1947-02-21, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session. May it please Your Honors, defendant Oberheuser, having been excused by this Tribunal, is absent for the balance of this afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the atsence of defendant Oberheuser, pursuant to excuse.

PAUL ROSTOCK — Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION — (Continued)

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Professor, you drew a distinction between basic research and special research. When was it that you started looking into special research?

A: Of course one cannot specify that to a date, namely that up to one point I had one interest in mind and from another point I started with my other interest. Essentially my interest was with basic research and in the background there were other interests.

Q: Well, when did you start compiling an index on special research assignments, do you remember?

A: You mean this research card index? I think that was summer 1944.

Q: Well, had you received any information prior to the summer of 1944 concerning special research assignments?

A: That is quite possible that somebody informed me about it but this matter was never listed systematically before summer 1944.

Q: Were basic instructions sent out to the various branches of the Wehmacht to report to you concerning their special research assignments?

A: Basic directives I could never issue. I requested to be informed.

Q: And when did you request to be informed?

A: That happened about at the same time.

Q: Well, what about Schroeder's statement in his affidavit that he sent you copies of research assignments? I understood his statement to indicate that he started doing that around the first part of 1944, when he took office as Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe.

A: I said before that was an agreement between us, an oral agreement.

I might use the expression "gentlemen's agreement". Whether that was in April 1944 or May I cannot tell you, but Schroeder, as far as I am informed, became inspector on the 1st of January 1944, and I think it is highly improbable that he immediately went to me. He had a number of other things to do in addition to visiting me. During such a personal meeting we discussed this question and agreed that this matter would be handled in this fashion.

Q: Did you have such gentlemen's agreements with the Medical Inspectorate of the Army Handloser?

A: Yes, that is true.

Q: What about the SS?

A: I already said that a request went out to the SS and I think this morning I described the answer which I received.

Q: A similar request to the Reich Research Council?

A: Yes, to the Reich Research Council, too.

Q: And the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute?

A: No. I only spoke once to Professor Pockenmueller of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in view of the brain research work which was mentioned yesterday already. He was one of the leading men in Germany in this field since Berger had died.

Q: Did these requests go out to the universities?

A: No.

Q: Well, were there any other agencies to which you sent these request other than the ones we have enumerated?

A: I already mentioned the Reich Department for Economic Building. I think this was an authority of the Four Year Plan but I am not quite sure about that.

Q: Will you tell me again what the purpose of your interest in these special research assignment was?

A: I wanted to get material in order to be able to deal concretely with the Armament Ministry whenever such intervention which I disapproved of actually took place.

Q: Well, what use did you expect to make of this mere statistical information which you received with the Armament Industry? What did you expect to be able to tell them with respect to these special research assignments?

A: For instance, whenever the Armament Industry would have carried such an interference I would have had some material basis in order to be able to tell these gentlemen for what special reasons I thought it was advisable that this kind of work be continued. As I said before, these interference were only possible by circumvention; namely, the economic sphere.

That is, the material contingents which we received up to that time, iron, etc., could have been stopped or the personnel which we used could have been drafted to some other agency or compulsory service or something like that. In this connection there was, shall I say, a very unobjective opinion for what was demanded by a few agencies; namely, the saving of personnel hardly came into question. These few hundred people that they could have drafted and could have used in an unskillful manner really played no part at all.

Seen on the whole, we Germans, compared to the Englishman, and I think the same applied to the United States, did this matter in a basically wrong manner. The Englishman at the beginning of the war furthered and assisted his scientific institutions and built up a very strict organization concerning England, as it was once published in an article in an English newspaper. We, or a few leading Germans, were of the opinion that the scientist would have to carry a rifle, and they did not realize that this man could do much more in his institution then as an infantryman or a clerk or some other duty at the front. This wrong conception which we had throughout the entire war I tried to correct. That, of course, could not be demonstrated publicly in any way but through little efforts this man and this man would have to be taken out from whatever he was doing.

And may I perhaps relate an example to you how this was handled. In Germany some protease for seeing was introduced. That is, in order to enable a blind man to get some view of space. It can be compared to another apparatus which gives a flier some picture of the air through clouds. We tried to get that but we didn't quite make it. One man who was working on it, a physician, was drafted. When we tried to find out what he was doing, we saw that he belonged to some kind of a front formation who were digging ditches or something like that. And we had great efforts to get this qualified technician who could pursue this work, to get him on of what he was doing and place him back into his laboratory. That could be done by the general orders but we just had to get them out singly, one after the other. And what I am describing here now within a half minute the work of months and months. And this was a further part of the work.

Q: Professor, I can understand that, but in the example you gave us, I submit that it took a knowledge on your part as to what this technician had been doing which was so important, an appreciation of his real value in a scientific work, and with that information you can then try to prevent his being drafted. You can try to make an effort to get him back into his research work, but that kind of effort requires some knowledge of what he was doing and how he was doing it. If I have understood you correctly, you have protested at great length that you had no such information with respect to the scientists working on the special assignments, so I am at a loss to understand how you expected to use this mere statistical information that August Hirth was working on chemical warfare at Strassbourg, that he had a special assignment from the Reich Research Council, and that it had priority number 4,000. What good is such information as that to approach the Armament Ministry, or anyone else, for that matter?

A: I don't know whether Hirth had a Priority number 4,000 and I do not know what that means. That was a science in itself. I only know that the SS degree, that is something that had nothing to do with the SS formation, was subordinated to the BG degree. But within these degrees, for instance, it meant that the numbers 500 to 1,000 were less urgent than the numbers 3,000 to 4,000, which perhaps were very important. But that is just an example. Whether Hirth had priority number 4,000 I don't know, And if I had found it out at that time, there would have been nothing I could have imagined by it. Perhaps Mr.. Blome or Sievers could speak about this organization of priority numbers. I don't even know whether they know it. I, at any rate, do not.

Q: Herr Professor, let's see if we can't make this thing perfectly clear. Quite frankly, I don't understand it and I think it is to your interest to try to make us understand it. You have stated, that you feared that the Armament Ministry was going to shut down a lot of essential research work. Because of that fear you sent out requests to the various branches of the Wehrmacht exclusive of the SS — well, you included the SS — and also to the Reich Research Council. As a result of these requests you got in reports from them which stated that this or that men was working in a certain field of scientific research.

For example, he was doing virus work — take Dr. Hagen, just by way of example. As I understood your testimony, you stated that the Reich Research Council, for example, would send you a sheet on which Hagen's name would appear, the place where he was working, which would be Strassbourg, the field of research, which would be virus study, and I thought you also mentioned that a priority number might also be listed. So, in fact all you received was statistical information. Now I am trying to find out just exactly how you expected to use that information and what you did with it, and I am having difficulty understanding that with this mere statistical information you had anything to persuade the Armament Ministry that it should foreclose further research in the field of chemical warfare. There is just no argument to be sucked out of these names and fields of research to show whether or not —

A: May I again describe hypothetically what would have happened if only somebody that wanted assistants approached me. If somebody was doing well he didn't approach me. He could manage himself. Supposing Mr. Haagen did not get assistants, or if that assistant was withdrawn from him in his research work, then probably he would have tried everything that was possible to maintain this work. He would have turned to the Research Council. Since he received an order from the Luftwaffe, he would have turned to the Luftwaffe, and according to the good old principle that it is better to have more irons in the fire than only one, he would have approached me too.

Now, if I had been convinced that this research work carried on by Haagen was important, then probably I first would have asked him to describe exactly what he was doing. And if this information had been satisfactory for me, then I would have telephoned the respective agency or would have written them a letter, and I mean the agency which caused this stop, and I would have tried to explain to them why I thought it was advisable for him to carry on this research work. And in order to do that at first I had to have some kind of a material basis. But, as I said before, all of this could only have been done if, from the outside, somebody had brought these things to my attention, and I can perhaps explain that, using the case of this physicist, and you were so surprised about it.

That's how it was. I visited a surgeon in Freiburg whom I knew. That was purely because of surgical interests. During the evening I saw the rector of that university there as well as the physicist, and they told me about it. And, since I realized that this was a case of emergency I tried to do something about it. To my shame I have to admit that up to that evening I didn't know of the project that he had in mind, and I could not even imagine that such a project was at all possible or likely. It was a mere accident that brought this fact to my attention, and since I thought that this was an important matter I tried to help. That is just one of the problems we had to cope with in Germany by way of improvisations It wasn't at all that I took this out from a number of reports. For instance if I had not gone to Freiburg that time I would never have found out about

Q: Well, where does all this leave us with respect to the purpose in having these special research assignments reported to you, and where does it leave us with respect to the use that you made of this information?

A: I don't know. I personally believe that I just told you for what purpose I wanted this information. In order to picture it more clearly I couldn't possibly go through every card index and control every experiment. I think I made that clear, and I want to repeat again that for the entire field I had four assistants and three girls, and you ask your secretaries how large the work of the secretary really is. I think we, who are used to dictating, sometimes underestimate the work of a secretary.

Q: Now, do you mean to say that you had these special assignments reported to you and you made a file of them just on the off chance that the Armament Ministry would close down research work by this or that man, whereupon you expected that man to come to you and you would then gain information about exactly what he was doing and would then take up his case with the Armament Ministry; is that the right picture?

A: Yes, that is approximately right, and another purpose was to tell the gentlemen in the Armament Ministry, "Look here, here I have a box of files. This is all contained in there and please have enough confidence in me that I eliminated everything which was superfluous on the basis of my knowledge." And again and again I have to say that in every case the economic considerations were of importance. Nobody can in any way prevent any mental activity.

Q: Now Professor, if you were going to make any representation to the Armament Ministry that this box of files represents urgent special assignments in the field of research and that you have weeded out all the non-urgent assignments, and hence they should continue to support these urgent assignments, I put it to you that you would have to have a pretty good knowledge of what those scientists were doing in their field before you could make any representation to the Armament Ministry that their work was important and was urgent.

I submit to you that to classify urgency in broad fields means next to nothing. The important thing is the caliber of the person doing the work, his ability, and the particular problem within the broad field on which he is working. Am I incorrect?

A: I don't know whether the translation was very exact. May I perhaps repeat it in such a manner? I only knew that a certain gentleman located in a certain town was working on a certain research assignment. Now, what he did in detail I certainly did not know because on this card index it only said — well, I can give you the examples as they are contained in Document NO-691. That's all I know — no more. And when yesterday I mentioned Galvan narcotic, as it was taken from that document, then in no way at all did I know in what manner this gentleman was working on his research, not at all.

Q: Well, Professor, you will go along with me though in the thought that this little card that had his name and too place he was working and the field of virus research was perfectly useless information insofar as dealing with the Armament Ministry or anybody else, wasn't it?

A: I don't think I understood you correctly. Do you mean that my relationship to the Armament Ministry with regard to virus was without effect?

Q: No, I mean that simply having information giving a man's name, the place where he is working, and the field of scientific endeavor is information which is useless without more, in dealing with the Armament Ministry, if they threaten his field of work?

A: Perhaps useless is too hard a word in that connection. If serious discussions were arrived at in any one case I certainly would have tried to gain more knowledge on that subject, which was at that time the subject of discussion. That is natural. I ask you to take into consideration that you cannot start an immense amount of paper work, particularly considering the amount of people I had at my disposal. One has to start from the beginning. It certainly wasn't useless, but it was neither very effective. It was just the beginning of an activity slowly working in.

Q: Did the occasion ever arise where you had to, for one reason or another, gain detailed knowledge about what this or that scientist was doing?

A: I mentioned the research about penicillin at Darmstadt. That was the same thing. There are other examples where I gained a little more knowledge, where I tried to find out more about it.

Q: You testified that Karl Brandt was told by Hitler in Himmler's presence that he had no jurisdiction over SS research; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Why is it that Karl Brandt didn't tell us about this rather significant conversation when he was on the stand?

A: I believe it was mentioned here. I believe I remember that it was.

Q: Well, your memory on that point is better than mine, although I won't say that you are wrong. You discussed with your attorney this morning —

A: I cannot swear to it that it was said here, but I seem to remember — perhaps Dr. Servatius can confirm it.

Q: You discussed with your attorney this morning Document NO-138which is Prosecution Exhibit 300, and you will recall that is a letter by Dr. Haagen to the Reich Research Council enclosing reports on his work with epidemic influenza, spotted fever; that is, typhus, and yellow fever?

A: Yes.

Q: And you were asked some questions regarding the short report on typhus, and you expressed the opinion that there was nothing in this little report which would give rise to any suspicion that improper experiments were being carried out. What do you have to say about the last sentence of the typhus report, where it says, "The anti-infectious effect of dry vaccine will be further experimented on human beings."?

A: I have stated that a vaccine is a material which should create an immunity in the human body and I explained that on handovac dry vaccines. I further stated that, in the case of typhus, the degree of immunity arrived by vaccination can be found out by a very relative test of the blood. Hagen tried to test his dry vaccine in its effectiveness on the immunity. That is what I reported. I'm not an immunity expert, I'm only a surgeon, but that what I gained from this report. Perhaps you could submit it to an expert. Maybe he will read some more from it but I still understand today, although I know the subject of the trial, I still today am of the point of view that from these words of Haagen you cannot conclude that he tried to carry out a non-scientific experiments.

Q: Well, is "anti-infectious effect" the same thing as you describe an "immunity effect"?

A: Yes, yes.

Q: Well, do I understand from your statements that it is possible to determine the effectiveness of a typhus vaccine in combatting typhus through the use of this simple blood test?

A: Whether that is possible only by this method is something I should like you to ask an expert. As I said before, in a personal conversation I could give my opinion on it but this apparently is a question which should directed to an expert physician and, since I am under oath, I should like to ask somebody who is more of an expert than I am, a man who is a research worker in immunity and not a surgeon. I only mentioned this example in order to demonstrate that I, as a surgeon, through whose eyes I read this paper, no objection to it.

Q: Well, Professor, you've been treated pretty much as an expert in lot of fields by both the prosecution and the defense and I am sure that Dr. Flemming and the defendant Mrugowsky will show very keen interest in your opinion about the necessity of those Buchenwald experiments, particularly if you are prepared to say that in your personal opinion they could have tested these vaccines by this simple blood test and could have avoided artificially infecting the experimental subjects.

A: As far as I remember, Dr. Flemming asked me about a surgical problem namely, the gangrene question, which is a wound infection, and I think that I understand something on that field and I can be called an expert. As a physician, of course, I understand something about typhus — that is a matter of course. But I cannot testify about it as an expert witness before this Tribunal and I wouldn't like to call myself an expert on typhus questions. If I were to make a statement here, quite rightly an expert could come here and say I was interfering with matters which I had nothing to do with and you will understand that a scientist does not want to be told a thing like that, and I believe that the same applies to law. It often happens that a man versed in penal law doesn't know very much about patents.

Q: I take it you prefer not to express an opinion on that subject the Professor, the prosecution has out in Document NO-1620, which was Prosecution Exhibit 449, for identification. You will recall that this letter was put to the defendant Brandt and it was a letter from Grawitz to Himmler, stating that Professor Brandt had approached him with the request to test a new ointment for treatment of phosphorous burns, which was still in the experimental stage, and Grawitz proposed testing this ointment on concentration camp inmates. This letter is dated 30 September 1943, which of curse is only 25 days after the second Fuehrer decree. Did you know about this subject?

A: I didn't know anything about the letter. This ointment of this drug factory I know. I think it could be bought at various drug stores in Berlin and we often used it in the case of burned injuries in Berlin. But we never found out anything about any superiority of this ointment in relation to any other ointments. We naturally used it. I don't know whether you can imagine what it means when any large city was attacked and then had to keep on living and working and in that case one is always glad to have an ointment available, no matter whether it was the most effective or not, and that is the reason we used this ointment.

Whether this was used in other places I don't know today.

Q: Well, doctor, the question I want to put to you is whether you knew that Brandt had gone to Grawitz and asked him to test this drug, whether on concentration camp inmates or otherwise.

A: No, I didn't know that.

Q: Do you know whether Brandt, or did you, receive a report from Grawitz on these tests?

A: Grawitz to me?

Q: Grawitz to you or Grawitz to Brandt.

A: I don't know anything about Grawitz to Brandt. I cannot remember that Grawitz sent a report and, considering our entire relationship and — I mean, of Grawitz to me — I think it is highly improbable that it ever occur.

Q: Well, you would remember that if Grawitz sent you a report about experiments he had carried out on concentration camp inmates with phosphorous burns to test this drug, wouldn't you?

A: I cannot remember any such report.

Q: Well, can you state, therefore, that you are sure you didn't receive one?

A: I cannot say that for sure but I did not retain it in my memory at any rate.

Q: You probably remember Document NO-154, which was Prosecution Exhibit 446 for identification, concerning a conference or a report, rather, on experiments concerning the decontamination of water?

A: I think that is a report which you submitted to Brandt in cross examination. It comes from some Reich institution of water and air — for water and air questions, or something like that.

Q: That is correct. You will recall that those experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates at Neuengamma. This report is dated 31 March 1945, long after you had become Chief of the Office for Science and Research.

Did you know nothing about those experiments?

A: No, I knew nothing about them.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. McHaney, I assume that your cross examination would continue for some time. The Tribunal has a few questions to propound to the witness, so the Tribunal will propound those questions now.

MR. McHANEY: Very well, Your Honor.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Professor Rostock, can you say whether or not the immunizing effect of typhus vaccine can be ascertained or determined from a test of the blood of the vaccinated person?

A: With the limitation, namely, that I am not an absolute expert, I can say that I know that this so-called "Weigl-Felix'sche" reaction, as it is called, is not absolutely foolproof; that is, it can occur, that in the case of an immunized person, it has a completely negative effect; that is, no immunization effect at all and that even in the case of a person who already had typhus and went thought it and who has, according to our experience, a high degree of immunity, in his case the reaction must be negative; that is to say, it is a failure, but I should like to ask you that, if an expert should appear here during the course of the trial that you should ask him about this question, so that perhaps he could correct my opinion.

Q: If your conclusions are correct in the matter, what advantages are there to be gained in the conduct of experiments whereby persons would be artificially infected with typhus?

A: In this entire experimental assignment I see no essential advantage at all. I would not have carried them through, I personally, that is.

Q: Now Professor Rostock, you have made some mention of the fact that you discussed with Professor Gebhardt the nature of the sulfonamide experiments he had conducted on prisoners whom you understood had been condemned to death but who had been promised leniency if they submitted to the experiments; is that correct?

A: Yes. Well, I heard "discussion." By "discussion" we Germans understand two people talking to each other, that is, one person says something and then the other person says something again. That was not the case. Gebhardt and Fischer spoke in a large room and held a lecture. One of the others among these hundred or more participants was I; but, of course, no conversation between Gebhardt and I took place about this matter. I merely heard the lecture.

Q: At the time of the Gebhardt lecture did Fischer also lecture?

A: Yes, that was the same lecture. Gebhardt made the introductory remarks; and within the frame of the same lecture Dr. Fischer continued.

Q: Did Dr. Oberheuser have any part in this lecture or discussion?

A: I don't believe so. I cannot swear to it; but I believe I would have so that and my attention would have been drawn to it if a lady had spoken in that military institution. I'm pretty sure that Dr. Oberheuser was not present.

Q: Either at that time or at any other time did you talk with anyone or hear anyone else talking with anyone who had discussed the experiments or their effects, either with Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser?

A: I don't know that any of these gentlemen spoke to them; but, of course, that is something I could have missed. If in an auditorium which contains more than a hundred people a few of the people who are grouped together are speaking, I couldn't possibly know what they are speaking about. At any rate I know of no such direct conversations.

Q: Now, then, if Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser discussed these experiments or their results with anyone else, did any information come to you concerning what either Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser had said relating to the experiments or the results thereof?

A: No, I never heard anything like that, namely, that any details were discussed with the people concerned.

Q: Then all you know about it is what you have already related here in evidence; is that true?

A: Yes.

Q: Professor Restock, your counsel has placed in evidence Rostock Document Number 5, which has been received in evidence as Rostock Exhibit Number 5. This document purports to list of scientific publications of which you are the author. In the document under the title "II, Journals," appears a publication entitled "Treatment of War Wounds with Sulfonamide, Report of Congress East of Consulting Physicians, 1942." Where did you get the information and data upon which this publication was based?

A: That is the lecture which I mentioned this morning. It was printed in the report of the consulting physicians of May, 1942. I don't know the exhibit number; but it was submitted to the Tribunal by the prosecution.

Q: Where did you obtain the data and information from which the report was given? Do you recollect it this time?

A: I know that in the year of 1942 I held a lecture there.

Q: Now, then, returning to the Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser matter, did there ever come to you, from Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser or from anyone else, any information concerning experimental efforts to transplant bones, muscles, or nerves from one human being to another?

A: No.

Q: You know nothing about that whatever?

A: No.

Q: During the course of your interrogation today you made some mention of an order, decree, or directive of some sort from some responsible government officer or authority or agency, authorizing medical experiments on persons condemned to death. Is that correct?

A: No, that must have been a misunderstanding.

Q: I understood you to say that at this meeting Gebhardt had attempted to rationalize the legality of his experiments because of the purported existence of a decree or order which legalized such experiments on persons who had been condemned to death. Did I understand that correctly, or am I mistaken?

A: Well, in his lecture he said this. The legal basis for the experiments about which he was going to report was clarified and did not concern us, that is, the people in the meeting. That was a matter that was decided. He did not say, however, that any certain authority or certain person was at fault. He merely said generally that this was a matter that was decided. We the listeners, or at least I as a listener, gained the impression that a high governmental agency gave the authorization to these physicians; and because of the relationship of obedience which is used in military circles, I assumed that this governmental agency, which I didn't know, would have to assume responsibility. That is the picture I gained at that time. That was the impression I gained. But I must say that I did not consider this question legally or in any way intensively. Well, anyway I don't understand anything about it.

Q: You didn't understand then that there was any existing German law or decree or order which in its terms legalized such a type of experimentation; but all you understood was simply what you had heard from Gebhardt in his assertion that so far as the lawfulness or legality of the question was concerned, it had been settled by someone?

A: I know nothing of any law or decree in that direction. I assumed that Gebhardt told us and repeated to us what had been told him by some other agency. He told us that he was authorized. I cannot say whether such a law existed or whether it did not exist. At any rate I do not know of such a law.

Q: Do you recollect the words he used in regard to the legality of any such experiment as you have narrated? Can you remember the verbiage he used?

A: I don't remember the exact words. I only remember the sense.

Q: Will you repeat again what you remember of the sense, please?

A: According to the sense of it he said that the juridical basis for the execution of these experiments had been decided and a discussion about it was not necessary with the people who were present. But I think that Gebhardt may remember those words more exactly.

Q: Did he make any mention of the type of persons upon whom such experiments could be legally conducted. Was something said about people who had been condemned to death?

A: Yes, he said that this concerned people who had been condemned to death and who had subsequently been pardoned.

Q: Who had been pardoned or who were to be pardoned if they would give their consent to the experiment and did survive the experiment, which was it?

A: The word "approval" in my opinion was not mentioned. I understand it in the following manner: That if the man concerned survived this wound infection, that so to speak would be synonymous with the execution of the death sentence, and that if he survived this death sentence would not be passed. That is the way I understood it at that time.

Q: Did you understand whether or not the element of voluntary consent on the part of the human subject was to play any part?

A: The voluntary nature, according to my opinion, was not mentioned.

Q: So far as you understood it then, it was not to play a part?

A: That I don't know.

Q: Well from what you gained from Gebhardt or any understanding either from what he said or did not say am I to understand that the effect of it was that without any element of consent or lack of consent, certain persons condemned to death were to be used as experimental subjects, and that if they survived the experiment that they then were to be pardoned or their sentence would be commuted in lieu of the execution of the death sentence, is that correct?

A: In my opinion the situation was that whoever had survived this infection therefore did not have to be executed and was not sentenced.

Q: What was to become of them?

A: I don't know how it is usually handled in penal executions, whether that means complete liberty or any deprivation of liberty is something which I do not know.

Q: Did you have any understanding as to how it was to be handled in these cases?

A: No, I did not know that.

Q: Your understanding was that people who had been condemned to death were to be the experimental subjects, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you understand that any distinction was going to be made between German nationals who had been condemned to death under the German penal laws as criminals or the political prisoners or prisoner of war who was a non-German national and who had been convicted or sentenced to death?

A: A differentiation between criminals, prisoners of war and political prisoners was not made. I had the impression that these were ordinary death sentences, whether they were Germans or non-Germans I don't know either. I don't know but I believe that even a non-German can be sentenced to death by a German court. I don't know whether that is customary or not.

Q: Let us assume that is true. Do you know whether or not a nonGerman national in a concentration camp who has been sentenced to death may be subjected to human experiments upon his body?

A: I don't know that.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock Monday morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 Monday February 25, 1947.)