1947-03-13, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.

KURT BLOME - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Witness, we stopped at your explanation of the charges against you that you were partly guilty of being responsible for the decline of the standard of the German medical science; would you like to add something to this point, or have you finished with your explanation?

A: I would like to lay stress on the following fact, with the fight to abrogate the right of the unprofessionals and nature healers to practice, I achieved the consummation of a wish that has been the doctor's wishes for seventy years; for seventy years any ignorant person or crack-pot could, if he wanted to, inaugurate a physician's practice, hang out his shingle, call himself a professional and thus be turned loose to the general detriment of mankind. Please let me state also the following, and this is an assertion that no one could refute if he examines it objectively; I state that if all Professional organizations and associations of the Third Reich were as decent and had been directed as decently and with such a spirit of responsibility as the German physicians, then this war that began in 1939, and the casualties that are associated with it, would not have taken place.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, it was my intention to submit a book to you in this connection, which was initiated by the defendant Blome and came out in 1940, which was published by G. Fischer of Jena and bears the title: "The Latest Medicine As Seen By Their Creators." This book deals with a number of lectures, which were held by members of his Berlin Academy for medical instructions in 1940, which has been published by the Berlin academy for Military Instructors, this is the academy which the Defendant Blome created.

This book was dedicated to the German Medical Society and was supposed to instruct them about latest research in a short way and was for their information. I shall wait with this and I shall submit this book at a later print, because the translations from this book are not ready yet and there is point in giving you the German text only if the translations are not at our disposal. But, Your Honor —

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, the Prosecution respectfully request that these books be made available for our perusal after Dr. Sauter finishes using them after his direct examination.

DR. SAUTER: Certainly. Your Honor, I would like to ask you now to take note of two documents, which are contained in Document Book Blome and a Supplementary volume 1. These are contained in Document Book Blome on Page 11 of Document Book No. 3; a letter of professor Dr. von Bergmann. I repeat Document Book Blome, page 11, Document No. 3, a letter from Professor Dr. von Bergmann, directed of the Second Medical University Clinic in Munich.

The other Document, which I shall make use of now, is a letter in the supplementary volume, page 23, Document Book Blome, page 23, Document No. 13; a letter of Professor Dr. H. Martius, Chief of the Women's Clinic at the University of Goettingen.

These two persons are well known in Germany through their anti-fascist attitude; they are both certified by the American occupation and they have been instituted in their offices. They are two scientists who are famous all over the world, their names are famous all over Europe.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, both of these Documents referred to, the English copy in my Document book, contain no jurat; I wonder if the German copies have been sworn to; do you have the original exhibits, Doctor?

DR. SAUTER: No, Your Honor. These documents need no affidavit for the following reason, these two professors who sent me these certificates are directors of University Clinics. The universities in Germany are not private institutions, but public institutions and institutes of public law. The directors on such institutes are public servants. The documents, which are signed by such officers within their authority, are legal documents, public legal documents, and such documents need, according to German law, no certification or signatures of their writers.

I , therefore, assure Your Honors that it is the same in America. I came [illegible] that in the United States a judge who signs a sentence or some legal official who submits a copy of such a document; that he should go to the Notary Public in order to have his signature certified, otherwise there would by no public legal documents.

I, therefore, present the point of view that the rule of the Tribunal, about this certification of Documents and affidavits, can not be carried out, if it is a matter of public documents of a public servant or of a civil servant, which he writes within the authority of his office.

I may therefore point out that the Tribunal, if I am not mistaken, in other cases has also asserted themselves on the same point of view and until this point, for instance, I have not seen the Prosecution have any doubts to make use of sentences and other official documents, although the signature on these documents was not publicly certified. This is not necessary as the difference is between the public servant and the private individual and the difference between the public legal document and a simple private document.

I would also like to point out, Your Honors, I do not think that a high official can understand or see my point if I would return the Document, which he in his capacity as a public legal servant, in his capacity as a director of his institute, has sent to me. He would not understand if I would ask him to go to a Notary Public and to have the signature certified; he would not understand it, Your Honors, if the Prosecution would not recognize publicly the statement because it has not been stamped.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in view of comment of counsel, I must object to the admission into evidence of these two documents. These documents appear to be testimony of fact concerning the defendant Blome, testimony as to personal knowledge on behalf of affiants. They are no semblance of a legal instrument as prescribed by this Tribunal and have no preamble executed in lieu of a note, and there isn't any evidence that they are executed in their official capacity.

Furthermore, they are not testifying as to facts of state interest. They are testifying as to facts concerning the personality of Blome, and I add in passing that if I were on trial and Roosevelt or Truman executed an affidavit in my behalf, I would be ready to assume that they must also have their signatures sworn to. Therefore I object to the admission of these documents into evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: In their present form these documents are entirely inadmissible in evidence. The prosecution's objection is sustained. Of course, the documents may be completed and offered again in their proper form, but in their present form they are entirely inadmissible.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I do not think I shall do this because I believe that these gentlemen who are well-known all over Europe would not understand if I would ask them to do this. I shall, therefore, ask these two gentlemen to come to Nuernberg as witnesses. I am afraid that these two gentlemen in question will not understand this either, but I shall draw the consequence from this. In the future I shall object to all documents of the prosecution if they are not certified by a notary public because what the defense counsel have to do can also be asked of the prosecution authorities, and the right of the prosecution authority is also the right of the defense counsel and, therefore, if I have to have these documents certified, the same applies to the prosecution authorities.

THE PRESIDENT: These documents would certainly be refused by the Court if offered by the prosecution if I heard any objection by the defendant. If counsel desires to request the attendance of these witnesses, the Tribunal will approve the request.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Witness, you have heard that I am not in the position to submit these documents here. Do you know these documents?

A: Yes. Yes, I do.

Q: What do you know about the writer of these two documents? One is Professor Dr. Von Bergmann and the other is Professor Dr. Martius. Please be short if I may ask you.

A: Professor Bergmann was until the end of the war director of the Second Medical Clinic Charity in Berlin, and thereafter was director of the Second Medical Clinic in Munich with the specific authorization of the American occupation authorities. He is the recognized internist in Germany with an international reputation to be compared with only a few people in the whole world.

Professor Martius in Goettingen is director of the Gynecology clinic, of the women's clinic. I believe he took on that position in 1933. He had nothing to do with the Party but despite the law relating to public officials and despite efforts made against him by Party officials he could not be deposed despite the fact that he has some Jewish blood. He also is a person of international reputation as a teacher, university professor, and is internationally known as a gynecologist.

Q: I will not deal with details of these two statements. I am interested in the following —

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I object to any further comment by counsel on these two documents. They have been ruled out here in this case and further comment is unnecessary.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel made no objectionable comment about the documents. Counsel may proceed.

DR. SAUTER: I did not understand this.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that counsel for defendant Blome had made no objectionable comment about these documents and that counsel might proceed.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Dr. Blome, in the session of 20 February the defendant Professor Dr. Rostock gave evidence here and stated that Conti continually tried to make political parties a part of the medical science and the German Medical Association. On the 20th of February Dr. Rostock stated further that Conti had a Plan to close down the German medical institutes, universities, to eliminate the literature, medical literature, and so on.

Perhaps you could tell me, not in detail, whether it is right, whether it is correct that you, in the interest of medical education and in medical standards, fought against these regulations on the part of Dr. Conti although you were his subordinate. I would ask you, Dr. Blome, not to deal with your relationship to Dr. Conti in detail. This will come up later. Please only talk about this particular point.

A: It is true that Dr. Conti interpreted his office almost exclusively as a political one and that he used his training as a physician only as a reasonable excuse for his holding that office. It is true that there was a plan in 1943 to close the German universities in order to send all the students either to the front or to the labor forces. However, it was not Conti alone who pursued such plans. I believe that Goebbels also played a role in these plans at that time. At any rate, those who participated in this, the circle of them was not specifically limited. Furthermore, in the year 1934 [sic], allegedly to save paper, a large number of newspapers and periodicals were limited, including scientific periodicals.

At that time there were negotiations in the Reichepressekammer [Reich Press Chamber] or in the Reichsschrifttumskammer, the Reich Press Department, and I took part in one such conference. There were present various gentlemen and representatives of various organizations and they spoke systematically about the scientific periodicals. At that time I protested very energetically against the limits that they were attempting to put on scientific periodicals and did bring it about that the limitations were of a minimum. I further know that against the measures to close the universities Professors Brandt and Rostock also protested energetically.

Thereupon, I had a considerable difference of opinion with Professor Conti, and the consequence was that I was thereafter excluded from attending such conferences.

Q: Dr. Blome, I believe that you gave a wrong date. This paper shortage was in '43.

A: My error. I meant to say in '43, not '34.

Q: Dr. Blome, you remember that the prosecution and the expert, Dr. Leibbrandt, also charged you with permitting so-called "nature science" laymen to practice. This, for instance, is the case of Dr. Kersten, when we have mentioned twice. Perhaps you could give us a report. How many of these laymen were allowed to practice in Germany and why in individual cases were they allowed to practice?

A: The creation of the so-called Office for Nature Healing was a necessary compromise I had to strike with Hess in order to be able the pass the law that forbade lay healers to practice. I could enter into this compromise without misgivings because in the last analysis, the regulations that determined whether or not a person could become a physician in nature healing depended upon the approval of the Reich Physicians' Chamber.

In the course of time, only one such physician was approved and that was Kersten, the Finnish Medizinalrat, medical counselor. I knew that Kersten had a large international practice. He treated leading personages from all over the world, people from politics, the arts, scientists and he also treated members of the Swedish and English Royal houses. For part of the year, he practiced in Sweden for which he received official approval from the German government. Thus, one cannot assert, as Professor Leiebrandt of course assumed one could, that new such doctors for nature healing were being indiscriminately approved.

As a matter of fact, there was only one such doctor.

Q: Dr. Blome, I would like to add to these general questions one more before I deal with the other points. The Prosecution as well as Professor Leibbrand have shown how German-Jewish doctors were excluded from practicing; how they were forced to wear a David Star, to have a Jewish First name, to have only Jewish patients, and how they were not allowed to practice at all and such like. I would not like details in this matter again because Dr. Kesmehl already dealt with this question yesterday. I would like to hear from you, though, as the defendant, whether you participated, in these measures against your Jewish colleagues?

Secondly, who ordered these measures? Was it the Medical Chamber or what organization was it? What can you tell us about this matter?

A: First of all, I did not participate in this. Secondly, it was a matter of carrying out general legal provisions because not only the Jewish physicians wore the Star of David, but every Jew wore it. It was not as if the Jewish physician was compelled to carry on certain activities, but every physician was compelled as long Jewish physicians could practice, to be limited in certain fields.

In addition to this, that effected every German physician, male and female. In the course of medical planning, we could not consider married couples. When both members of the marriage were physicians, we could not consider that fact. We had to limit them according to law, either the wife or the husband could practice. Both of them could not.

Q: Who gave the orders for this and the wearing of the David Star, or in 1934, the allocation of Jewish citizens to low work?

A: That was the Reich Ministry of the Interior.

Q: These orders were only given for doctors or for all members of all other professions?

A: For members of all professions.

Q: Witness, I now come to another point, namely, the question of your relations with Dr. Conti. Could you explain to us, shortly, about this and tell us which offices were hold by Dr. Conti and in which offices you were his deputy?

A: I was Dr. Conti's deputy, more or less in his capacity as Reich Physicians 'Chamber, the professional society of German physicians. Here, too, there were fields in which I did not represent him because according to law, the Reich Physicians' Leader could commission other people besides his deputy to do Certain tasks. In the Hauptamt fuer Volkagesundheit [Office for Public Health], I was only nominally his deputy because it was Conti's opinion that hero no deputy was necessary.

The NS Physicians' League had been established since 1934 after the foundation of the Main Party Health Office had become secondary in importance.

Moreover, in 1942, the NS Physicians! League was closed altogether. My activities in the Main Party Health Office concerned mainly this: I attempted to participate in same way, in particularly important matters, for instance in the struggle against large-scale national diseases such as cancer and tuberculosis and in the question that continually arose regarding the organization of social security; in Conti's plans to socialize German medicine and to create a so-called Reichsgesundheitswerk [Reich Health Work] and then also in many other important questions.

For example, in 1941, Conti conceived the plan of sterilizing the Polish intelligista.

Regarding my personal relations with Conti —

Q: Just a moment, Doctor. I would like to interrupt you. You have told us in what positions you worked as a deputy of Doctor Conti in the Main Party Health Office of the NSDAP. I am interested in relation to the Euthanasia program, in the following: Did you also act as Conti's deputy on the national sector of the health program?

A: No. I did not represent Conti in the national or the governmental sector, nor did I know in September of 1939, that Conti became State Secretary at that time. If I had some suspicion that such plans were afoot, then I should have attempted to do something about them because it is my standpoint, that the Reich Physicians' Leader cannot at the same time be a State Secretary in the Ministry of the Interior, and thus more or less be his own supervisor. After Wagner's death, when I was a potential successor to him, Reich minister of the Interior Frick called me to him and offered me a position as a State Secretary in the Ministry of that Interior. I refused that hands down, with the justification as I have just given here. I was not Conti's deputy as leader of the Civilian Health Service, after Professor Brandt had become Commissioner General for Public Health. In other words, after a law, so to speak had created a difference between Brandt's functions in the Wehrmacht and the functions in the Civilian Sector.

Q: Witness, you heard yesterday what Dr. Kosmehl said in detail about the relation between Dr. Conti and you. Do you remember —

In the interest of saving time, I would like to ask you if this statement Dr. Kosmehl made yesterday is correct in your opinion? Do you agree with all he said?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you like to add something special, something perhaps which Dr. Kosmehl had not mentioned?

Or are you satisfied with all Dr. Kosmehl said?

A: No. I should like to speak about my relations with Conti only in our official experiences. I do not believe that the other considerations are relevant.

Q: Dr., you, therefore, agree what Dr. Kosmehl stated as a witness yesterday?

A: Yes.

Q: I am interested especially in one thing, when Dr. Conti received orders from his superiors or if he passed such orders on to his subordinates or visa versa do you know about these matters, were you told about them so that one could assume that you knew about the activities of Dr. Conti, or was this not the case. Perhaps you could tell us about this question?

A: No, that was not the case. A great number of very important matters, particularly those of political interest, were kept from my knowledge. This resulted from the basically different attitudes that Conti and I had regarding politics and the medical profession in general. It must be added that never when I differed in my opinion from Conti, did I refrain from expressing it openly. Often these expressions of my opinion on my part did not fit into Conti's political plans and the consequences of that naturally was a certain alienation and a growing distrust on the part of Conti toward me arose. However, I was not afraid, if necessary, in order to avoid an error to pursue other channels, to turn frequently to the Party Chancellory or Party Member Bormann, and that brought it about that Conti forbade me by a specific order not to turn either to the Reichsministers, Reichsleiter or Gauleiters or write them any letters.

Q: Witness, perhaps you could answer with a short yes or no the following questions: Is this correct, the statement of Dr. Conti to the effect that Dr. Blome, that you, Dr. Blome, repeatedly put your office at the disposal of the Chancellory and Dr. Conti, and that had the intention of going back to your private practice?

A: Yes, that is true. I offered to resign.

Q: Professor, you have heard that the Prosecution is very keen to have the certified that Dr. Rostock and Dr. Gebhardt had their rooms in the same building, and from this fact, that they discussed that it was not very likely that one person in one room wouldn't know about the activities of the person in the other room. Only for this reason I would ask you to let me know and tell us, did you also work in the same house with Dr. Conti or were your offices arid those of Dr. Conti's in different houses?

A: After April 1939 we were parted. We had our offices both in the Haus der Deutschen Aerzte on Lindenstrasse. In 1940 the Haus der Deutschen Aerzte was hit by a bomb; knocking our a few rooms; and Conti moved to Wilhelmstrasse into the building of the Berlin Party Chancellory. I remained in the Lindenstrasse. Then during the next year I was asked several times by Conti to transfer my office to the building in which he had his office. He had moved several times. I always was able to prevent this and until the conclusion of the war I kept my office in Berlin in the Lindenstrasse.

Q: You have noticed; Witness, that I said in the statement Rostock and Gebhardt; and the names mentioned were Rostock and Professor Karl Brandt; but that does not change your statement.

A: No, it does not.

DR. SAUTER: I would like to say the association between Conti and Blome, I would not like to add anything to it here because that was mentioned by Dr. Kosmehl here, but at the end of the interrogation of Dr. Blome; I shall submit two affidavits which have been certified in the proper manner, as they are private letters; namely; of one from a certain Adolf Witmann and Dr. Dingeldey who was in the Chamber of Physicians. I only point out this now, the documents, so that these two affidavits can be admitted later on. The exhibit numbers of these affidavits will be given later.

Q: A few short questions, Dr. Blome; the answers of which can be given in a short and concise form. You were a specialist on cancer research and in 1943 you received a new office as plenipotentiary for cancer research in the Research Office of the Reich.

A: That is true.

Q: Perhaps you can tell us shortly as you were a member, and I think, a leading member of the Research Counsel, what was the task, how was the position arranged and how did it work. I should only like you to answer these questions in order to give us a complete picture which we have already received by other people, but in order to complete it?

A: In 1942, a new law was promoted for the reformation of the old Reich Research Counsel. I belonged to the old and new Reich Research Counsel. The president of the old one was Dr. Becker who was succeeded after his death by Rust. The president of the new counsel was Hermann Goering. The purpose of reformation was to coordinate and centralize to a greater central research in Germany. The president of the Reich Research Counsel had at his disposal for carrying out of his business the following: First the Planning Counsel whose director was Professor Menzel. This was in charge of all administrative and financial matters of the Reich Research Counsel. The research activities of the Reich Research Counsel was justly in the hands of the leaders of specialists under the plenipotentiaries. Later others joined this group who were commissioned for lessor tasks.

The specialized leaders were specialists in the field of medicine and science, for instance, physics, chemistry, and so forth. Beside these specialists, leaders on an equal level, there were the plenipotentiaries. There were plenipotentiaries in the following fields — may I interrupt to say I was the plenipotentiary for cancer research, and also on matters to combat biological warfare. There was a plenipotentiary for atomic physics. In other words, there were very specific fields of investigation which were particularly important during the war. These specialists leaders were immediately subordinate to Hermann Goering, and because of the medical nature Goering was the only one who could give them orders or instructions. Specialized leaders and plenipotentiaries determined what research was to be carried out and by whom, and in commissioning certain persons for research, and of the personal equipment which was put at their disposal. The arrangement, and so-called priority sequence was done through the War Economy Department of the Research Counsel. He assigned priority numbers depending on the pressing of the problem, and I believe the armament industry made available certain contingents. Dr. Grauer who was in charge of the classification informed the specialist leaders and plenipotentiary so far as he had the priority numbers at his disposal. Research orders given in this way went directly to the Reich Research Counsel or University or Clinic Directors, and they received assignments for this for themselves and their collaborators.

DR. SAUTER: I will ask you a question tomorrow Dr. I think it is time, and I think that the President wants the Tribunal to adjourn.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.