1947-03-18, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1300 hours, 18 March 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the Defendant Rose has submit a request of prosecution in order to aid him in the preparations of his defense, namely, he has requested a statement from the prosecution as to whether or not the prosecution intends to use the subject of the air squadrons for forest protection and of malaria control by airplanes against the Defendant Rose. In addition, he requests as to whether or not the prosecution intends to conclude that Professor Rose participated in the gas experiments and the skeleton collection. The prosecution announces at this time that they have no intentions of furthering either Count against the Defendant Rose.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, does the Tribunal understands that the prosecution has abandoned those charges against the Defendant Rose?
MR. HARDY: In connection with the skeleton collection and last experiments, the Defendant Rose was never charged with them specifically in the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but any possible charge on those abandoned by the prosecution?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the statement by the prosecution.
Counsel for the Defendant Blome may proceed.
KURT BLOME — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendant Blome):
Q: Witness, you have heard that the prosecution has stated that in cancer matters there will be no charge against you; consequently, in your subsequent answers you can always omit the part which refers to cancer. work for the appropriation of defense measures against biological warfare you have said, was done at your institute near Posen, Nesselstadt. Himmler gave you an assistant for this, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer [Major] Dr. Gross. The witness Dr. Kesmehl has already testified about this.
I want confirmation from you whether it is true what we have heard from other sources, that this Dr. Gross whom Himmler assigned to you as an assistant is not identical with the Dr. Gross who was at the meeting of consulting physicians at Hohenlychen and is included in the list. You can answer that question, yes or no.
A: First, I should like to come back to two points in your question. I understood you correctly, you spoke of work done at the Nesselstadt Institute.
Q: Yes.
A: But I have explained carefully that up to 1945, when the Russians came to Posen, there was no opportunity to do any work yet, and no work could be done. That by way of correction. In the second place, you mentioned Dr. Kosmehl. Is that not a mistake? As far as I know, Dr. Kosmehl did not know Gross at all.
Q: Then it was on some other occasion, at least Dr. Gross has been mentioned several times.
A: Dr. Gross was mentioned on a different occasion. In answer to the question whether this Dr. Gross whom Himmler assigned to me attended the meeting of consulting physicians at Hohenlychen, I answer, No.
Q: Now, Dr. Blome, in the matter of preparation for defense against biological warfare, in specific the plague problem, did you have any further discussions with Reichsfuehrer Himmler?
A: I spoke of the two discussions with Himmler, one in July or August '43, and the second about four weeks later. Then six months later in February or March of '44, during the visit of Horthy to Hitler, I had to report to Himmler about my work on plague and the problem of biological warfare in general. This discussion took place in Himmler's headquarters near Salzburg. I said that the Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Gross was collecting the literature, that there were great difficulties for the conception of the buildings and the facilities, and so forth. Orders for equipment and apparatus was very slow, that he could not help me. He said that he had some difficulties. I had to see how I could manage these things by myself. He regretted that the question of biological warfare had not been taken up years ago, and he asked me whether nothing could be done against the English American invasion in the West which was expected, in order to interfere with it or to postpone it.
He was thinking, for example, of grippe or influenza, and he recalled the Spanish Grippe which had made such difficulties for the Germany Army in the First World War. I told Himmler there was no such thing, and the question of the foot and mouth disease epidemic in '44 and '45 was discussed, since according to experience a return of this epidemic can be expected about every five years.
Himmler asked me what had been done against this and I referred to our excellent vaccines, and also the lack of organization on the part of the Reichs Ministry of the Interior, with reference to the protective vaccination which has to be undertaken. The foot and mouth disease was beginning to penetrate into Germany from the West. The question of rinderpest was also discussed. I again referred to the prohibition of the International agreement for Europe, that rinderpest virus could not be kept in European, and that no vaccine could be produced consequently. Himmler said he would try to get rinderpest virus.
Q: Then I believe you had a few discussions with Himmler which we not go into in detail. I believe they were more or less to the same effect as the earlier discussions, is that true?
A: Essentially, yes. About four weeks after the discussion which I just mentioned, I had another one with Himmler. He called me in because ostensibly biological warfare agents were used in Normandy, but I learned that this news was not true. Then about the beginning of September 1944 I visited Himmler again at his field headquarters in the West, about 40 kilometers from Saarbruecken. That was the last time.
Q: Witness, the Prosecution submitted a document, No. 114, Exhibit 324, a letter from Reichs Physician Grawitz to Himmler. It refers to defendant measures against biological warfare and refers to the compilation which Obergruppenfuhrer [Lieutenant General] Mrugowsky, your co-defendant, may have made about the important scientific materials. It says that at the instigation of Blome, Mrugowsky dealt with the question of defense against biological warfare with the compilation of the most important scientific material and to won which I enclose. End of quotation. In this letter the word "defense" is underlined. Did you know of this letter at the time and did you know about the work done by Dr. Mrugowsky?
A: I know about the letter. The only time when Mrugowsky visited me was the delivery of a carbon copy of this letter. The report primarily referred to the necessity of a well organized intelligence service in case biological warfare should be applied against Germany.
Q: Now if, in conclusion, we recall all your answers on the problem of biological warfare, can you, Dr. Blome, with a clear conscience, under say that you yourself were thinking always only of defensive measures in biological warfare, that you always repudiated offensive biological warfare and, furthermore, that you did nothing in order to prepare a biological warfare offensive against Russia or other countries? Can you say that on your oath?
A: Yes.
Q: Doctor, now I remind you, it is supposed to have happened that Himmler asked of you that measures of retaliation in the field of biological warfare were to be undertaken, I believe it was against Russia. What does that mean?
A: That is true. Himmler made that request.
Q: When was that?
A: In 1944.
Q: And why?
A: I believe it was the second discussion in the Spring of 1944 when he made this request, but this was not specifically against Russia. He spoke quite generally. He said that it would be necessary to prepare measures of retaliation in the event that the enemy should begin biological warfare. I told Himmler at the time that I was in no position, on the basis of my research assignment, to prepare such retaliatory measures. To prepare such retaliatory measures as Himmler had in mind I would have needed a special assignment from the Fuehrer; but I know as well as Himmler, and I told him that Hitler had prohibited all offensive preparations.
Q: Witness, now I put to you a testimony in the first Nurnberg trial by a witness, a person who has been mentioned several times in this trial, Professor Dr. Walter Schreiber. This witness, in the session of 26 August 1946, in this room, was examined before the International Military Tribunal. To facilitate matters for the Court, I have included his affidavit and his testimony as Document No. 7 in the Blome Document Book, that is, an extract from it, so that the Court will be able to examine those parts of Schreiber testimony and affidavit in so far as we must refer to them in examining the defendant Dr. Blome. This is Document No. 7 in the Blome Document Book and will be given the Exhibit number Blome No. 11. I ask that this entire document, even the parts which are not read, should be accepted as evidence. Witness, of course you know Professor Schreiber?
A: Yes.
Q: You know the testimony which he gave on 26 August 1946 before the International Military Tribunal?
A: Yes.
Q: You know the affidavit which was submitted at that time?
A: Yes.
Q: In this testimony, the witness, Schreiber, spoke of experiments for the purpose of biological warfare or for the preparation of defense against biological warfare in Posen in your institute. He says, and I quote:
I do not know any details about them. I know only that spraying experiments from planes with bacteria emulsion, so-called model experiments, were can out and that experiments with insects and bugs harmful to plants, were carried out. But I am not in a position to give any detailed information because I myself did not participate and do not know the details.
End of quotation.
If one reads that in the atmosphere of this courtroom, one might the impression that these were experiments which might be considered as be inhumane or illegal. Can you please explain briefly what kind of experiments these were?
A: The statements of Professor Schreiber about the experiments conducted in my institute at Posen are not true. I have already said that in January 1945, when the Russians came to Posen, the institute was not even finished; that at this time there were about 300 workers still working that nothing was ever done at this institute as far as research is concern and no airplane experiments were conducted at Posen. During my whole period in office not a single such airplane experiment was carried out, not even other areas. The experiment which Schreiber mentions was one done before was given my assignment, which Professor Kliewe once told me about, but was not for an offensive purpose and the result of the experiment was absolutely negative.
Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, Professor, these are things which have nothing to do with human experiments such as have been the subject of this trial?
A: No, they have nothing in common.
Q: Witness, Professor Schreiber in his testimony, and this is also shown by the document, also said that in March 1945 you had to flee from Posen before the Red Army, that you went to see him at Berlin and said to him that you were quite worried that the arrangements for human experiment I emphasize — arrangements for human experiments which were in the institute in Posen and which were recognizable as such, might very easily be recognized by the Russians; and that you asked Schreiber to see to it that your professor and your plague cultures which you had saved might be able to continue to work at Sachsenburg. That is what Professor Schreiber said. Now in consideration of the significance which the word "plague" has in every instance. I should like to ask— what do you have to say about this statement of the witness, Schreiber, specifically about these arrangements for human experiments and about the plague cultures?
A: I shall be as brief as possible. It is not true that I visited Shreiber in March 1945. I visited him on the 30th of January 1945. I had learned by accident that under Schreiber's supervision that in 1943 there were laboratories at Sachsenburg to produce plague vaccine. I wanted to send Dr. Gross there with the material we had saved from Posen, because I was looking for a place for him to work. As far as I myself was concerned I did not want to go there. That was out of the question because I had other duties. I had other things to do besides sharing my only laboratory with Dr. Gross. Shreiber's description that I had had to flee from my Institute at Posen, and that I was not able to blow it up, that is not true. I must assume, to give Shreiber the benefit of the doubt, that his memory failed him; and this is indicated by the fact that he confused January with March. I told Shreiber the following about the evacuation of the Institute, and this is what truly happened: It was on a Saturday, about January 18th, when the order to evacuate the Warthe-Gau was given. Unaware of this order on the day before I had gone to Berlin with two cars to get the most important things to safety. On the next day, on Saturday, I returned to Posen. On the way I met numerous groups of refugees. In the afternoon I arrived in Posen. I went immediately to the Chamber of Physicians to find out about the situation. Here I learned in the morning there had been an order issued to evacuate the Warthe-Gau and on the same evening the Gauleitung [District Administration] would leave Posen. I went to the east across the river Warthe to my Institute. I stayed there until Sunday afternoon. I saw to it that my people and part of the materials were removed, and then I was the last German to leave the Institute. During this 24 hours I considered whether I should blow up the stone barracks which had been built for the bacteriological work. Three days before the night, from Thursday to Friday, I had called on the Reich Defense Commissioner Greiser, who had given me the order in no case to let the Institute or the valuable equipment fall into the hands of the Russians. If it should be necessary to evacuate Posen I was to blow everything up.
After serious consideration, however, I decided not to blow it up, in spite of the fact I had plenty of time and opportunity to do so. Even if this had not been the case I could have had it destroyed by Stuka Bombs, by dive bombers. That is the state of affairs, and that is what I told Shreiber.
Q: Witness, what about the plague cultures; I asked you about the plague cultures.
A: I did not save any plague cultures as Shreiber says. I had only one which I had received very shortly before. Shreiber knew that; I had told him so. It was he on the contrary who later, and this was probably in March, gave me a certificate for my associate, Dr. Gross, to the Sachsenburg, that Dr. Gross could collect the various plague cultures which were at Sachsenburg. Shreiber had told me that the various plague strains available in Germany, in Europe, were being bred by him or the Institute. A plague vaccine was to be produced. I cannot understand how Shreiber can say in the same statement, and I quote: "Professor Schuhmann and his Ministerialrat Stantin, and a number of other doctors, scientists, whom he did not know worked at my Institute in Posen. " This Institute was not ready to begin work, which I have already stated. The most noteworthy thing in his testimony here before the Tribunal, Shreiber canceled the fact that he was in charge of epidemic research in Germany. I am convinced with knowledge of this fact the defense counsel would have cross-examined Shreiber much more thoroughly at that time, because it should be obvious, even for a layman, that in the case of any intentional biological warfare the man in charge of epidemic research, — that is Shreiber would have been in charge. He was the man in Germany in whose hands all threads of epidemic research came together. The name Shreiber has been mentioned often enough in this connection, and in this trial.
Q: Witness, you said you had only one plague culture at this time?
A: Yes.
Q: We laymen understand very little about medicine, or nothing. You must explain to us why you had this one plague culture?
A: To obtain plague vaccines which I would have lacked to produce it, I would have needed plague cultures of course, not just one but quite a number of them, because not every strain of a bacteria is suitable for producing vaccine.
Q: Did this Professor Schreiber, who expressly says that you had plague cultures, did he himself have plague cultures?
A: Yes, I already said so, at Sachsenburg he had a number of cultures, as he explained to me all of those that were available in Germany or in Europe.
Q: You have already said that Dr. Blome, but you did not say they were Schreiber's plague cultures; then Schreiber had plague cultures at Sachsenburg in other words in his institute?
A: Yes, he or the Institute under him. But when he was examined here he did not say anything about that.
Q: Witness, this Professor Schreiber in the question of the application of plague bacteria, he said something, and I should like to hear whether you share his opinion. He said, and I quote from Shreiber's testimony:
Would the use of plague bacteria not involve enormous danger for our own troops?
He was asked, and Schreiber answered:
Yes, not only for the German troops but for the whole German people, for the refugees going from east to west, and plague would have been carried into Germany with great speed.
That was the testimony of Schreiber; perhaps you can answer "yes" or "no" whether that was your opinion in regard to this type of bacteriological warfare?
A: Yes.
Q: Then on the subject of biological warfare I have a last question: Witness, in the judgment of the International Military Tribunal it was said among other things, and I quote:
In addition, Soviet prisoners were made the subject of medical experiments of the most horrible and inhumane type.
In July 1943 experiments for the preparation of bacteriological warfare were begun. Soviet prisoners were used for these medical experiments.
Then this same judgment of the International Military Tribunal says that in regard to the scattering of a bacterial emulsion from airplanes for the purpose of spoiling the harvest and creating a famine, only preparations were made but it was not carried out, perhaps, the Court says, because of deterioration of the Military situation for Germany. Witness, I should like to hear from you under oath, did you ever hear anything that preparations were made for bacteriological Warfare on the German side, and that Soviet prisoners were used for medical experiments?
A: No, I never heard anything about that. I have tried to find an explanation for this, but I cannot imagine any explanation. I can say here on oath only that in the whole field of biological warfare not a single human experiment was conducted, whether permissible or forbidden in the whole field of biological warfare.
Q: Witness, if what is asserted here is true that medical experiments of the most horrible or inhumane type were conducted, then you on the basis of your position as Plenipotentiary for the preparation of defense measures against biological warfare would you have had to know about that?
A: Normally, yes.
Q: But you did not know about it?
A: No, I heard nothing whatever.
Q: And in the course of this trial you heard nothing which might be proof of the correctness of this assumption?
A: No, no.
Q: Now, witness, I shall leave the subject of biological warfare and turn to another subject, Doryl. The prosecution on the 10th of January after biological warfare dealt with this question and according to the principle of prima facie, it became a charge of the indictment. Witness, first I refer to Document No. 641, Exhibit 327, which is not in any document book. It was submitted on January 10th by the prosecution. This document deals with Doryl; it is a teletype message from Siemers to SS Standartenfuehrer [Colonel] Dr. Brandt of 18 August 1944. This message says and I am now quoting; "Professor Blome asks an appointment with the Reichsfuehrer SS for report from 25 August 1944 on because of necessity of obtaining certain information not possible before that time."
Then three points are cited on which the report is to be given; the first two are not of any interest at the moment. The third point is and I quote:
Poison experiments in connection with report given to Reichsfuehrer SS on 21 June, Professor Blome is again urged to test poison now.
This subject was also made a charge of the indictment and I therefore ask you what was the poison; what was the purpose of the experiments which were to be undertaken and were such experiments actually conducted?
A: This was Doryl, which is in the diary of Sievers on 11 August 1944. On 21 July 1944, Professor Kliewe came to me and discussed various matters of biological warfare. He asked me on this occasion whether there was a possibility to have the poison Doryl tried for its effect on human beings, he said that Doryl had been found in large quantities on Polish saboteurs. In his office, that is Kliewe's office this Doryl was not known and for that reason it was to be tested. The effect was to be ascertained and an altitude found. The medical inspectorate had assigned Sievers to clear up this matter, but he could tell me no more because of the secrecy. I reported this conversation to Himmler and I wanted to know whether they intended to use poison in warfare now, although it was forbidden by international law.
Q: You say you reported this conversation to Himmler, Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler; what business was that of Himmler, why did you report it to Himmler?
A: I reported it because Himmler was chief of the reserve army and as Reich Minister of the Interior, he was chief officer for the civilian health system and because when I was given my assignment for biological warfare research, Bormann had told me that in all questions if necessary I should go to Himmler.
Q: And then what else did you do in this matter of Doryl poison and what was the occasion for this teletype message from the Defendant Sievers to Rudolf Brandt on 18 August 1944?
A: The Doryl question seemed to me of great importance, especially since I had the assignment for biological warfare research, I wanted to get clarity and after four weeks I went to Sievers so that he could arrange the interview with Himmler, which I wanted for this and other reasons. Sievers sent the teletype of 18 August 1944 to Rudolf Brandt.
Q: And why, Dr. Blome, were you interested in this Doryl matter; why was this in your competency or among your interests?
A: That was not among my competencies an interests, but I had to harbor the suspicion that poison and gas might be used in warfare and the next step would of necessity have been the use of biological warfare agents; that was the reason why I wanted to obtain certainty and that is why I went to Himmler. There were many rumors at that the enemy or even that Germany was going to begin as warfare. In order to get certainty on this question, I asked and managed to talk to Himmler about it. I questioned whether certain poison and gas were to be used in warfare now; Himmler denied it definitely and as far as I was concerned that settled the matter.
Q: Mr. President, in this connection I offer to the Tribunal from the Blome document book a document on pages 18 and 19, Document No. 11, which is Exhibit No. 12. It is a very brief affidavit, properly certified, an affidavit by Professor Kliewe, the same Professor Kliewe whose name we have heard frequently. It is dated 7 February 1947 with regard to the Doryl charge. I think this very brief affidavit is of great significance and perhaps I may read it. He says:
Among the chemical substances brought by a Polish agent from Warsaw to Berlin and identified in the Pharmacological — Toxicological Institute of the Army Medical School, Doryl was found in addition to arsenic, mercuric chloride, Lost, Botulinustoxin, etc. We were at the time astonished that this preparation, which is used for diseases of the eyes and intestines, was provided for sabotage purposes. As I collected information about acts of sabotage and when necessary announced protective measures for the troops, I asked Professor Blome when I met him whether he knew Doryl, and whether it could be used for sabotage purposes. Professor Blome said he did not know the preparation either, and it would be very difficult to have experiments performed on criminals sentenced to death, as Himmler himself had to give permission. When I met Mr. Blome again a few weeks later I told him I had discovered that in the emergency laboratory of the Pharmacological Toxicological Institute, attached to the Pharmacological Institute in Giessen, animal experiments with Doryl had been made, because it was thought that other countries intended to use this preparation for chemical warfare. The results of the animal experiments showed that the preparation was of no importance for sabotage purposes. Therefore, I had no more interest in the preparation. But, as a precautionary measure, the preparation was ordered only to be sold against prescription.
And then the witness says:
I am firmly convinced that Dr. Blome arranged for no human experiment with Doryl, for they would have served no purpose, and also when we were together in the Dustbin camp, he never mentioned that he performed experiments.
That is the affidavit of Witness Kliewe.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you again give me the number of that exhibit; was that exhibit 12?
DR. SAUTER: This last affidavit has the exhibit No. 12, Blome Exhibit No. 12.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Professor Blome, you have heard the affidavit of Professor Kliewe; are its contents true?
A: Yes.
Q: You are supposed to have said that it was very difficult to have experiments carried out on criminals condemned to death, as Himmler himself had to give permission; what do you have to say about that?
A: Yes, Himmler told me that himself when he was talking with me about human experiments. He said any experiment depended on his personal approval.
Q: And then actually no experiments were conducted with doryl?
A: No, none were conducted, and besides it was not my duty. It was that of a toxicologist to make such tests. The question had been cleared up adequately by animal experiments.
DR. SAUTER: Now, Mr. President, to complete this material on doryl, I should like to submit an affidavit of Professor Dr. Wolfgang Wirth of the 18th of February 1947. It is number 12 in the Blome Document Book, in the supplement book 1, Document 12, page 20-22. This will be given the exhibit number Blome 13. This affidavit again is sworn to and then certified. Professor Dr. Wolfgang Wirth, a German citizen, professor at the University of Berlin, at present in the custody of the Americans says:
I was finally from 1938 to 1945 Oberarzt [Senior Physician] and head of the Institute for Pharmacology and Army Toxicology of the Army Medical School, as well as extraordinary professor at the University of Berlin.
I know the following with regard to doryl: approximately in May 1944 I had to give a lecture on "Enemy Sabotage by Means of Poisons" at the fourth working meeting of the consulting physicians. I took over this lecture for Professor Dr. Kliewe in whose sphere of work this subject belonged. Professor Dr. Kliewe, therefore, placed the material for the lecture at my disposal. Thereby, I learned that Polish saboteurs had used a drug called doryl against Germany.
A few months later Professor Dr. Kliewe wanted information regarding the toxicity of doryl. He informed me that large quantities of doryl had been found in Polish territory. I was then in a position to give Professor Dr. Kliewe the following information: in my institute animal experiments had already been made on the permeability of various substances, among them doryl. In these experiments it had been determined that doryl is a very effective drug but not a strong poison.
The results obtained in my institute in 1944 are in accordance with the results of animal experiments which had already been carried out in 1940-41 regarding the toxicity of the substance, doryl, in the Spandau gas defense laboratory.
These experiments in 1940-1941 were started, because in 1940 after the Western campaign, doryl had been found on the French side as a chemical warfare agent in the experimental stage. The French apparently had had the intention to use doryl as a chemical warfare agent, but had not advanced beyond the experimental stage. As the results of the German experiments in 1940-1941 showed that doryl possessed none of the properties of a chemical warfare agent after the earlier experiments had been carried out, the matter was considered settled.
In 1944 doryl was still obtainable from German chemists without a medical prescription. Therefore, after our experiments in 1944, I applied through official channels to the Army Medical Inspectorate for doryl to be included among those drugs which could only be obtained against a medical prescription, as, in my opinion, inexpert use of this drug could cause symptoms of poisoning, and I wanted to prevent a misuse of it. As far as I know, my application was granted, that is, the sale of doryl only against a medical prescription was made obligatory.
The witness says:
I can certify that to my knowledge no human experiments at all were made with doryl. Such human experiments were not necessary because the animal experiments had already achieved definite clarity as to the characteristics of doryl, i.e., its suitability and/or non-suitability as a chemical warfare agent, as well as the question of its permeability.
Permeability is the quality of certain liquids to introduce drugs into the body through the skin without thereby injuring the skin itself.
Then there follow the certificates. This affidavit is a valuable supplement of the other affidavit which we have just heard by the witness, Professor Kliewe.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Witness, now I leave the subject of doryl and come to another drug, polygal. In Document Book 11 on blood coagulation various documents have been submitted. I shall begin with Document 656 in this Document Book 11, Exhibit 247 on page 25 in the German document book. It is a note from the office Ahnenerbe which Dr. Rascher received from the Reich Research Council in addition to another assignment on the 23rd of February, 1944, under number 2, a research assignment with the designation to develop methods of fabrication for the production of the blood coagulation drug, polygal.
I repeat: to develop methods of fabrication for the production of the blood coagulation drug, polygal.
Is that an assignment, Dr. Blome, which you assigned with the Reich Research Council, and if so, what was the purpose of this assignment?
A: Yes, I issued the assignment. A drug was to be produced which in cases of operations and injuries would make the blood coagulate more quickly so that there would not be death from bleeding unless important blood vessels were hit.
Q: Dr. Blome, to test this drug were human experiments necessary?
A: No, for in every hospital there were enough cases in which this drug could be tested on perfectly normal cases.
Q: Can you tell us how this drug was used? Was it in the form of tablets or was it a liquid? Was it injected?
A: In contra-distinction to all other coagulants, this drug had the advantage of being taken as a tablet. It was produced on a pectin base with the addition of a certain acid. Pectin is that substance which makes marmalade and jelly thicken. I hope I have expressed myself clearly here.
Q: Witness, it says in the document that Dr. Rascher used one or several concentration camp prisoners and inflicted shot wounds in order to test on this prisoner or these prisoners this drug, polygal. As far as I know, this is in the affidavit of SS-Gruppenfuehrer [Group Leader] Pohl of the 23rd of July, 1946, Document 065, Exhibit 237. What do you have to say about this statement?
A: I also heard about this during the course of the trial, but I cannot understand this because such an action to test the efficacy of polygal would have been completely redundant. Professor Gebhardt spoke at great length on this matter. He knew of no artificially-inflicted wound for the sake of experiment. Whether such were carried out, I don't know even today. If persons were actually killed by experimental shooting, then that certainly did not take place in order to be able to test polygal because as soon as the subject is dead, the application or use of polygal is no longer necessary. In other words, that would have been completely nonsensical behavior.
Q: Did you say this to Dr. Rascher and did you point out that there were enough experimental subjects among persons in military and civilian hospital who had to be operated on?
A: Rascher told me once previously that he or another doctor had rubbed the upper thigh of a person under anesthesia until it became bloody and thru tested the efficacy of polygal, but I didn't take this statement of his seriously. From the very beginning at that time I told him that he should give polygal to several well known clinics we that it could be used during bloody operations. In this way he could best test the usefulness of this preparation. Rascher then did, as a matter of fact, give this drug to a number of clinics to be tested. Robert Feix, the discoverer of polygal, who was an inmate in Dachau, visited me in 1944, and told me this polygal received a splendid recommendation from a surgeon and I believe he mention professor Breitler, Innsbruck. As a matter of fact polygal did prove to be a valuable drug to combat bleeding.
Q: This polygal which has been discussed here in connection with these experiments was discovered by a certain Robert Feix, who was in a concentration camp, and you took an interest in this Feix as shown by a letter from Dr. Rascher to Sievers of the 15th of September, 1943. This letter is in Prosecution Document Book 11, page 11, document 611. Rascher writes to Sievers that Blome had given him great hopes about the release of Feix, in case the Reichsfuehrer SS, that is Himmler, got a somewhat different picture about the person of Feix. This Feix, Dr. Blome, is the same Feix, is he whom the witness Neff mentioned here on the stand?
A: Yes, this is the same one.
Q: And what did you do for this man Feix? Can you tell us that briefly?
A: Feix was a Jew, but he had been legally declared a half Jew of grade one. He had had a high position in the army as an official and was about to be put on trial for corruption. He was tried and was acquitted as he was leaving the court room he was taken into custody with Bermann's permission by Himmler and put in a concentration camp in Dachau, despite his acquittal. Here in Dachau Feix collaborated with Rascher. Rasbher had heard Feix was an export in the food question and the blood coagulation question; and Himmler asked me about Feix, and I told him that in my opinion an injustice had been done to Feix because if he had been on trial and then had been acquitted, it was not right that he should then again be arrested.
Himmler told me there was something wrong with the situation, but he said "If you appear in his behalf and tell me he is a decent respectable fellow, then we will see what I can do for him", and then independently Sievers also made the same suggestion to Himmler. I made application to have Feix set for and proposed to Himmler that Feix should be declared legally a half Jew by Reichssippenamt which was subordinate to Himmler in his capacity as Minister of the Interior. Then after I had received the necessary assignments from Himmler, I, as I said, appeared in behalf of Feix, and it must be added that Feix' mother, who was a full blooded Jew, had been transported from her home in Frankfurt to the Ghetto in Theresienstadt. I did bring it about that Feix was set free but I did not succeed in having him declared legally a half Jew. The Chief of the Reichssippenamt opposed this because he feared some difficulty with Bormann. Bormann was said to be interested in the case personally because allegedly a relative of one of Bormann's servants had stolen a good deal of Feix' property after he had been arrested, and that was the reason I was given for Bormann's interest in the matter; and then in the spring of 1944, when I was again with Himmler, I put these things to him and suggested that he should give me a written order to the Reichssippenamt so that Feix should be legally declared a half Jew, because in so doing we would simultaneously already free his mother from the Ghetto in Theresienstadt; and Himmler answered that if Bormann wanted it that way, he could do nothing.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I wanted to submit an affidavit from this Robert Feix. Many weeks ago I talked to the witness about this and he declare himself willing to give the affidavit because he believed that in that way he would be able to help the defendant Blome, but before this affidavit could be taken down, and the witness was approved to Dr. Weissgerber too, the witness was given an order by the Prosecution that until further notice he was not to talk to any more defense counsel. Consequently I and Dr. Weissgerber, too, who can confirm the correctness of what I am saying, we were unable to get this affidavit from the witness.
Subsequently, we frequently tried to get in touch with the witness. In particular, we repeatedly inquired whether the address of the witness could not be given to us, but in spite of all efforts we did not succeed in finding out the address of the witness. A few days after the witness had discussed the matter with Dr. Weissgerber with me, he disappeared from Nurnberg. He was not allowed to talk with us any more, and that is why I am unable today to give you this affidavit. Now, I should like to ask the Prosecution to give us an opportunity to get in touch with this witness so that we will be able to get an affidavit from him, because without the cooperation of the Prosecution it will be impossible for me to find out the address of the witness.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors this situation has arisen in connection with other witnesses, but in this instance Robert Feix was brought to Nurnberg as a Prosecution witness and transported here by the Prosecution. He was brought here as a voluntary witness and placed in the voluntary witness house run by the Prosecution. After he arrived in Nurnberg he was immediately contacted by defense counsel, and the prosecution is not aware that defense counsel requested Robert Feix as a witness. At least I am. We interrogated Robert Feix and determined we could not use him as a witness and they interrogated him, and whether they wanted to use him or not, I do not know; but in the meantime Robert Feix has been placed under arrest and now received an indictment and is going to trial in Dachau in the concentration camp cases being held there. If they wish to get an affidavit of Robert Feix they may do so by contacting the Dachau authorities.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I thank the Prosecutor that now I know where Dr. Feix is. If I had known that eight weeks ago I would have in the meantime been able to get an affidavit because I have been in Dachau a few in between, and I would have been able to spaek to Feix there, but at any rate I am satisfied. I know it now at last, I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, if at times counsel finds it difficulty to ascertain the address of witnesses in any such situation as that and a request is made to the Tribunal, the Tribunal would make some investigation concerning the matter and ascertain what the situation is, and whether the witness is available, and so forth.
DR. SAUTER: I thank you, Mr. President. My colleague Weissgerber and I inquired repeatedly of the General Secretary's office because on such matter we naturally always go first to the General Secretary's office, but the address of the witness was unknown there; but now I know Mr. Feix is at Dachau and I can get an affidavit from him, and of course I am not responsible for the delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, I did not mean to imply the Tribunal can find the address of witnesses but if the defendant's counsel has difficulty in finding them, then the Tribunal would assist in any way possible in ascerting whether or not the witness is available as such and the answer may be and it may be no, but the Tribunal would endeavor to ascertain the necessary information for counsel.
DR. SAUTER: I thank you very much, Mr. President.
Q: Witness, in connection with the polygal matter I have a few more questions. The Prosecution has alleged that human experiments were conducted with polygal, and Prosecution has submitted Document 438, Exhibit 240, in Document Book 11, on Blood Coagulation, This document contains a report the so-called Institute for Military Scientific Research. I repeat, Institute for Military Scientific Research. This Institute was Dr. Rascher. In this report the importance of the drug polygal for the fighting troops and in operations is explained. You recall five operations are described in which polygal was used. Do you recall these five operations which are described?
A: Yes. They were published in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift [Munich Medical Weekly].
Q: What does this report show for a specialist doctor? Does the doctor get from this report the impression that these were normal operations, where polygal by chance happened to be used, while in other cases some other blood coagulations drug was used? Or does the expert get the impression that the operations were not necessary as such in the interest of the patient, that they were some sort of operation the only purpose of which was to test polygal.
A: In these five cases they were certainly not experiments but each doctor can see from the report that these were normal and necessary operation. Accordingly, I had no misgivings and doubts about them and allowed the rest of them to be published in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. That thought never occurred to me. The publication, in addition, really had no scientific value. Rascher wanted the results to be made known early so that he would assure himself priority. He feared work was being carried out by other physicians in this field and wanted to anticipate their results.
Q: Witness, if one reads this report about the five operations is it true that there were the following five operations: 1) thigh amputation, 2) grow fracture operation, 3) pneumothorax operation, 4) carbuncle operation, 5) dental matter — that is, normal operations that occurred normally. Is that true?
A: Yes, and in some cases the word operation is an exaggeration.
Q: Doctor, do you know that any experiments with concentration can inmates were conducted with polygal, no matter what type of experiments to were or what the consequences were?
A: I know that perfectly normal laboratory experiments were made with polygal, and the four or five prisoners made themselves available, as the witness Neff here testified. These were by no means dangerous or forbidden experiments but were normal experiments of the sort that are customary in every laboratory. These so-called experiments were associated with no pain no discomforts or any sort, and, in my opinion, when one could take polygal tablets for months on end without suffering any ill effects whatsoever -main basis of those tablets was pectin.
Q: Dr. Blome, you yourself gave an affidavit which I must put to get your affidavit of 25 October 1946, in Document Book 11, Document 471, Exhibit 239. In this affidavit of the 25 October 1946 you tell about things which Dr. Rascher reported to you concerning his experiments. This was under number 8. Number 9 now has the heading "Experiments on Human Beings". Up to number there was not this heading "Experiments on Human Beings", and now under number 9 we suddenly find "Experiments on Human Beings". Some time ago we called fact to your attention. What do you have to say about it?
A: I knew that experiments on human beings had been carried out, because Himmler himself had told me so. Ho told me about the typhus vaccine experiments in Buchenwald, and then in connection with Rascher about the so-called freezing experiments in which there was one fatality. Consequently in my affidavit when I was asked about this I had to say that I knew that experiments on human beings had been carried out in concentration camps.
Q: You recall that on 12 October 1943 a camp doctor of Dachau by the name of Dr. Kahl made a report, which Prosecution submitted as Document page 27, of Document Book 11. He reports on a thigh amputation on a forty old male patient. This operation is identical with the first of five operation to which document 438 refers. And, in this connection the further fact serves consideration that Obergruppenfuehrer [Lieutenant General] Pohl of the SS in his letter to Rascher of 10 February 1944, Document Book 11, page 24, Document615, Exhibit 246, objects to Rascher's publication of his experiences with Polygal.
Can you explain this matter?
A: First I must say that this so-called thigh operation mentioned together with Dr. Kahl's name must be absolutely identical with the thigh amputation that is mentioned among those five operations in the publication of the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift. So far as Pohl's complaint is concerned, I must say that at that time I was asked and had no misgivings about these matters being published and it was only because I had no misgivings that the matter was published at all.
That Pohl should have objected to this publication I can only explain to myself on the supposition that he know of previous experiments of a forbidden nature in Dachau.
Q: Dr. Blome, you have already said that the witness Neff testified here that he and four or five other people volunteered for this polygal and that they used only volunteers. Now, I should like to know the following: If polygal is used it can either have an effect or be without effect. Now, this polygal if it is not effective can it endanger the health or can it bring about the death of the person, or is it true, if I as a layman assume, that then polygal is just without any effect. Perhaps, as a doctor, you can explain this matter to us. What effect does polygal have?
A: The only effect that polygal can have is to coagulate blood. Any other effect has never been observed, nor do I believe that any other effect could occur. I have already said that polygal is made of an absolutely undangerous base.
Q: Witness, the defendant Sievers in his affidavit of 26 October 1946, Document Book 11, page 6, No. 473, Exhibit 238, said concerning you:
That you, Dr. Blome, to his knowledge, were informed of all work, including Dr. Rascher's experiments. That you must have known of them.
I do not know how this affidavit was drawn up. I do not know what the defendant Sievers will have to say about it, but I should like to hear from you what you have to say about it.
A: I can say that Sievers' statements in this affidavit are partly true. Rascher had been commissioned by Himmler to work with me in the field of cancer research, blood coagulation, preparation of canned potatoes, and so forth. Consequently, here too Rascher was under obligation to report to me. There was no mention of any other work by Himmler.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, while the witness is on this question of the number of experiments he had — cancer, blood coagulation, canned potatoes, etc. — will you please have him tell the Tribunal now in detail what experiments he actually worked on, either in collaboration with Rascher, or with Rascher working under him, or with him working under Rascher at Dachau. That is to say, any experiments in which they had any association with each other either at Dachau or elsewhere.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, you have heard this question connected with my previous question. You are asked whether you worked at Dachau, or in any other concentration camps, or anywhere else carried out experiments of the type under consideration here or under Rascher?
JUDGE SEBRING: Not necessarily this type of experiments, but all experiments of any type that he carried out.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Any kind of experiments together with Rascher, whether together, or as a superior, or as a subordinate, or in any relationship. Please give a clear, frank, honest answer.
A: No. Rascher really was not subordinate to me in the true sense of the word. Perhaps legal collaboration between us might have developed in the field of cancer research or in this field of developing vegetable canning or in polygal blood coagulation. In these latter fields I am not an expert at all. These things interested me only from the point of view of health and the business of canning potatoes and vegetables interested me from the nutritional point of view. There was no immediate collaboration between me and Rascher in the sense of this question.
Q: You say, Doctor, "direct collaboration." What do you mean by that?
A: That means that, for example, I did not have anything to do with his laboratory experiments in coagulation. This was purely a Rascher affair. I saw, to be sure, how the people were working there, namely, these volunteers. Sometime previously to when I saw them these men had swallowed a polygal tablet and now, after a certain lapse of time after the polygal was taken, the degree of blood coagulation was ascertained. This was done in this way. A cubic centimeter of blood was taken from the veins of these people, these blood samples were put in test tubes and they were then stirred, with a glass or steel needle and the length of time was ascertained that it tool for the blood to coagulate. These were the so-called experiments but this again was not my personal affair.
Q: Where were these things done?
A: In the Camp Dachau. In the so-called Military Scientific Research Institute of Rascher.
Q: That was in the concentration camp?
A: Yes.
Q: These experiments with the five volunteers, which apparently included Neff and he tells about them, did you see them once?
A: I saw them once.
Q: Frequently?
A: Once or twice. It is possible that I saw them twice. I can't say for sure now today.
Q: But you did not take any part in the experiments yourself?
A: No, indeed.
Q: And it seems to me that they were very harmless things. How much blood did these people take?
A: They took roughly one cubic centimeter of blood from each other.
Q: And how about other experiments together with Rascher — none at all?
A: None at all.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Have the witness put his earphones on, will you?
Professor Blome, the Tribunal has before it Prosecution Document 3546 PS, being Prosecution Exhibit 123, which is Silvers' diary for 1944. Under the date 22 February 1944, between 1630 and 1830 hours appears the notation:
Dachau 3, SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Rascher, supply questions for production of polygal, experiments Professor Blome.
Now, was that discussion in regard to or in connection with the polygal situation which you have just been describing? Answer "yes" or "no."
A: Is this a talk between Sievers and myself, may I ask?
Q: This is the Sievers' Diary which is supposed, as I assume, to contain his diary entries for the matters that he is attending to during each day of his work and purportedly made by him during the course of that time, and this is on 22 February 1944.
Perhaps, Dr. Sauter, if you have the German. I'm going to ask about several of these entries and if you will place them all before him I should like to ask something about them.
DR. SAUTER: I have the document handed to the witness.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: 22 February 1944. Did you have an interview with Sievers or a discussion with Sievers on 22 February 1944, concerning experiments of some kind?
A: If this is here set down in Sievers' Diary as a conference between us then it must have taken place. I have no doubt of that. Here, under No. 3, 1630 hours to 1830 hours. I think I have found the passage you are referring to.
Q: Now, what experiments do you understand that that diary entry had reference to?
A: He cannot be referring to the production of polygal, but only to the forthcoming cancer experiments and the planning we had there.
Q: Very well.
Now then, drop down to 24 February 1944. "1330-1630."
Dr. Sauter, suppose you give all of them to him if you have them there because I want to ask him —
Find the entry for 24 February 1944.
A: Now, just a minute please. No, I think I must put this in order first. Here is September, February and October in these few pages that I have here. It is all mixed up.
DR. SAUTER: What the Judge just mentioned is outside and the rest.
WITNESS: Here, I have the 24th of February.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Very well. It says:
24 February, 1330-1630, personal staff RFSS to SS Sturmbannfuehrer Faelschlein. RFSS order of 18 February GRS thoroughly discussed for information SS Hauptsturmfuehrer [Captain] Dr. Rascher and Dr. Blome.
Can you tell the Tribunal what that has reference to?
A: Yes, as I recall this can refer only to the following order that Himmler issued. About this time Himmler prohibited that loading personages from the Party should appeal in the behalf of so-called "enemies of the people" for pardon or such things. I received his order once from Sievers on commission from Himmler, and according to which, for instance, according to Himmler's attitude about it I could not have appealed on the behalf of Herr Feix.
Namely, I refer to the prohibition of appealing on behalf of so-called "enemies of the people."
Q: Very well. Then turn to the item for 25th of February, 900-1520
A: Here in this copy of Sievers' Diary the 25th of February is missing, the 23rd of February is here, then the 26th and the 27th. Let me see if the thing is out of order here. No, everything seems to be in order. 22nd, 23rd — in other words, the 25th isn't in here.
DR. SAUTER: Maybe it is outside of the document book.
WITNESS: I'll take a look. I am sorry to say that it is not here. Perhaps I would understand it, however, if it were read to me.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q:
25 February -900-1500 — Professor Blome, by telephone, advised of RFSS order concerning his work at Dachau and collaboration with Rascher
Can you tell the Tribunal what that refers to?
A: I cannot. This cannot be the special order since that order I mentioned about appealing in behalf of enemies of the people was issued just about the day before. This can only concern cancer research in which Himmler, as I said, was interested. How Sievers came to put it down in just these words in his diary — that, of course, I cannot tell you.
Q: Very well.
Will you turn to 28 February — 913-1700
A: Yes, here it is.
Q: It reads:
Reich Research Council; Dr. Graue arranged a discussion with Professor Thiessen, Professor Blome, Dr. Rascher. Commissioning of Dr. Rascher to do research experimentation plan Borchers. Introduction of discussion of L-Research.
What does that refer to?
A: This entry refers to a conference which actually did take place. perhaps I can say that this last mentioned "L" Research should perhaps read "B" Research, Biologic Research; perhaps that is typographical error. Dr. Graue was leader of the War Economy in the Reichs Research Council, and he arranged a talk with Dr. Thiessen, one of the leading chemists in Germany a director of a prominent chemical institute of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaf [Society] in Berlin. This discussion was about procuring chemicals which were needed on the one hand to produce polygal, and to produce pectin, respectively polygal, and I believe there was a question of getting supplies of vitamin acid without which an effective polygal preparation could not be manufacture. Then Borcher's name comes up here. Borcher was the owner of a chemical factory and had the order to find a drug to combat insect pests, something which I mentioned previously in my testimony when I said that the raw material situation in Germany was very acute and that I had to see in view of this poor raw materiel situation that chemicals would be found. This was the purpose of Borcher's factory which was to be specially enlarged. It just occurs to me that at this meeting I obtained via Prof. Thyssen from Reichsring 'Chemistry' and from the Reichs Office for Economy Reconstruction a large amount of Pyrigin Base chemical to combat insect pests and for experimenting in the question of combatting the potato beetle via a special office that existed for the combatting of this potato beetle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 19 March 1947 at 0930 hours)