1947-03-19, #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 19 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I 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 in the hospital and has been excused on account of illness.

Counsel may proceed.

KURT BLOME — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome):

Q: Please remember that you are still under oath. I have two or three additional short questions, Dr. Blome, then I shall have concluded. Before the conclusion of yesterday's session you were asked about certain entries in Sievers' diary. On the 26th of April 1944 there is an entry — this is still Document 3546, Exhibit 123 — and here is an entry which I should like you to clarify. Under 26 April, 1600 hours to 2000 hours:

1700, Blome (by telephone) Reich Chamber of Doctors, Dr. Blome, continuation of research work with Dr. Rascher, neutrone research.

Then another entry:

Professor Blome (by telephone) 1. Neutron experiments, personal resort to Reichsfuehrer-SS requested. 2. Perhaps use of Rascher in Nesselstedt would first of all require three months bacteriological training.

Can you tell us briefly what this all means?

A: Yes. First, as regards the so-called neutrons research: 1944 the Reich Postmaster General told me that the cyclotron being constructed in Zeuthen would be out at my disposal so that I could use it in my cancer research.

For this I needed a trained X-ray specialist and radiologist, with an expert. Since I could not have one, at least not through the planning office of the Reich Leader of Health, I turned to Himmler who could not do this either, and because I lacked such a man, and because it took quite a while for this cyclotron to be finished, I never got around to carrying on neutrone research, as regards cancer.

Q: Doctor Blome —

A: Let me say that I haven't yet answered the second part of your question. Around this time Himmler asked me whether I could make any use of Rascher. He had been arrested and could no longer work in Dachau. I then answered that at most Rascher could be used as Dr. Gross' collaborator. Since he was not a bacteriologist, he would first need basic bacteriological training. However, the institute was not yet finished and I should have to ask Dr. Gross whether he agreed to have an assistant. I certainly myself had no opinion about employing Rascher, nor did Dr. Gross have an opinion, and the question was finally settled by the fact that Rascher was again arrested and not released any more.

Q: Dr. Blome, in the session of 2 January the prosecution declared, "Blome considers experiments on humans illegal," and in connection with this statement they referred to your affidavit of the 25th of October 1946, to be found in Prosecution Document Book 11, on Blood Coagulation, on page 8 of the German text, Document Number 471, Exhibit Number 238. It can be seen from your sworn affidavit that you spoke of the fact that you were making efforts to bring about some legal regulation of the question of experiments on human beings for the period subsequent to the war.

What can you say to this, now that you have heard that from this statement of yours the prosecution has believed that it can draw such a conclusion?

A: At the end of 1940 I spoke with Professor Borst in Munich, the well-know cancer research man, on the question of solving the cancer question.

I explained to Borst that in my opinion we would not progress any further in the cancer problem unless we were prepared to carry out experiments on human beings. I justified this in detail and drew up a working hypothesis with which Borst agreed, and he acknowledged it as the only workable plan for the future. He then, however, raised the objection how does that match your professional ethics. I answered Borst, "If I thus succeed in this way in solving the cancer problem only five years earlier, then millions of persons will be spared a painful early death." Geheimrat Borst then said to me, "Dr. Blome, that is also, to be sure, medical ethics." From this conversation I came to the conclusion that after the war I should undertake to have legal regulations passed about experiments on human beings in connection with solving the cancer problem, and I spoke to Himmler on this subject. Himmler then expressed his opinion regarding experiments on human beings during the war, namely, for purposes that were of military importance, such as I have already described. Between the experiments for military purposes and the experiments that I intended to carry out after the war to solve the cancer problem, there is to this extent a very great difference, that these cancer research undertakings have never been of military importance. Consequently, my efforts were to have laws passed after the war, for military law differs in essential particulars from peacetime law, in my opinion.

Q: Dr. Blome, to be sure, you yourself did not carry on any experiments and were not actively participating in the carrying out of experiments, however, during the Hitler period you were deputy leader of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, consequently, you are able to give partly reliable data on the opinions that were held at that time; now tell me, during your time of office, did any laws either in Germany or outside of Germany become known to you; laws passed regarding experiments on human beings?

A: No such questions were over asked of the Reichs Chamber of Physicians either in peace or in war. Laws for this in Germany are not known to me, aside from Himmler's remarks to me in regard to the carrying out of experiments of military importance during the war. Nor do I know anything positive about laws passed on these matters in foreign countries. In conversations with colleagues, I occasionally heard that America had passed some such law, mainly in the southern states, a law providing that experiments on human beings could be carried out on condemned criminals for scientific purposes, but I have no positive assurance that this is so.

In my opinion, on the question of carrying out experiments on human beings for research purposes and particularly since the beginning of this century, such experiments became very numerous, which can be seen from international medical literature. That is to say, this is more or less a matter of the law of custom, if I can so express myself, which in the course of decades has become part of the usual research practice.

Q: Did the Reichs Chamber of Physicians, of which you were the deputy president, either before or during the war, lay down any policy for German physicians, from which the doctors could see what it was permitted for them to undertake on experiments on human beings and what was not permitted; were such policies, or indications of such given to the medical profession?

A: No, I have already said that no such questions were asked of the Reichs Chamber of Physicians.

Q: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other examination of this witness by any defense counsel?

BY DR. NELTE:

Q: First, I, taking the place of my colleague Dr. Servatius, should like to ask a few questions for the defense counsel of Professor Brandt, the witness; Dr. Kliewe's file note, Document 1309, Exhibit of the Prosecution 326, has been the subject of direct interrogation. In this file note it says that General Field Marshal Keitel approved the construction in Nesselstedt, Posen, and that the Reichsfuehrer of the SS and Professor Brandt had promised him considerable assistance. Did you speak to Professor Brandt regarding the purpose of this institute, such as it is here presented, namely to study and to test biological means of warfare?

A: No, I did not speak on this subject with Professor Brandt. Only once, if I remember rightly, at the end of 1942, I telephoned Professor Brandt and asked him to support my construction work in Nesselstedt, which was a cancer institute; I intended to add to this institute an institute for the production of vaccines in general, therefore, I turned to Professor Brandt, because I had found out that he gave expert opinion to Speer's Ministry whether constructions were necessary, as approval for the construction of buildings depended on Speer's Ministry.

Q: That is correct, in other words you simply telephoned Professor Brandt and asked him to support your wishes with Speer's Ministry to help you in your construction program; but that does not mean that Professor Brandt knew that this was an institute for the study and the testing out of means of biological warfare?

A: Yes.

Q: Then, Dr. Kliewe further says in this file note that you wanted to propose to Goering and Brandt to dissolve the Blitzableiter [Lightning Rod] Committee Did you ever either before or after this talk with Kliewe, speak about this work community, Blitzableiter, with Professor Brandt?

A: No, neither with Brandt, nor with Goering did I speak on this matter, and my research efforts were not receiving the necessary support at that time as I already testified yesterday. It was my intention perhaps to ask Brandt or Goering, but I thought about it later, and believed that there was no point to it and did not do it.

Q: In your present answer, as well as in yesterday's answers, frequently the concept Blitzableiter work community is associated so closely with Posen that it seems expedient to me to have it clarified by the following: Did the work community Blitzableiter have anything to do with your institute in Nesselstedt near Posen?

A: No, nothing whatsoever. The institute in Posen was a cancer institute in the Reichs Research Council, and was on a quite different level from the Blitzableiter committee, which was purely a military matter.

Q: You knew about the Blitzableiter committee since you were a member?

A: Yes.

Q: Then is it correct when I say that the purpose of the Blitzableiter work committee was to discuss measures that might have to be taken as protective measures for the troops and civilian population should bacteriological or biological warfare arise?

A: In part I must answer this question in the affirmative, but I must limit my answer by saying that the Blitzableiter committee was in no position to take protective measures. Protective measures, that might have to be taken were, so far as the troops were concerned, matters that the Army Medical Inspectorate or the Army Veterinary Inspection had to take care of; and for the civilian population, it was the Reich Ministry of the Interior's concern.

Q: And it was for this reason that I said purpose of this work committee was to discuss such measures, to make proposals or examine as to how the troops and the home country could be protected?

A: To that extent you are correct; yes.

Q: In your affidavit of 25 October 1946, Document 471, Prosecution Exhibit 228, you said the following:

In 1941 Hitler forbade further action in the Euthanasia action,

and to continue:

In wide medical circles this program was regarded as contrary to general usage and morals, and illegal.

Now, that is a rather generalized statement that you make there, and I should be thankful, on Professor Brandt's behalf, if you would say more concisely what you mean by this when you said in "wide medical circles"

A: It was known that these doctors who were particularly religious held the view that the Euthanasia program would need as its basis an openly published law, and if I used the word "wide" in connection with the "wide medical circles" that term should certainly not be concerned with my saying the majority of physicians because that was by no means the case. It is hard to give statistics in this matter, and it is for that reason I used the words "wide medical circles."

Q: Would it have been more correct to say "in certain medical circles there were basic objections to this program?

A: That is indubitably true, and I believe that the formulation that you read to me from the affidavit was drawn up by the Prosecution rather than by myself, although I can not say for sure.

Q: In the same affidavit you speak of the conference in Munich in 1940-41 at which Mr. Brack reported on the Euthanasia order of Hitler. Dr. Brandt would like to know whether the statement you make in your affidavit, namely, that he, Brandt, had sent Brack as his representative to this conference, is positive knowledge on your part or whether it might not be an error on your part because he himself is of the opinion as far as he remembers that he had not sent Brack.

A: Either my memory is faulty or Dr. Conti made an unintentional misstatement having said "Brack" when he meant to say "Bouhler." I, of course, can only report on what I remember. So far as I can judge the matter now on the evidence of documents, I think it must have been an error on my part and that the person should not have been Brack but Bouhler.

Q: I should like to ask now a few questions in my capacity as Handloser's counsel. To what sector did the Reich Research Council belong?

A: I shall try to answer the question, that is, if I understood your question correctly.

Q: I shall be more precise. Did the Reich Research Council belong to the military sector or the civilian sector or to some governmental sector?

A: In my opinion, the Reich Research Council was an office that stood between the State and the civilian spheres.

I believe its legal form was that of a corporation, but under no circumstances was the Reich Research Council a Wehrmacht organization.

Q: Could State Secretary Conti give you orders regarding research of cancer.

A: No. I told you that he tried to once and that I refused to accept them. My plenipotentiary powers in the question of cancer amounted to this: that I could report directly to Goering as President of the Reich Research Council and was immediately subordinate to him, and, consequently, no one else could give me orders.

Q: What you just said, is that true also of the other plenipotentiaries of the Reich Research Council in various fields?

A: I find from one or two other documents appointing persons to certain offices, I have never seen any of the appointments of the other plenipotentiaries or specialists' leaders, but I assume that I was no exception in this that this was generally valid for all of them. I see no reason for any different assumption.

Q: I ask you in consideration of this plenipotentiary power regarding Professor Schreiber who was plenipotentiary for research into epidemics, now you would say that Schreiber's plenipotentiary powers and his function as a member of the Reich Research Council were the same as yours?

A: I think that among these appointments to plenipotentiary power that I saw one of them was Schreiber's, because we were given this plenipotentiary power, roughly, at the same time, and I saw this document in the Reich Research Council.

Q: At the same time, that is, that you became plenipotentiary for cancer research?

A: Yes, that is the way I remember it.

Q: And that was roughly, when?

A: May 1943.

Q: Schreiber's situation was, roughly, similar to yours because he had a double function. On the one hand he was still in the medical Inspectorate of the Army, and on the other hand he was member of the Reich Research Council for the combatting of epidemics, and for that reason I ask you whether you can confirm to us that Schreiber, on the basis of this plenipotentiary power that he had, was informed of the activity or whether he was neither subordinate to Professor Handloser nor reported to Handloser about his activities, and, in fact, perhaps was not even permitted to report to him. Is that the way that this should be stated as Schreiber's position?

A: Yes, that is correct.

Q: Now regarding the question of the Blitzableiter Committee in supplementation to the questions regarding Professor Brandt, I wanted to ask you who was the chairman of the Blitzableiter Committee?

A: Whether there was an official chairman I can't say for sure, but I can say for sure that the sessions ware presided over by Colonel Hirsch.

Q: That is correct, Colonel Hirsch of the Waffenant, the Ordinance Office of the Army, is that correct?

A: Yes — no, I am not sure whether it was an Army matter or an OKW matter.

Q: But the abbreviation Wa.-Pruef. A. does mean Ordnance Office. Now I wanted to ask you whether you know that the actual direction of this Committee was a military matter under the competence of the Ordnance Office and not a matter of the medical Inspectorate. Do you know about that or don't you?

A: I can say for sure that this was not a medical matter.

DR. NELTE: No further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY DR. WEISGRUBER (Counsel for Seivers):

Q: Dr. Blome, you have known co-Defendant Sievers since about the middle of 1943?

A: Yes.

Q: You made his acquaintance when Professor Menzel, the leader of the managing committee of the Reich Research Councils introduced you to him as his deputy?

A: Yes.

Q: When did you find out that Sievers was the managing director of the Ahnenerbe?

A: Roughly, about the same time.

Q: Did you also know at that time that the office chief and the director of the Scientific Department of the Ahnenerbe was Professor Wuest of the University of Munich?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you also know that Professor Wuest was the superior of Sievers?

A: Yes.

Q: Then in the time that followed you came together with Sievers for official reasons one time or another?

A: Yes.

Q: I shall now put to you Sievers' diary from the year 1944. This is Document no. 3546, Exhibit No. 123 of the Prosecution which was put in evidence in connection with Document Book No. 3. Certain passages from this diary have been read to you. Please look at the entry of 14 April 1944. Here it reads:

1715 hours-1800 Reich Chamber of Physicians, Professor Dr. Blome, 1st, Presentation of Rascher's Research Work, 2nd, Neutrone Experiments.

This is the passage that was just read to you by your counsel. Please look now at the entry under July 24th.

There it says:

1130 — Professor Blome, telephonically, regarding blood coagulants. Dickerow's opinion is confirmed that not pectin alone but acid is effective.

The entry of the 11 August, 1944, please turn to that. It reads

12 o'clock to 1345, the 'House of Doctors', a conference with Dr. Blome, Dr. May and Dr. Borschers. Discussions of the common working program and of the possibilities of carrying out the necessary completion of the plant at Altherzberg. 1:45 to 2:30, talk with Dr. Blome regarding a report to the Reich Fuehrer SS regarding (a) combating the potato beetle, (b) combating insects harming human beings, and (c) perputane agents, and (d) Doryl.

Then on the 12 of September, 1944 there is an entry and on the 11th of October 1944 which I do not intend to read in detail but which also list a number of points that came up during discussion. This diary, which gives the outward impression of an astonishing specialized knowledge, could lead one to the deduction that Sievers had profound scientific knowledge of all the matters that are mentioned in this diary. Now on the basis of what you know of these matters, what can you say regarding whether Sievers really had such a precise knowledge of these things, and further whether Sievers had anything to do with the scientific side of all of this business, or only with the purely administrative aspect of it?

A: It is very true that it is striking with what accuracy this diary is set down. It includes even short brief telephonic conversations. I believe that this diary was one he was obliged to keep for official reasons, which was then shown to a superior at one time or another, but, of course, I can't say whether that is true. I know it is true for some diaries but I can't tell whether it is for this one. The entries in the diary do not give testimony to any particular scientific knowledge, and that can be seen from the fact that relatively frequently the word untersuchung is in use, where it should be the word versuche, the first word meaning examination and the second one meaning experiments, nor was Sievers active in any kind of scientific or research work of any nature, but purely administrative.

Q: Now in this entry of 11 August, under "D" the word 'doryl' appears. Then the question arises whether Sievers knew at this time what doryl was at all?

A: No, he certainly did not know what it was. That word originated with me.

Q: And if this word 'doryl' appears in the diary, it is simply his notation of a very short conversation?

A: Yes, he probably took down the notes and wrote down one word 'doryl', which he then transferred into the diary.

Q: In the autumn of 1943, you, Himmler and Rascher not in the Field Commando office of Himmler. You testified yesterday that Rascher at that time submitted a blood coagulant, namely, polygol. Do you know what part Sievers played in the development of polygol and what his orders were from Himmler?

A: Yes, Sievers was to make the necessary preparations for producing polygol in quantity.

Q: Then participation of any sort in experiments was nothing with which Sievers was concerned at all?

A: No, this was simply an order of Himmler who considered polygol to be enormously important, so that Sievers should do everything to make it possible that polygol could be manufactured in great quantities.

Q: Yesterday, you mentioned five operations in which polygol was tested. Do you know whether Sievers was present at these operations or whether he know anything about them at all?

A: On that, I can say nothing. At least I never heard that Sievers was present at these operations. I can associate Sievers with this only with the publication in the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift [Munich Medical Weekly], and unless I greatly err Sievers was the one who asked me at that time whether I had any misgivings about this publication, and after I had denied that he got in touch with the editorial staff of the Muenchener Medizinische Wochenschrift.

Q: After Sievers detailed to you to find out your opinion whether or not there were any objections to the publication of this matter, did he do so in consideration of the scientific contents or because of general considerations of policy and administrative policy?

A: Administrative policy, no. Sievers told me at that time that every physician or scientist who belonged to the Waffen SS and who intended to publish something of a scientific nature, needed special permission, and for this reason Sievers asked me whether I had any misgivings and since I had none, I told him so.

Q: Then this was exclusively the formal business of getting approval for a publication?

A: Yes, and I believe the same regulations applied to members of the Army, but Professor Handloser could tell you more about that than I can.

Q: Did you once have a talk with Sievers regarding experiments on human beings in general, or with regard to the development of polygol?

A: When I was with Sievers at Himmler's office, Sievers attended only the first part of my conference with Himmler. Then I discussed with Himmler the problems that concerned us alone, but we came back together, Sievers and I and also Rascher was with us on the very long trip back, so that we also talked about experiments on human beings. I told him what Himmler had told me, that only criminals condemned to death could be used and that they would be pardoned, and then as I remember in this connection, I mentioned my talk with Geheimrat Borst, regarding experiments in cancer research, I intended to carry out later such as I described this morning here.

Q: Besides that, did you on other occasions discuss with Sievers details of your assignments and research tasks with Sievers?

A: No, my discussions with Sievers were not of a scientific nature. I had technical or administrative connections with Sievers, and he would have known too little about any purely scientific work to give me any advice.

Q: Do you know whether Sievers was empowered to arrive at independent conclusions in his position as Reich Business Manager of the Ahnenerbe, except for purely administrative decisions?

A: I can tell you nothing about Ahnenerbe. I know too little about it and was not a member. In the Reich Research Council where Sievers represented Menzel I had very little to do with him. Other points of contact were the polygal canning of potatoes and vegetables publications that I have mentioned but I never went to Sievers to get his decision on anything because, in my opinion, he could reach no decision.

Q: His position, both in the Reich Research Council and in the Ahnenerbe under the respective leaders Prof. Menzel and Wuest — you considered him to be purely subordinate in capacity?

A: Sievers was the subordinate in this case, of course.

Q: No further questions.

BY DR. FROESCMANN (Counsel for Brack):

Q: Witness, in the affidavit of 25 October 1946, No. 471, Exhibit 228, you mentioned the fact that the Euthanasia program was to be used in the elimination of persons with nervous diseases. Did you understand that to mean insane persons?

A: This terminology originated with the investigating authorities. I believe that I objected to that term at the time but it was told to me that this did mean insane persons.

MR. HARDY: May it please your Honors, each and every time the defense, and other defendants, refer to an affidavit secured by the Prosecution on which their signature appears, if there exists an ambiguity or an irregularity, it is always the fault of Prosecution and I want to impress upon the Tribunal that this particular affidavit was secured from Dr. Blome by myself. I had an interrogation with Dr. Blome, in fact several. As the result thereof I wrote up an affidavit containing important data. I gave it to Dr. Blome and Dr. Blome, being the precise man that he is, found fault with each and every word therein. Therefore, I left him with a stenographer and he dictated to the stenographer an affidavit which was suitable to him and signed same — not in my presence. And, that is Prosecution Exhibit No. 471.

DR. FROESCHMANN: May I offer a comment in this connection?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course, counsel for Prosecution may himself take the stand in rebuttal and testify any facts which you know.

BY DR. FROESCHMANN:

Q: Witness, at any rate today you want to say that the term "Persons with nervous diseases" meant insane persons?

A: Yes, that is what I want to say.

Q: Now, the second question I want to ask you is this. From the book you wrote and which your counsel put in evidence, I can deduce that basically you approved of the theory of Euthanasia. Is that so?

A: Yes.

Q: May I then ask you to tell the Court briefly your reasons why you took an affirmative attitude in the question of Euthanasia?

A: I believe that the reasons are given briefly and pithily in my book in the excerpts that were here submitted as a document and read yesterday.

Q: Witness, this excerpt is here before me but I should like it if at some greater length I could hear your reasons in justification of your attitude regarding Euthanasia.

A: Then I must ask you to ask me specific questions.

Q: What do you understand as Euthanasia as such?

A: Euthanasia is a word with a Greek root and means literally a good and painless death.

Q: Witness, do you regard it permissible from the medical point of view in special cases to grant a sick person such a death?

A: From the medical and humane point of view I do regard that as permissible.

Q: Is it not true, witness, that there are conditions of illness in which the wish is expressed strenuously not only by the patient and the patient's relatives but by the physician himself that this suffering person should be relieved of his suffering?

A: As regards the sick person and his relatives, yes. A strenuous wish on the part of the physician, in my opinion, would signify an active will on the part of the physician. I see the physician's mission primarily in helping the patient, that is healing him if it is possible. And, in the last analysis, if cure is impossible, if the physician sees that the patient's fate is hopeless, then interference on the part of the physician is permissible, not however as an active volitional expression on his part but rather on the basis of helping the patient by redeeming the patient.

Q: If I understand you correctly, witness, then it is your point of view that there are the highest ethical principles that justify this?

A: Yes.

Q: And these grounds you summarized in the concluding sentences of your book that your defense counsel read here you said:

I had no alternative but to say that according to law this is forbidden to the doctor, and yet there are cases in which the physician for deeply humane reasons is imposed on by a higher law.

A: I included this last sentences into my testimony intentionally because occasionally such acts have been committed by physicians who have a high ethical standing. If I on the other hand repudiate such an action on my part as illegal, then I do so in a purely external point of view. From the point of view of ethics and morality I am only too ready to say that to these doctors of wham I speak in my book, namely doctors who despite law to the contrary put deeply ill persons out of their misery, I can make no moral or ethical objection whatsoever.

Q: Witness, you do not object to the fact that they had offended against laws of humanity?

A: It is my conviction that the laws of humanity were not offended in any particular way — they have offended against paragraphs in an existing law.

DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions.

BY DR. KAUFMANN (Counsel for Rudolf Brandt):

Q: Professor, may I assume that you spoke frequently with Himmler during the last years?

A: From late summer of 1943 until September 1944 I saw Himmler five times in toto.

Q: Did you ever see Rudolf Brand present at these meetings?

A: No.

Q: Did you know Rudolf Brandt?

A: I believe I saw Rudolf Brandt twice during supper and he was sitting somewhere in a corner.

Q: Thank you.

BY DR. NELTE (Representing Dr. Fritz, Defense Counsel for defendant Professor Rose):

Q: Witness, did you inform Professor Rose of your plans regarding the Nesselstadt Institute?

A: Professor Rose? No, that had nothing to do with Professor Rose.

Q: But it could have been. Did you tell Professor Rose that you had been ordered by Himmler to concern yourself with plague vaccines or with testing of poisons?

A: I did not say anything about an order regarding plague vaccine, and I could not have said anything about such an order to test poisons because I did not know such an order.

Q: Did you talk to Rose about the bacteriological war and did Professor Rose tell you his views regarding this matter?

A: As I remember, once I saw Professor Rose, namely, at a meeting of the Blitzableiter Committee. This was at the time in which reports appeared in the papers that Bubonic Plague had broken out in Algeria. This plague in Algeria was the subject of conversation at this session of the Blitzableiter Committee. Professor Rose made general statements about the danger implicit in the plague and minimized such a danger even in the case that the enemy succeeded in spreading the plague in one of the bombed-out larger cities. Because this theme was generally being discussed in the papers, Professor Rose wrote an article on the subject in the periodical "Das Reich".

Q: Did Professor Rose regard bacteriological warfare, from a pursuant technical point of view, as impossible?

A: Professor Rose's attitude was, on the whole, negative as regards the success from bacteriological warfare.

Q: Not only in opposition to it, but he also considered it criminal, did he not? Criminal towards one's car troops and Nation?

A: I can not remember the detail of all this, because my conversation with Dr. Rose was certainly so negligible, and in the Blitzableiter Committee the situation was that before Colonel Hirsch opened a session he pointed out Hitler's veto order regarding offensive biological warfare; namely, that it should not be prepared for.

Q: Professor Rose's attitude rejected biological warfare, on the one hand, and the disapproval of bacteriological warfare which he regarded, for the technical point of view as crazy, is that not so?

A: Yes, you could state it roughly like that.

DR. NELTE: No further question.

THE PRESIDENT: There is apparently no further examination of this witness by defense counsel. The prosecution may cross examine.

CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Blome, during the course of this cross-examination I request that you confine your answers to the question I ask and be very brief. In as much as your direct examination has now taken longer than any other defendant. I will make an attempt to finish my cross-examination today. That is, if you will cooperate with me.

A: I shall try to do so.

Q: When your medical education was interrupted by the last war, you resumed your medical studies in 1919, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: In the year 1919, what was your political attitude?

A: In 1919, for the first time, a National Assembly was chosen. A Reichstag [Parliament] was elected. I voted, at the time, for the German Peoples' Part That I remember very precisely. The right was represented by the former Conservative Party, later the German Nationals. Then there were the so-called Parties of the Center, the German Peoples' Party, the Democratic Party and these had roughly the same political orientation. Then, further to the Left, the Social Democrats, Independent Social Democrats, and Communists.

Q: All right, Doctor, when did you first become interested in the program of the NSDAP? What year?

A: Let me think about it a minute. I set it down in my book. I recall that I was active in a National Veterans' Organization; that I once deliver a speech at some celebration and that I stated in this speech that we should have to reach the point of becoming, on the one hand, Socialists, and, on other hand, we could only be Socialists if we did so on a nationalistic — In connection with this, I think this was 1921, and it was at this time I heard for the first time of the NSDAP.

Q: That's right. On Page 137 of your book you state that in the summer of 1922 you saw, for the first time, the program of the NSDAP and that, to you, this program seemed to be an ideal solution. Now, did you ever have any intention of participating in these NSDAP activities?

A: Yes, it was my firm intention at that time to take part in them. Then, however, this was interrupted by the fact that the Deutsch-Voelkis Freiheitspartei (German Peoples' Freedom Party) was founded, as I described in my book. I then joined this party and left it then again in 1923. In 1924, I set up an organization, the Voelkische Arbeitsgemeine schaft (German Labor Community) which I entered the Mecklenburg Diet which I then left. All the dates are in my book and are correct. Then, while, I belonged to no party until, on the 1st of July, 1931, I joined to NSDAP.

A: All right, now, Doctor.

If the Tribunal wishes to adjourn at this time I will be starting another subject.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess at this time.

(A recess was taken.)