1947-03-17, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 17 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser who is absent on account of illness, being in the hospital.

Counsel may proceed.

KURT BLOME — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.

A: Yes.

Q: Before the adjournment your relationship to Dr. Rascher was discussed and at the end you were asked in particular what this secret habilitation of Dr. Rascher meant. May I ask you to tell us clearly on more what exactly was kept secret in that case or what it was that was supposed to be kept secret?

A: The procedure that was necessary to admit somebody as a lecturer to a university was never secret. Also, the fact that somebody had, in effect, been admitted as a lecturer was not kept secret as a matter of course. Whoever received the title "Dr. Habilitation" certainly carried this title with pride even if it was gained by the procedure of "secret habilitation". In the case of a secret habilitation the secrecy referred merely to the scientific work of the man concerned; that is, when it referred to a subject which, owing to military reasons — that is, in the interest of the defense of the country — had to be kept secret.

For this reason we had not only secret habilitations, but there were secret promotions too, conferring of doctor degrees, but only in a case when the subject of the doctor thesis had to be kept secret for military reasons. I know, for instance, a certain Dr. Wahmke wrote a treatise about propulsion of certain projectiles. This thesis of course had to be kept strictly secret. As far as I know the problem of the liquid rocket was treated there. That is an invention which is of highest importance, or could be of highest importance, for the waging of the war and therefore had to be kept secret. I believe that in cases like that in other states secret habilitation has to exist, too.

Let us assume that a research worker during the war had invented radar or the atom bomb, and with a scientific thesis about that invention he wanted to become a lecturer. In a case like that such a thesis would have had to be kept secret. However, nobody would have thought of keeping the admission of the research worker concerned a secret.

Q: Witness, this secret habilitation which Dr. Rascher wanted — is that a very unique case? Is it very extraordinary or did such secret habilitations exist more frequently in Germany, especially during the war period?

A: No, that wasn't a unique case. Secret habilitations and secret promotions occurred here and there. Whenever scientists worked with certain agencies for many years, especially with scientific agencies of a military character, they could naturally only deal with experiments and problems which fell within the sphere of their official activity. These matters nearly all were kept secret. Now, one did not want to keep such scientists away from the academic career. That would have been an injustice and that was neither in the interests of the agency itself, otherwise, every scientist would have endeavored to get away from an agency where he couldn't simultaneously become a lecturer at a university. An adjustment for these contrary interests was found in the manner; namely, that the research worker was given the possibility of habilitation but that the subject of his thesis was kept secret.

Such secret habilitations naturally were not especially favored, for very easily a suspicion could arise that this secrecy was only carried out because the scientific thesis concerned, or the candidate concerned, had not achieved a sufficient scientific standard.

Q: Witness, when interrogated earlier, did you yourself start to discuss the so-called secret habilitations of Dr. Rascher, or were you asked by the interrogating officer about that subject?

A: I was interrogated, about Dr. Rascher for the first time when I stayed at Cage at Oberursel in December, 1945. There, however, I was not asked about Dr. Rascher. My interrogation officer, Captain Urbach of the United States Army, asked me on the occasion of an interrogation whether I already knew the pictures of the atrocities in the concentration camps. I affirmed that question. He then asked me, "Were you ever in a concentration camp yourself?"

I affirmed that too. He further asked me why I visited a concentration camp, and thereupon I stated that once before the War I took part in an inspection of the concentration camp Dachau, and I furthermore said that in the year 1943 in the fall, I visited the institute of Dr. Rascher, in Dachau, because of Himmler's suggestion. Then I was asked about my relationship to Dr. Rascher in detail, and I was also asked about the purpose of my relationship, I declared at that time that one reason was the habilitation of Dr. Rascher which was desired by Himmler.

Q: And that is how you yourself decided to speak about that matter?

A: Yes.

Q: Witness, before adjournment, you told us, if I understand you correctly, that at that time you received the thesis of Dr. Rascher, his report about the concluded experiment, that you received it but you did not read it. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Well why didn't you read that thesis? I am not quite clear about that.

A: The paper itself did not interest me because my interests were very different field of work to Dr. Rascher's. In addition I received such an abundance of scientific work from throughout Germany, that I had limited myself to read only these papers which interested me directly. I certainly would have had to read this paper if I had had the assignment to take over the habilitations of Dr. Rascher, directly, that is to say, if it had been my task to evaluate his work, to take up connections with the corresponding medical Faculty, and whatever formalities are required in the case of such habilitation.

Q: That is to say you did not read the report by Dr. Rascher about his experiments?

A: Yes.

Q: Did Dr. Rascher ever inform you verbally about details of his experiments, and in particular about the kind of experimental subjects on which these experiments were carried out, or did any one else, for instance, the co-defendant, Sievers, inform you about these matters?

A: Shall I take it as a general question, or are you especially referring to habilitation?

A: Yes, I am speaking about habilitation, that is what we are speaking about now. I am asking you whether at that time or later you were informed by Dr. Rascher or any one else about what experimental subjects were used for these experiments. I make this question very concrete. Were they criminal concentration camp prisoners or political inmates, people condemned to death, or others German or non-German? Were they prisoners of war, etc?

A: I did not speak to Rascher about experimental subjects in this connection.

Q: Professor, you have heard here about an order of Himmler, I think it was dated October, 1942, namely that Poles and Russians, whenever used for such experiments, were always excluded fundamentally from any pardon. This is a letter of Dr. Rudolph Brandt addressed to Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Rudolph Schnitzler, dated the 2nd of October, 1942, which can be found in document volume 2, High altitude Experiments. Did you at that time for instance in the year 1943, when this habilitation took place, know about this order from Himmler or when did you first learn about that order?

A: This order was kept secret before me. I only heard about it here, namely, that Poles and Russians were excluded.

Q: Witness, Dr. Rascher, I think in the year 1943, received an original from the Reich Research Council entitled, "The Re-Warming of Human Beings." I repeat: "Rewarming of Human Beings." This can be seen from a document which was submitted in evidence in document volume 11, page 25, that is page 25 of the German document. It is document 696, exhibit 247. This is a file notation of Sievers. It is being asserted that this research order under the title: "Re-Warming of Human Beings", was given by you to Dr. Rascher in the name of the Reich Research Council, is that correct?

A: No, one day I saw in an excerpt of the Reich Research Council that this order given to Rascher was accredited to me. Such excerpts I think I received once in three months. This entry was wrong. For I had agreed with Rascher that he was to receive a polygal assignment from the Reich Research Council, and no assignment for cold experiments was given by me to Dr. Rascher. When I saw that the assignment which was entitled "Re-Warming of Human Beings" was accredited to me, I spoke to Rascher about this matter and told him that this assignment was not my concern but belonged to the jurisdiction of the Geheimrat [Privy Councilor] Dr. Sauerbruch, and that the entry on my card index was obviously a mistake which was made in the Reich Research Council. At that time I also telephoned the Reich Research Council and asked that this assignment should not be listed in my name because this was something that belonged to Dr. Sauerbruch by appearing as a man who assigned research assignments in a sphere which fell within Sauerbruch's field of activity. I told that to Rascher, too. Rascher at that time said that there were various opinions regarding that order, that is, between Himmler and Reichsarzt [Reich Physician] SS Grawitz. The latter had wanted to conduct these experiments on frozen soldiers at the front, while Himmler did not want to do it at the front but in the mountains. However, the time of the year at that time had progressed already so far that such experiments in the winter at that time could not come into consideration anymore.

Q: Witness, during your statements you were saying that you founded that an assignment for Rascher with the title: "Re-Warming" was wrongly entered on your card index, and that it really belonged to the sphere of Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruch. I shall now have these two card index pages shown to you in their photostatic form. Yours is document 690, exhibit 120, I repeat document 690, exhibit 120, which can be found in document volume 11. The card index system for Dr. Sauerbruch is the next document. This is document 691, exhibit — well it is the next one in that document. There are two documents, one is 690 and the other is 691. I think that the exhibit number is the same in both document, namely, 120, since they were submitted together.

Witness, I ask you to look at these documents very exactly and give us very precise information on these documents. I want you to understand clearly that these documents are the only basis for the assertion of the Prosecution that you, witness, were a participant in anyway in the cold experiments of Dr. Rascher, and that you also participated in the poison gas experiments of Dr. Hirth in Strasbourg. This meaning of these two documents was interpreted in this manner by the Prosecution at the session of the 13 December page 4l6 of the German minutes with special emphasis and the Prosecution states that from that it can be seen that you participated in these horrible experiments. Now, if you look at these documents the first thing is card index page for Blome, document No. 690, then you will see that under the current No. 0328 there is an entry, and I am speaking about your card index page: "Rascher-Munich". The title of this assignment is as follows and I quote: "Re-Warming, after the general cooling of the human body, cured by part freezing, cold adjustment of the human body." On the right it says: There is a further number there 1879-15. Well what have you got to say about this entry on your card index page?

A: At first it cannot be seen from this title at all that we are concerned with any experiments which are not permissible. As I look at the figure at the right of the title, namely 1879-15 I can say that 15 refers to my sphere of work in the Reich Research Council. Whereas, the sphere of work of Geheimrat Sauerbruch bore the figure 10. Under this assignment for Rascher the order is mentioned which allegedly was given to Hirt, namely:

Change of Living Organism by Using Chemical Warfare Agents.

On the page of Geheimrat Sauerbruch it says, I quote:

With reference to Professor Hirt Strassbourg

and the subject is

The Reaction of Lost (L-O-S-T)in the living Organism.

That is to say, in effect we are concerned with the same subject in the case of Sauerbruch and in my case. With reference to this assignment Hirt I have to say that he didn't belong to my sphere of work, in the same way as the so-called cold assignment to Rascher didn't belong. Both of these assignments belonged in to the jurisdiction of general medicine for which Professor Sauerbruch is competent. Furthermore, I would like to point out that even in the title of the order given to Hirt, namely, "Changes of Living Organism" it cannot be seen in any way that we are here concerned with experiments on human beings and you can finally see that this concerned any experiments which are not permissible. Both of these assignments were not given by me. Furthermore, I say looking at my card index page and I ask you to look at the figures on the left hand side and follow them up with me. At first it says 0453 black 0496.

DR. SAUTER: Just a moment, Mr. President, have you this document in front of you? I have a photostat of this document with me if you would like to see it.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you pass the photostats to the Tribunal?

DR. SAUTER: One is the photostat for Blome and the other for Sauerbruch. It will be much easier for you to follow the statements of the defendant.

JUDGE SEBRING: I am unable to find document 691.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I would like to call to your attention that Document 691 was never introduced by Prosecution. We merely introduced 690.

JUDGE SEBRING: I find Document 690 but I could not find Document 691.

DR. SAUTER: The Document 691 is naturally needed in order to judge Document 690 correctly. The Document 691 contains the assignment Sauerbruch and the document 690 contains the assignments of Blome. Now, as Blome wants to show you that an assignment which was contained in his card index page is also contained in the card index page of Sauerbruch, with which he is incriminated erroneously, then of course one has to look at Document 691, too. This Document 691 we received in the Document Room and it was attached to 690. In addition there was attached the document 699 to which I shall refer later and also the document 788. These were four documents which belonged together.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, I would suggest that if it is true that the Prosecution has not offered any of these documents but document 690 that in order to keep your record straight that you yourself have these documents identified. That is to say, 691 and any other companion documents and offer them as part of your evidence.

MR. HARDY: And in addition thereto Prosecution would be pleased if we could receive a translation of 691. That has never been presented for translation by the Prosecution in as much as we never intended to use the same.

THE PRESIDENT: If counsel for defendant Blome cares to offer in evidence document 691 it would be admitted at once and the translation can be furnished in due time. Evidently document 691 has never been offered or received in evidence in the case.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, the matter is as follows: You cannot understand the defense of Dr. Blome —

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that perfectly and if you offer in evidence as part of your case document 691 it will be admitted in evidence as part of your case.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, but Mr. President, I must now, even if this document has not yet been admitted formally, refer to that document. Otherwise, you could not understand what Blome wishes to say.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer the document in evidence now and it will be received in evidence now.

DR. SAUTER: Yes. At a later date I shall submit translations and I am now offering document 691 as Exhibit Blome 3.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.

DR. SAUTER: In addition I offer the document which belongs to it, namely 679, as Exhibit Blome 4, and also the document which belongs to it, document 788, as Exhibit Blome 5.

JUDGE SEBRING: Is it not true that the statement of Professor Bergmann is now in evidence as Blome Exhibit 3?

DR. SAUTER: Bergmann that so far as not been admitted. It was not admitted by you. Consequently this Exhibit #3 has so far not been used.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct.

BY DR. SAUTER:

Q: Witness, the Tribunal now has the photostat copies of these two card index pages in front of them. I already said that those card index pages naturally belonged together and they were accordingly all attached when the defense received the photostat copies. Perhaps you can very shortly define your attitude toward these two card index pages. I want you to state these points of view which, according to your opinion, it must be concluded that the assignment to Hirt and the preceding assignment Rascher were erroneously entered on your card index page?

A: May I ask the Tribunal to compare the following things. On the card index page Blome it says under no. 329 that there is an order given to Hirt at Strasbourg titled "Changes of Living Organism under the Influence of Poison Gases". On the card index page of Sauerbruch an assignment to Hirt at Strasbourg can be seen titled "The Attitude of 'Gelbkreuz' (Lost) in the Living Organism." We are obviously concerned with the same subject which was given as a research assignment by Professor Sauerbruch and which in addition was supposed to have been given by me, too. From these two subject it cannot be seen that one in any way is concerned with experiments which are not permissible. No mention is made of experiments on human beings. One is only concerned with experiments in the living organism.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Blome, in that connection, will you please explain then why in Document No. 690, heretofore admitted as a Prosecution Exhibit there appears the serial number SS No. 0329 and Registry No. 1881-15, while in Document No. 691, Blome Exhibit 3, the SS number is 0323 and the Registry Number is 548-10? Wouldn't that seem to indicate that there were two separate subjects altogether?

WITNESS: I beg your pardon, I haven't found the so-called SS number. Do you mean the number on the left hand side?

DR. SAUTER: Yes, above the numbers there is a notation "SS number".

WITNESS: The difference in these two figures, according to my opinion doesn't mean anything. It is obvious that this assignment was entered by the Personnel Office on my card index system and, at another time, on Sauerbruch's card index system. If it says in the assignment which was allegedly given by me "under the influence of poison gasses", then this is expressed in a more particular manner in Hirth's assignment where it says "attitude of 'Gelbkreuz' (Lost)." When looking at the SS numbers I see something else which rather surprises me. If you compare these SS numbers in Document 690 one another, that is, going from the top towards the bottom, you will find a considerable difference. The figures begin on the left hand side on the top, and I cite the following figures: 453, an order to Dr. Schwarz; 496, an order to Dr. Siehl; then 328, an order to Rascher, 329, an order to Hirth; and then again, and this is the surprising thing, 415, an order to Colonel Von Borstel. This sequence I can only explain by the fact that the personnel dealing with and the registration of these assignments was not exact, or, at least, not reliable. Otherwise it couldn't be explained that there could be the sequence 453, 496, 328, 329, and then again 415.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Yet you have the same situation in 691, do you not? The Sauerbruch card index. Do you have the same explanation for that? it goes 0273, 0274, 0323, 0325, 0326, 0327, 0419, 0420, 0279. — you seem to have the same situation there.

A: May I reply to that? That is obviously something different. My card index page says something completely different. On this Document No. 691, we start with the low figures 273, and we stop with the high figures 491, and we have some orderly sequence, 273, 274, 323, 325, 326, 327, 419, 420, 424, 279, 481, 491. That is to say, according to the figures, it is correct as to its sequence, whereas on my card index page you find that the first figure is 453 and the last one is 415 and in between what you see figures 328 and 329. That is, you have no proper sequence.

Q: What do those numbers indicate, Dr. Blome? What is the purpose for the numbers?

A: Every research assignment received a number, and among these numbers there were various priorities. One priority was, as it can be seen at the top on the left hand side in the case of both documents, the Priority SS. Now, if a research worker wanted to order certain equipment at various firms; for instance, instruments, then he always referred to the priority number which was given to him by the Reich Research Council when referring to that order. In that case the firms always knew in what sequence, or rather what priority any such business order had and how they had to deal with it.

Q: What do the numbers on the right indicate. In other words, the 548-10? I understand you to say that the number 10 indicates that particular problem is within the sphere of Dr. Sauerbruch's activity. What then does the number preceding it — 548 — indicate?

A: That I cannot tell you with certainty. Now for the very first time I looked at such card index pages while in prison. Perhaps they are some registration figures, but I couldn't tell you with certainty.

Q: Can you tell by locking at the card index system reflected in the Prosecution Exhibit, Document 690, and Blome Exhibit 3, Document 691, when the cards were prepared? That is to say, the day and the date?

A: I can't find the date here. I can't tell you that. There is no date there and, as I said before, I saw these card indexes for the first time while in prison.

Q: Do you know what agency prepared or kept these cards?

A: In my opinion, they could have only be done in the Reich Research Council. In the Reich Research Council there were various offices. I, personally, had no office in the Reich Research Council.

Q: Do you know whether or not the Reich Research Council kept several series of numbers to indicate the importance of the various projects they had before them?

A: That, in my opinion, can only be seen by looking at the SS number. That is how it was. The so-called SS number, which has nothing to do with the party formation, had various degrees of urgency. I knew that. In addition to the SS number there was a so-called S number, that is, one single S. This S, in my opinion or according to my memory, showed less importance then the priority where the double SS was mentioned. Then, beyond this priority SS, there was a yet higher priority; that was DE, I repeat, DE, but I do not see it mentioned here. The explanation for DE means, in effect, "urgent development" and that meant a higher priority. Beyond that there was yet a higher priority but I cannot tell you exactly how it is designated.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will see to it that these documents which have been admitted in evidence on behalf of defendant Blome are translated and included in Blome's supplemental documents, Appendix 2. We have Appendix 1. We have Document Book 1, then we have appendix 1. These should be included and furnished under cover Appendix 2.

DR. SAUTER: Yes, certainly. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I may perhaps be able to answer one question of the Tribunal by examining the witness.

Q: Witness, before me I have a document which I received from the Prosecutor at that time. I do not know whether I received it by oversight. I really must assume that I received it by oversight. This is the document 788, if I read it correctly, and I have it the Exhibit Number Blome No. 5. I shall present this document to the Tribunal very soon. This is an index entitled, and I quote the title:

Registration Number in the Registration Office of the Expert Office of the R.F.R.

— which is the Reich Research Council. That is the title. Then it has

1. Research on Forestry and Weed Research.

Then it says "Science" etc. and it goes on up to No. 10. Under No. 10 it says:

General Medicine

That is No. 10, General Medicine. Under No. 15 it says:

Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research.

On the whole it contains 27 such departments. This is document No.788, Blome Exhibit No. 5; it is supplemented by a further document which perhaps was also given to me by oversight, which is document No. 699, which I previously gave Blome Exhibit No. 4. I shall present this document, too, with the photostat copies, to the Tribunal very soon. Here there is no title and no signature but it says:

1. Branch, Professor Beyerlin.

Then it goes on, 2, 3, etc. I skip that and then it says:

1. Branch, Sauerbruch

Then I skip another few numbers to where it says:

15. Professor Blome

I submit these two documents, which are Blome Exhibits No. 4 and No. 5, in their photostat copies and I shall, at a future date, submit translations of these documents and add them to the Document Book Blome, for the approval of the Tribunal.

Witness, after having heard of these two documents can you, under oath, tell us whether it is correct to say that from these two documents it can be concluded that No. 10 was the number of Goheimrat Sauerbruch, for this field of work, namely, "General Medicine" and whether the number 15 was your own number for your field of work "Plenipotentiary for Cancer Research"? Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, if you would again look at these two documents, witness, which are in front of you in the photostat copies, that is document 690 and document 691, and if you again look at the numbers which can be found at the right hand side of any assignment, then you will, for instance, find in document 691, Card Index Page Sauerbruch, on the right hand side of the assignment, "Hirt-Strasbeurg" the number 548-10.

A: Yes.

Q: Is it correct that this number means that this order 548 belongs to the field of work No. 10 Branch Sauerbuch, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: If you then look at Document 690 you will, for instance, find at the side of the order to "Hirt, Strasbourg" on your card index page, the number at the right hand side, 1881-15. would you think it is correct to say on the basis of your knowledge that this is meant as Order No.1881 of Branch No. 15, which was under your charge?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Witness, on the left hand side of the Document 691, that is Sauerbruch's card index page, with reference to order "Hirt Strasbourg" you find there the number at left hand 0323. On your own card index page, that is Document 690, you find on the left hand side a number which is almost the same, namely, 0329. Can one conclude from the fact that these two numbers are almost synonymous, according to your knowledge of the situation, that these two alleged assignments to Hirt ware given approximately at the same period of time because they bear almost the same number, or would you consider that it is possible that the number 0329 is in error and that on the other hand another figure should be substituted, 0323, as it can be found in the card index page of Sauerbruch?

A: Both of these possibilities may exist; I cannot tell you that here with certainty, but judging from the slight difference in 0323 and 0329, it is obvious that these so-called separate assignments must have been given at the same time.

Q: Witness, we know now, on the basis of the documents submitted, that you were entrusted in the Reich Research Council with the Department Cancer Research and we also knew that Geheimrat Dr. Sauerbruh had the Department General Medicine or, as it says in other documents, "Classical Medicine."

I ask you to once more look at these assignments, namely at the Assignment "Rascher-Munich" under the left number 0328 and I ask you to look at the assignment "Hirt" number 0329. One assignment reads "Rewarming, etc." The other assignment reads, or refers to changes in the living organism under the influencc of poison gasses. Now I am asking you, do these two assignments belong to the sphere of cancer research with you were entrusted within the Reich Research Council, or do they belong to the sphere of general or classical medicine with which Geheimrat Sauerbruch was entrusted as the departmental head? I ask you to answer this question very clearly because from that the conclusion may be drawn whether an error was made in the entries.

A: These assignments quite equivocally belong in the sphere of work of Geheimrat Sauerbruck, which is the sphere of general (classical) medicine.

Q: Witness, looking at the documents once more, and now for the last time, you will find in the Document No. 690 mentioned of, and I quote:

Cancer Research Worked on By Professor Dr. Blome.

Underneath that you find the word, "Deputy Dr. Breuer," and his address is given; now, and looking at Document No. 691, which is the card index page of Sauerbruch; you will find a similar notation worked on by Staatsrat Professor Dr. Sauerbruch; underneath that the words, and I quote:

Deputy Dr. Breur

and then the words, to which I attach particular value,

General (Classical) Medicine

— "General" and parenthesis Classical, end of parenthesis, and "Medicine." On another occasion the Prosecution attached value to the evaluation that Professor Breuer was your representative, your deputy; now, will you please tell us whether it is not correct on the basis of these documents, and whether it can not be concerned by you that Dr. Breuer was also your deputy, but also the deputy of Dr. Sauerbruch?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Was he a physician?

A: He was a physician.

Q: Was he an employee of the Reich Research Council?

A: He was an employee of the Reich Research Council. And the address it is given under Dr. Sauerbruch's name, Berlin-Steglitz, Grunewald Strasse No. 35. That is the address of the Reich Research Council.

Q: And then I ask you to once more look at Document No. 690, which is your card index page, and give us your opinion about the question whether your name is only written by typewriter, or whether it was put on by your hand?

A: My name by hand?

Q: Yes.

A: well, it is there three times, but there is just a stamp there.

Q: Yes, but there is no handwriting?

A: No, I said before I saw these card index pages for the very first time since my imprisonment.

Q: Now, I would again be interested to know when exactly this order "Rascher" was given or when you gained knowledge of it, and I mean the order under No. 0328 on your card index page entitled "Rewarming after General Freezing of the Human Body;" When was this assignment given?

A: I can conclude from another document, and I believe that is the letter by Rascher to Neff, where it says that Rascher received a research assignment from the Reich Research Council about similar subjects. If in the letter from Rascher to Neff it says that Rascher had already received the assignment, then in my opinion this assignment must have been given in October.

Q: When?

A: Yes, October, 1943.

Q: October 1943?

A: Yes, it would have been given at that time. Naturally, I can't say with certainty whether the assertions made by Rascher in his letter to Neff were correct, or whether Rascher was only counting on receiving that assignment at that time, and in spite of that already wrote to Neff that he receive an order already. That, of course, I can't know, and I can't judge it. If I consider that question and if I think when I received it, about the fact that I was supposed to have given that order, then I estimate that it was approximately in the beginning of 1944.

I said before I think that the Plenipotentiary, the departmental heads, from time to time received excerpts of the entries of their research assignments, and I think that occurred once every quarter, once every three months.

Q: Witness, with reference to that date, I attach particular value to that date, and I shall tell you why; but before that I want to remind you about Siever's file notation, that is the file notation of the Ahnenerbe dated 8th of May, 1944 — I mentioned it before — this is an index of the research assignments which Rascher received from the Reich Research Council and it says under Figure I, it says that Rascher had received the order for the rewarming of human beings on 4th October, 1943. I repeat the date, 4th October 1945. Now, if you recollect this file notation, would you believe today that this date can be correct, approximately?

A: Yes, I think it should be correct.

Q: Rascher at that time received the assignment; can you tell us whether Rascher, in effect, execute this assignment; that would have been in the period October 1943 up to the spring of 1945; what do you know about that?

A: No, the order, the assignment, was not executed now in the winter of 1943-1944, and certainly not in the winter of 1944 to 1945. In the winter of 1944 and 1945 Rascher had been arrested for sometime. Perhaps he wasn't living anymore at that time. In the winter of 1943-1944 it was not executed either. That can also be seen from Siever's Diary. It can be seen from an entry made on the 22nd of March 1944, whereupon everything was to be prepared for such experiments in the winter of 1944-1945. This is in accordance with what Rascher had told me. According to it there were differences of opinion between Himmler and Reichsarzt Grawitz about whether the experiments were to be conducted at the front or in mountain territory, as demanded by Himmler, and I already said that Rascher had told me that the winter of 1943-1944 had progressed to far timely in order to even think of such experiments.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will be in recess at this time.

(A recess was taken)