egg yolk question was also mentioned. Then discussions were carried on with Mr. Eyer as to whether we should extend the different vaccine procedure, and, Mr. Eyer also dealt with the question whether we could not use rabbit lungs, or dog lungs in a much more productive manner. Apart from that Mr. Eyer increased his production in such a manner, which was greatly to my satisfaction; that considering the progress we made in the program of delousing, these questions, which you have just mentioned, were not of such a primary interest as you tried to express here.

Q: General, I am not trying to express anything. I am asking you about your interest in these matters. I suppose you know where Eyer got his information and the effectiveness of these dog lung and rabbit lung vaccines, don't you? He got that from Buchenwald, didn't he?

A: I can not say, but I am sure that it was contained in literature, too.

Q: All right. Where did they test those dog lung and rabbit lung vaccines; in other words, where did Eyer get his information if he did not get it from Buchenwald?

A: You must not forget that I had my own hygienist on my staff in the headquarters, and it was one of his tasks, this hygienist, to inform himself about basic questions, and then to inform me accordingly, and, then I only know that the creating of that, that of considering the increased production of Mr. Eyer, and considering our delousing program, and considering the typhus situation, as it prevailed in 1942, that was the second half of 1942, we would not need to resort to that, and we actually proved this. I am really very interested in medicine, not only officially but also personally, but we are now seeing these things in a retrospection, and at that time I saw them the other way around, and I looked at these things from a very different point of view, as is the case here now; therefore, the situation is basically different.

Q: Who was your hygienist on the staff on whom you relied?

A: That was Lecturer Dr. Bickart.

Q: Will you spell that?

A: B-I-C-K-A-R-T, Bickart.

Q: You did not answer my previous question. Where in Germany to your knowledge did he carry out any research on the effectiveness of dog lung and rabbit lung vaccines; in fact, on any vaccine, do you know?

A: Well, I only know that the Robert Koch Institute bore that vaccine, The Behring Werks, and probably the Institute for Experimental Therapy in Frankfurt, and if you would be kind enough to read the article which was submitted by my defense counsel of a document which was written by one of the oldest experts on typhus and typhus vaccine, namely, Geheimrat Otto of Frankfurt, then I am sure that you would be enlightened about this complex question regarding mice and rabbits, and you will be completely informed about the subject. This was written in a paper where one could understand it, which is not a medical journal, but a general knowledge journal, and I think it is written in such a manner that it gives complete and excellent information about the situation. It is not a subjectively written report, and it is not a report made by a general medical specialist of Frankfurt, but made by an expert, and I think this report would answer all your questions.

Q: Geheimrat Otto, as I recall it, was attached to the Ministry of Interior, is that right?

A: No, this Geheimrat Otto was always the President, or at least for many years, of the Institute for Experimental Therapy in Frankfurt.

Q: And did you rely on his advice on this typhus question?

A: He was my adviser, and it was his task to do that. He had so much knowledge and ability that I could rely on him in the same way I could rely previously on Schreiber.

Q: What do you mean, "rely previously on Schreiber"?

A: I mean that on the basis of Schreiber's knowledge and work and his efforts, I could rely upon everything he suggested or whatever he gave me for my information. Considering the extent of my work, I was not in a position at all to read everything myself, and that certainly was not my task. I had these things reported to me by my departmental chiefs, and I then had to draw my own conclusions and sometimes asked questions if I thought it was necessary.

Q: Well, I understand that, General, but the way you phrased your answer, it might lead somebody to believe that you quit relying on Schreiber and started relying on Otto, and that is not the case, is it? Schreiber was working with you up until the end of the war, wasn't he?

A: Yes, but Schreiber did not act as my immediate advisor in my vicinity until the end of the war. Schreiber was with me in the army at the front until 1942. He was at the Medical Inspectorate until 1943, and then he went to the Academy, where he headed a scientific group, and of course he removed himself from me to a certain extent. I had, of course, an opportunity to collaborate *** was not my immediate collaborator anymore.

Q: Was it not the purpose of these meetings of consulting physicians to establish a basis for the issuance of medical directives?

A: Yes.

Q: General, I understood that you never were a member of the Reich Research Council; is that right?

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: Did. you ever attempt to become a member?

A: I spoke to Field Marshal Keitel about that when the Reich Research Council was created. I asked him whether it would not be right if the Wehrmacht was represented there. He at that time was of the same opinion and made that application. He repeated it at a later date, but this application was rejected. The reason was given that the individual expert departments were all covered by experts, that Field Marshal Keitel himself was a member of the Presidial Council, and that, in addition, the President reserved the right whenever any basic question came up which particularly concerned military medicine to call upon the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service in such a case and use his advice.

That, however, never happened.

Q: General, I think that is a very clear picture of how these members of the Reich Research Council operated. They were representatives of the other medical services, weren't they?

A: I personally?

Q: The members of the Reich Research Council were appointed to the Reich Research Council in a sort of representative capacity for some other medical agencies, such as the Army Medical Inspectorate, weren't they?

A: There was no representative. The Army Medical Service had no representative on the Reich Research Council.

Q: Who was Schreiber?

A: Schreiber was a medical officer who had the expert department — I should not call it a department; he was a plenipotentiary for the combatting of epidemics. That was a task which had nothing to do with his position as medical officer. In this position he had no relation to me whatsoever and was not dependent upon me or the army.

Q: Well, now, General, do you want to go back then and change that unfortunate word that you used a moment ago when you said you urged your appointment to the Presidial Council of the Reich Research Council on the ground that you would then be the representative of the Wehrmacht? Isn't that what you said?

A: Yes. Schreiber was not a representative of the Wehrmacht. Schreiber entered the Council as an expert on the very special field of hygiene. I certainly did not fit into any position as a plenipotentiary or in an expert department. I was only interested in seeing to it that if something like that was created that the Medical Service -

A: Would be represented?

A: —would have some kind of representation, as is usually the case.

Q: And you want the Court to believe Schreiber worked in the Reich Research Council with his left hand and in the Army Medical Inspectorate with his right hand and that the one did not know what the other was doing; is that right?

A: I would not like to lead you to believe that. The first part is a fact. Whatever happened in the second part, namely, the knowledge of the right or the left hand — a man cannot cut himself into two parts, but some personalities can keep these two things apart quite well. For Schreiber this no doubt meant a recognition of his efforts as an expert, being incorporated into the Reich Research Council as a representative for the combatting of epidemics. He emphasized that, and he felt himself rather elevated through his new position.

Q: Well, now, wasn't Schreiber, as a matter of fact, the representative for the Army Medical Inspectorate on the Reich Research Council?

A: No.

Q: Did Schreiber not report to you concerning his activities as a member of the Reich Research Council?

A: No.

Q: How did it come about that Schreiber was appointed to membership on the Reich Research Council? Did you recommend him?

A: No. Schreiber one day came to me, very much pleased with himself, and he told me that he had received a request to take ver this position. He asked whether he would have to inform his chief first, and in reply I told him that I authorized him to accept this position in the Reich Research Council and that, if necessary, I would help him in his medical sphere if it should come about that he could not quite manage his work. That is what happened.

Q: Didn't you exploit his work in the Reich Research Council which he performed there? Wasn't he really doing the same work in the Reich Research Council that he was doing an officer in the Army Medical Inspectorate?

A: I received n? insight whatsoever into his assignments or his tasks during the time that Schreiber was in the Reich Research Council.

Q: Is it not a fact that the Army Medical Inspectorate or some other appropriate army medical agency represented officers associated with the army for membership in the Reich Research Council as their representative?

A: I don't know that.

Q: Did you or any agency subordinated to you ever receive reports on scientific research from the Reich Research Council?

A: According to my knowledge, no.

Q: How were the results achieved by the Reich Research Council applied in a practical manner in the medical field if you did not receive any reports?

A: I don't know whether Schreiber had any possibility or used any possibility of communicating directly with the hygienist and thereby received some material, or whether he used the material which he received as commander of the scientific group, I cannot say. At any rate, no authority, no assignments, came from me officially.

Q: Well, do you want this Tribunal to believe that the Reich Research Council insofar as it investigated medical and scientific problems was working in some sort of a vacuum and that the results they achieved did not some to anybody's attention? After all, they were not of any use to the Reich Research Council itself.

A: Well, I don't know how far the Reich Research Council progressed with its intended work. There were many institutions which were thrown up, but you never heard anything further from them. I can only say that I personally received nothing; nothing came through my hands which impressed me in any way, and I am referring to any particular point or files regarding the medical research which was sent by the Reich Research Council to me. I don't know whether the Council had a special organization or a newspaper or any other such channel through which this agency could publish its work, but I don't remember anything like that.

Q: I assume then the Schreiber didn't spend much time on his work with the Reich Research Council, since they didn't produce anything that you know anything about?

A: Schreiber was very industrious. Whether any results were achieved, I cannot say? If they must have referred to experiences which he previously gathered in the Army Medical Service, or some summarizing information about military and civilian experiences. At the moment I cannot recollect any specific case.

Q: Now, wasn't Schreiber, as a practical matter, subordinated to you in all his official activities, including whatever he did within the framework of the Reich Research Council?

A: For his activity in the Reich Research Council, as I repeatedly declared here, Schreiber was completely independent of me and the Wehrmacht.

Q: Suppose you decided that Gutzeit would be more useful to the Army on the Reich Research Council than Schreiber; couldn't you have substituted Gutzeit for Schreiber?

A: No.

Q: How did Schreiber divide his time, with respect to his work on the Reich Research Council and as an officer in the Army Medical Inspectorate?

A: I cannot say that. Schreiber was no longer in the Army Medical Inspectorate, when he entered the Reich Research Council, and how he divided his time was a question that he had to decide with his commander, who was his superior.

Q: General, I want to hand you Document No. NO-1490; maybe we can get a little bit better idea about what these fellows on the Reich Research Council from the army — how they were appointed and who they were representing?

MR. McHANEY: I offer this as Prosecution Exhibit No.450, for identification.

Q: (continuing) General, will you read aloud this letter from Fromm to Goering, dated 9 September 1942?

A: Yes.

On 20 August 1942, I named 42 gentlemen through Army Ordnance as members of the Reich Research Council in the field of armament.

From the further army branches, I have to propose:

1. Presiding Council. Since Secretary of State Conti and Professor Brandt are members of the presiding council, it seems to follow to call the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army-General-oberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Handloser — also into the presiding council, in compliance with the decree of the Fuehrer concerning the Medical and Health Service, dated 28 July 1942 (Reich — Law- Publication 87/42).

2. Reich Research Council. It seems to me to be necessary to adopt the matter 'Military Medicine' after (e) Luftwaffe as a special field of research for the consulting board of managers.

   I request to call Oberstarzt Dr. Schreiber, Chief of department with the Army Medical Inspectorate, as a member of the Research Council in the field of Military Medicine.

   I assume that if necessity should arise, individual experts in social fields, for instance, veterinary service, Protection against epidemics and poison gas, Nutritional chemistry, Textiles could be assigned to the Reich Research Council without giving a nominal quotation at the present.

3. Consulting board of managers. I request to call Professor Dr. Loos from the Technical College at Berlin, as an expert for the Army into the consulting board of managers. If the consulting board of Professor Loos should deem it necessary to have an Army Officer assigned, I shall make suggestions.

Signed Fromm.

Q: Did you confer with Fromm about the appointment of these men to the Reich Research Council?

A: In my opinion, discussions of that question went through Keitel, then to the Chief of General Wehrmacht Office, Reinecke, who was exactly informed about that matter. Whether it was from there transferred to Fromm, I cannot judge. Fromm had nothing to do with me as Chief of Wehrmacht Medical Services. He only had something to do with me in my capacity as Army Medical Inspectorate. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services was tied to the OKW, which was tied to the higher agency. I have said before that I have discussed this question with Keitel and that it was rejected. I always assumed that this was something that originated from Keitel or Reinecke. However, that makes no difference. May I say something else? In addition, it says here, at the top, "Chief Armament of the Army."

That is Reinecke and that is OKW, namely, the General Wehrmacht Office. I think the situation was that they caused Fromm to make this application, rather than having the OKW do it themselves, which I think would have been the more correct way of dealing with it.

Q: Well, General, you want the Court to believe that they appointed these subordinates of you to the Reich Research Council without consulting you about it or asking you your views in the matter?

A: With my "subordinates" you probably mean Schreiber, don't you? It says here, about Schreiber, that he was suggested as a member for the field of military medicine.

Q: Very well, do you mean to say that Military Medicine was not represented on the Reich Research Council?

A: Military Medicine was not represented at all, later. He was merely responsible for the special field of combat of epidemics.

Q: I'm asking you again, did Fromm or Keitel or Reinecke or any one of them ask you your opinion before Schreiber was recommended for appointment to the Reich Research Council?

A: I cannot say that, now. That was in September 1942. It is really improbable that a medical officer in my office would have been disposed of without my knowledge.

Q: I should think so too. Now, do you want the Tribunal to believe that General Fromm and yourself, in having Schreiber appointed to the Reich Research Council, were abdicating control over him, and thereby losing his services to the extent that he was active in the Reich Research Council?

A: In that connection I have to say that these relationships as they can be seen from this document are completely different from those which actually came into appearance when Schreiber actually entered the Reich Research Council without the assistance of the Wehrmacht. Here he was supposed to represent the field of Military Medicine and that is something entirely different. The agency for Military Medicine is the Army Medical Inspector or if you like, the Chief of the Medical Service, but the field of work which actually was assigned to him later was no longer a certain sector from the military field, namely, the military medical service, but that was an all-comprising field of the combat of epidemics.

These are two entirely different fields, and, in this latter field, he had no connections with us whatsoever. I don't say "to me" but I say "to us." If, on the other hand, he had come to the Reich Research Council as a military medicine man, if I may say, then the thing would have been entirely different.

Q: Did he, in fact, go there first as a military medicine man, as you put it?

A: No; nothing ever came of his suggestion, as of the intention that the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service is demanded here be included in the records.

Q: Well, we understand that you didn't succeed in your desire to be appointed to the presiding council, but it doesn't follow that Schreiber was not appointed after this letter was sent and I submit to you that he was, in fact.

A: That is an error for no further application was made, coming from us, that is the Wehrmacht, namely, that Schreiber was to be included in the Reich Research Council. Through what channels this came about I can't say but, at any rate, it was not through military channels.

Q: Well, when did Schreiber become a member of the Reich Research Council?

A: The change of the Reich Research Council took place about the end of 1942, but I think I heard here that in 1943, the Reich Research Council reactivated itself in 1943 in a new form but I'm not quite sure whether that's correct.

Q: General, you show an amazing memory on some points and complete lack of memory on others. Now you insist at great length that Schreiber was not appointed to the Reich Research Council on the basis of this letter which I have just put before you. Yet you cannot tell me when he became a member of the Reich Research Council.

A: I cannot give you the exact dates. I assume it was in the year 1943. I only know that one day when he was in Berlin he came to my room and told me that he received that request. I assume that my Chief of Staff, who will appear here as a witness, who had more limited sphere of work to do, could tell you a little more about this subject and could probably give you more exact dates. I cannot do that.

Q: And this letter does not indicate to you that the army had complete control over the designation of its army officers in the Reich Research Council?

A: In the first letter it says.... From the further remark "branches" I have to propose.... It say's I have to.... I believe that some request was made—that somebody made a request; then there is a man mentioned as coming from a technical high school. I can only imagine that there was some sort of a request and that this was the reply with reference to these officers that are mentioned here.

Q: Let us pass on, General. Your attorney asked you whether or not you ever gained any information concerning the freezing experiments carried out by Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke. Do you deny that you ever received knowledge on that matter?

A: I said no.

Q: As a result of the Eastern Campaign weren't you very much interested in "Cold" problems?

A: Yes.

Q: Isn't that why you sent army officers to the Luftwaffe Conference in October 1942?

A: Of course the interest in cold problems was of an important nature. I do not know who assigned them. From May until the end of October I was with headquarters in the Ukraine and I believe that the chief probably telephoned me, whether or how many people we should send, and he may have made some proposal, and I think I would have told him on that occasion "Yes, I am in full agreement. Send somebody there." It is quite a matter of course that we send some of the people who know something about cold because they were interested in it.

Q: Well, having sent them, you then immediately lost interest in the problem, I suppose?

A: No, I did not lose interest. At some period of time somebody probably reported to me whether something particular had happened or whether there were any particular results or not, and what could be exploited by us. But at that time it was not mentioned that anything in particular had occurred, nor was it said that any particular revolutionary results were achieved. At any rate, I cannot recollect anything like that to have happened. I should merely like to point out that my interests in cold problems, that is these sphere problems, that is the so called earth-bound cold, that is, normal height or as it referred to soldiers in mountain troops. That was something that was discussed with us during various meetings, at first during 1942, something that was discussed to a great extent and very exact directives were contained in these reports of these meetings. You will find them in 1942 and you will find them in 1943. Naturally we were interested in cold problems and it is quite a matter of course that whenever we were invited by the Luftwaffe that we would send our experts there and this is something that is done everywhere, not only in the Army and in the field of medicine, but in technical fields as well.

Q: Well, I thought that was probably correct, General; now I want to put it to you that Holzloehner had made a very remarkable discovery and one which I am sure came to your attention. Holzloehner and Rascher had found out that this massive warm bath was an extremely effective way of reviving persons from shock due to long exposure to cold, a treatment which had been first discovered by a Russian in the 19th century but had been forgotten somehow. Wasn't this a matter remarkable enough so that Schreiber who was at this meeting, or one of the many other army doctors who were down there, would perhaps call to your attention, after the extreme cold you had suffered in Russian the previous winter?

A: I said already before that at all times we were interested in cold problems and as you say, very correctly, mainly because of this terrible winter of 1941 and 1942. We already knew before that and there were regulations up to the war and perhaps during the first war, namely that people who were frozen had to be rewarmed very slowly; the entire population was informed that a frozen person should not be rewarmed very quickly. Even before that we included in our regulations that one should concentrate on rewarming and certain forms of rewarming were described. If we army people who knew frontal territory and Russia, were not so impressed by this warm bath, as you mentioned it, as you may think we were, it is probably for the reason that the entire Eastern Front just had no hot baths at their disposal and that plays quite a big role regarding the impression any new invention may have made on us.

Q: Well, now, General, let me put it to you this way. Did you make any changes in the basic directives concerning the rewarming after shock from exposure to cold after this Luftwaffe Conference or after the conference in December 1942?

A: If one would look through the reports of the meetings and the directives it is quite possible that some place, I can't tell you exactly where although I read that, something is said about warm or hot baths in regard to freezing. You yourself brought to our knowledge, through a document, that in December 1942 Holzloehner spoke about his rewarming questions during a meeting he held.

That was reported to 300 or 400 gentlemen who transferred that information to the front and I am sure that later on new directives contained the warm bath too.

Q: I am sure it did, too, General. That is the reason I asked you because I think that there is no doubt that great importance was attached to the results of this experiment in Dachau by Rascher, Holzloehner and Finke. I now want to ask you if you did'n't actually hear Holzloehner speak in December 1942 at the meeting of consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy?

A: I cannot recollect that and must say once more that is something that was done within the various expert branches. I am sure you will see that these expert branches dealt with these suggestions themselves.

Q: Well, then, to put it to you, General, this speech by Holzloehner is reported in our Document NO 922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, and it goes on — you have a very short synopsis here of his report but he does give clinical observations in cases of deaths resulting from cold and I find that you made some comments at this cold session on page 51 of the original report. It reads:

Handloser stresses the extraordinary importance of education also in combatting cold effects and appeals to all medical officers, in their capacity as leaders of the health service, to see to it that through ever repeated explanations each individual is taught to observe the necessary precautionary measures.

A: May I ask you where it is stated that is in reference to the lecture by Holzloehner? It seems to be within time framework of the cold problem.

Q: General, I will put the German to you so that you can see for yourself. General, let us read the little summary of the speech by Holzloehner because the Tribunal does not have this document before it. It reads:

Stabsarzt Professor Holzloehner:

Prevention and Treatment of Freezing.

In case of freezing in water of a temperature below 15° biological, counter-measures are practically ineffective, whether in the case of human beings or animals. Human beings succumb to reflectory rigidity, increase of blood sugar, an acidosis, at an earlier stage and to a greater extent than animals.

At a rectal temperature of below 30° Under such conditions of distress at sea auricular flutter regularly sets in; at under 28° heart-failure frequently occurs in human beings. (Over-exertion due to unequal distribution of blood, increased resistance and increased viscosity.) Treatment with drugs is senseless and has no effect. In the case of human-beings best results are also achieved with hot baths. The feam-suit was developed as a prophylaxis against freezing in water below 15°.

Now, General, after that little summary of the talk by Holzloehner there were several other lecturers on freezing problems and then at the end we have the gentlemen who made some comments on these lectures; we find among them Bremer, Dr. Hippke, the man who commissioned these experiments, and Jarisch and Buechner. Now I want to ask you if this document refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us whether or not you head this report by Holzloehner.

A: Yes, after reading what I have in my hand, now it is quite possible that I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I have not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this Document in my hands once before here in Nurnberg; you once gave it to me and I forgot about it.

Q: Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations in that death resulting from cold human beings in this lecture which you heard?

A: I cannot tell you that.

Q: Does it not say so in your own report here?

A: It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as I was informed later, Holzloehner had gained large experiences from his service at the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was something that was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency sea station near the Atlantic Coast and near that there was a hospital where he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea. There was no cause to suspect anything special behind this.

Q: Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human beings?

A: No.

Q: Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk Holzloehner gave in Nurnberg two months before this and as I recall, there was some indignation in this meeting in October, 1942, because all these gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no rumor of this seeped up from Nurnberg to Berlin in two months, so when the same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete ignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on living human beings in a concentration camp?

A: How far any discussions or any particular impressions were noted in Nurnberg, I cannot say. At any rate, I never heard anything about any discussions or any decline.

I could well imagine that if I would hold a lecture anywhere and if afterward I gained the impression that there was some kind of unclarification, or some one might call too much attention, and if two months later, I was holding the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my lecture and I would draw my conclusions from what I had learned previously. I am sure that this well might have been the case here. At any rate, after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and if somebody does not look at the pages exactly, he must assume that the man noted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of Holzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show you that between the lecture of Holzloehner and the discussion, there were a few other lectures and you will have to admit that considering the fact that we were approaching winter again, because this meeting took place in December 1942, my remarks did not refer so much to Professor Holzloehner's lecture, but it was merely a reminder that we wanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire interest to the front where freezing took place in order to help our soldiers. That is all it means to say.

MR. McHANEY: I suppose the Tribunal wishes to adjourn at this point. I might say it is not the desire of the Prosecution to hamper either the Defendant Handloser or Dr. Nelte, his counsel, in the continued preparation of their case. In view of the fact that we are now adjourning for a period of four days, I would be willing to permit Dr. Nelte to confer with his client, if Dr. Nelte will state for the record that he will in no manner, shape or form discuss with his client the matters about which he has already been interrogated, or in any way coach him on subjects which may come up. I don't mean by that to bar him from discussing any of the subjects, which I will interrogate him about, that is typhus or anything like that, but if he wants to discuss with Dr. Handloser the question of some wit nesses, further affidavits or matters of that character, I will be willing to let him do it on the basis of the understanding that he will not in any way influence the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal inquires of counsel for Defendant Handloser whether he deems it important to consult with his client during these days of recess, the Tribunal stating that if he does feel that is important, the Tribunal will consent, relying upon Dr. Nelte to conform with these principles of professional ethics to which he should confirm under the circumstances.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I thank Mr. McHaney very kindly for his suggestion and I thank you for the confidence which you place in me and I can assure you that I shall comply with the professional ethics of our profession and I shall only speak to my client about questions, which have nothing to do with the complex of questions that are the subject of cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for Defendant Handloser may talk with his witness during the recess.

The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Tuesday morning [February 18th, 1947].

(The Tribunal recessed at 1652 Hours)